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. |
Hi. We've never met. I'm Rlevse and a current arb clerk and saw your thread on Raul654's talk page. I've emailed the current arbs (Raul is a former arb) about this. Since I'm not familiar with you at all, other than seeing your name on WP:AC/C before, I asked the arbs and other clerks about whether you should come back as an official clerk or as a trainee for a brief refresher time as official clerking requires arb approval. Welcome back! — Rlevse • Talk • 23:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
You picked an unfortunate time to return; your reappearance at the same time that the Poetlist sockpuppet brigade has been unmasked has caused a few people on Wikipedia Review to conclude that you are also part of that sockpuppet ring. I hope you don't mind, but I ran a quick checkuser, to be able to refute this allegation if possible. For anyone watching, you are totally Unrelated to those other accounts and editing from an entirely different continent. Sorry to barge in like this, but it seemed best to get this nonsense out of the way as quickly as possible. Happy editing. Thatcher 04:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
In case you're wondering what on earth this is all about: [1] When your name popped up it was a definite wtf? sort of moment. rootology ( C)( T) 04:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Re: this [3], go right ahead. Be my guest. Regarding the issue of Kirker's block, it was a very bad block and I called it as such. If you cynically wish to view me as some kind of puppet for doing so, I guess that's your privilege. If, on the other hand, you choose to actually look into the situation that has aroused my ire so greatly, I'm sure you'll be somewhat more sympathetic. You are also more than welcome to look into my edits to see what kind of user I am. All 2400+ of them. Once again, be my guest. AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 10:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
The edits by 24.207.237.221 follow an existing history that are purposefully have run counter to the guidelines established in WP:TVS -- he refuses to contact or converse with anyone about his edits, and when his edits are reverted, he shifts to a new IP number and begins anew. He is referred to among the members of the WP:TVS project as the "St. Louis Vandal," primarily because many of his edits are tied to St. Louis television stations. Recently, the St. Louis Vandal has been tied to BenH, who has also created an established pattern of abuse. There has been an ongoing discussion over time regarding his abuse on the talk page at WP:TVS. -- Mhking ( talk) 16:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
You requested a UBX for inviting people to improve an article on the IRC. Unfortunately I didn't get the chance to post this there, but I've just created one for you. Use {{User:UBX/improvepage|[[article]]}} to show the following:
I know it's a little bland so feel free to change it and spice it up a bit if you so feel the need :)
Kind regards
— Cyclonenim ( talk · contribs · email) 01:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Dear Tznkai, editor user:Enzuru removes the "Politics of Islam " and "Jurispudence of Islam" from the template of Islam. The view is shaped by User:Enzuru's understanding of Islam and based on his perception of Politics and Jurisputance rather than the factuality. Removing these issues (look at this edit [4]) or moving beyond the visible sight (look at this edit [5]) is a clear violation of POV. these concepts are currently, and correctly, represented by many sub articles in Wikipedia. The editor also accepts that removal of them is a NPOV violation (look at this edit [6]). The editor claims that NPOV tag can stay at the template forever. (look at this edit [7]) The editor claims that he will support only one link to these concepts. The articles regarding "Politics of Islam" and "Jurispudence of Islam" are not single articles (complex issues). They are not created by me. It can not be claimed that they are reflecting my point of view. Besides, there is not a single article regarding "Jurispudence of Islam." This editors activity is a clear violation of NPOV policy. As an administrator, could you guide this user to be more sensitive regarding to the policies of wikipedia. I tried to achieve this but I have problem in understanding why he is linking these major concepts to "Prayer." If he thinks "Prayer" is a major concept, he can add that to the template. I do not see the link between these issues. If he thinks the template is too big, the shape and size can be changed (format of the template). The content has to be true to the concept. Thank You-- TarikAkin ( talk) 02:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you; looks like someone else took action and blocked him [8]. Magidin ( talk) 06:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Do you feel there are any problems associated with leaving Wikipedia for two years, then immediately reassuming your role as clerk upon your return? I personally have some concerns about it—at the very least, shouldn't there be a readjustment phase, catching up on everything that's happened in the last two years and how things may have changed in ways relevant to arbitration? Everyking ( talk) 06:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I would add that those who are used to seeing the usual suspects clerking cases may be confused when they see a new name suddenly pop up clerking. 30 months is an awfully long time on Wikipedia. As I said on AN, some degree of easing your way back in first would be good. Things do change, and you weren't around for the discussions involving Sceptre's block. Please don't take this the wrong way. Just consider that those who weren't around when you were editing two years ago will take a while to adjust to someone returning like this. Carcharoth ( talk) 17:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
The vandal I reported is everything else but a confused newbie. Please check this guy and his vast list of suspected socks and you will see how all the edits are similar. Actually this is the fifth or so time an IP in that range has been spamming my talk page with some Tanoli tribe nonsense. De728631 ( talk) 16:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Welcome back! My goodness, Tzn, I didn't think I'd ever see you again. This is good news. :-) KillerChihuahua ?!? 19:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
In the interests of disengaging, I'm not going to respond further, I'll let others decide what, if anything, needs done. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 22:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
You gots it? My spousal unit is looking neglected. KillerChihuahua ?!? 00:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
At your service. T0mpr1c3 ( talk) 01:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC) The edit was not exactly a revert - Books commented out my version, can you see the new "< !-- ... -- >".
Thanks & goodnight. T0mpr1c3 ( talk) 01:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Just FYI - if you're going to walk into the bear pit of the Palin articles, here is a rundown of the current memes. Yes, I know it's just a blog and not an RS, but it's a first introduction of some of the stuff that's been circulating, and has some useful links to real reliable sources. At some point or another, I have seen every single one of these memes pushed at the Palin articles. Thanks so much for stepping up. With respect, and best wishes - Kelly hi! 01:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
At AN, you said of Cenarium's post: A few of the cited edits are minor proofing edits, and while probably not a good idea, also not a big deal. Not so. Only one was a proofing effort, and it was a bad one which moved the article from being inside the guidelines to being outside them. While drama reduction is good, best ensure one does not attempt it at the expense of the facts, especially as an admin commenting on admin actions. 86.44.28.222 ( talk) 20:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer to have a look at this page. I've summarised the issue in the discussion section, below your comment, in as few lines as possible. I think the issue was an over-zealous admin lockdown of the page associated with reverting to a version preceding the creation of a section about Doug Bollen, which had not been controversial and which seemed to have reasonable agreement in the discussion section. Lotaresco ( talk) 17:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I think your suggestions are reasonable. For my part, I'm happy to do other stuff, as I find the editing environment there currently untenable. I don't really have enough investment in the page to make mediation worthwhile; I got involved because I saw repeated and egregious violations of 3RR justified with BLP, and my involvement was focused on pointing out that a BLP exemption to edit-warring did not apply in this case. I regret being sucked in further than that, but when the attempted resolution met with aggressive posturing, I felt that a 3RR report was justified. I've already been on self-imposed 1RR at most on the page, and I think I'll limit my talk-page involvement to further discussion of the Washington Times article, if that. I don't feel strongly enough about the matter to deal with editors who are convinced they're at war, and some of the behavioral issues are bothering me to the point that I'm not sure I can edit effectively there. I do hope you find a solution to the ongoing edit-warring, and I'll keep an eye out; if the atmosphere becomes more tolerable, I'll probably resume editing, though again under self-imposed 1RR. Good luck. MastCell Talk 17:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello Tznkai. Can I give a character reference for a couple of people involved in this debate? I've only superficially looked at any new data, and it is certainly possible that people who've behaved well in the past could really be socks. I've interacted with AlasdairGreen27 on some sockpuppet cases, and his contribs were made in good faith, though I didn't always agree with his deductions. Rjecina has been involved in many controversies, and admits his limited knowledge of English. He's always seemed to me well-intentioned, though anyone can get carried away in the heat of a debate.
An additional quirk is that many of these editors have had sockpuppet cases filed against them in the past, or have filed cases themselves, and they by now are very familiar with the SSP and RFCU machinery, as well as ANI. The case that Rjecina has just filed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Brzica milos etc seems to me sweeping and excessive, though Velebit is a true sockpuppetteer dealt with long ago. Enter this realm only if you are willing to be very patient :-). EdJohnston ( talk) 17:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Have a good night free of stalking sockpuppets! -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 04:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
... so here it is:
And that is only today/
— ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
[14] — Rlevse • Talk • 02:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the acknowledgment on my talk page.
You might look at this if you have time- need all the input possible (: —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
... would be best to leave semi-prot as per other US elections related articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi there Tznkai. Since you have commented on a recent case, could you please have your say here? Thanks. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 05:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I just made this comment on the Parapsychology talk page, and inserted it beneath my original comments, not at the bottom. As an apology it needed to be placed closer to my offending comments, I believe. I wanted to be sure that you saw my apology.
Can you please indicate to me where the decision was made to revert the indefinite ban? Never mind -- found it
here. Redelete on its way. Thanks! -
CobaltBlueTony™
talk 15:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I've created a template shortening the work for you, it is the same thing as used on your userpage, converted to template form. Cheers. — Sunday Scribe 00:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder this morning. Guettarda ( talk) 02:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
and thanks for a different reason. [15] -- Abd ( talk) 18:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Look at the history. I didn't want to put a time limit on the semiprotect because that also limits the moveprotect. Feel free to remove the semi whenever you want. NawlinWiki ( talk) 23:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
This seemed like a fairly clear-cut case of edit warring to me, and I did block him; however, I suppose I should have been more descriptive with my edit summary. I'll try harder on that in the future, thanks for the note. Glass Cobra 15:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps locking it is best, I have no desire to get into an edit war, however with 4 or 5 editors involved it might turn into one anyway. Let's hope this forces everyone to actually use the talk page and obtain some consensus. Sorry if I made your job a little harder. Sennen goroshi ( talk) 18:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
let me see if I can say this correctly without putting my foot in it.
I assume your comment was directed towards me regarding abuse of process. If it wasn't then I have put my foot in it, and please accept my apologies.
If it was directed towards me then I don't really understand. By the time I had edited that article for first time in my wikipedia history, the user in question had already made six reverts. She had already been warned for 3RR on that article by another user - she was well aware of 3RR. I'm sorry but I don't see it being my responsibility to warn a user who has already made six reverts, as they have already gone way over the threshold - if I was an ass, and goaded someone into making their 4th revert, then jumped straight to making a 3RR report, then yeah, I would agree with you.
I don't see her edits being within the exceptions to the 3RR rule, maybe 1 or 2 were borderline, but it certainly the vast majority were content disputes and in my inexperienced opinion, well within what the 3RR is there to prevent.
But then again, I may have totally misunderstood what you were trying to say, either way for my own curiosity I would love it if you could indulge me and clarify this. thanks Sennen goroshi ( talk) 18:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, what you put on my talk page made sense. I think it is hard to count reverts, especially when they are different reverts on the same article and you are working on several closely related articles. It would be nice if the 3RR rule require a specific warning relating to the article you are about to/have just made a 4th revert on, before a 3RR report could be made. thanks Sennen goroshi ( talk) 18:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
(old stuff deleted and now new question)
Is it important to put in my complaint against Kelly her incivility and Kelly's insistence that her own research trump all published sources? Or should I just put in her reversions? (34 over 3 days and I honestly don't know how many of them fit the technical defintion of "reversion") GreekParadise ( talk) 04:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I have decided - on Doug's good advice -- not to file a complaint against Kelly and to start anew. But I am curious. Can you file a report on someone in general for incivility? Or for insisting that own research trumps published sources? Or just 3RR? You may respond on my talk page if you like and delete this. GreekParadise ( talk) 04:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Read American and British English differences#Formal and notional agreement for why "the committee acknowledge" is acceptable (as well as being the wording used by the committee). DuncanHill ( talk) 01:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Since Kelly alleges that you're not a neutral admin in this situation, I've asked for someone to look into it at WP:AN. Cla68 ( talk) 03:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Tznkai, I think consensus at ANI has turned against the block. Would you please unblock Kelly?-- chaser - t 04:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
Bstone ( talk) 04:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be a good idea to refrain from getting involved in these kind of matters so soon after your return. It is only natural that you'd need an adjustment period to familiarize yourself with how the community functions at this point. With regards to admin matters, I'd suggest sitting back and observing for a while. Everyking ( talk) 08:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Block is ok, IMHO. People should remain civil at all times. (I'm open to anyone explaining to me why the block would be wrong?) -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 21:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, yeah... I'm pretty busy, but still casually active. Thanks for noticing! David Bergan ( talk) 21:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
On the Abortion debate talk, I've proposed removing the "Church And State" section. As a contributor to the article before, I'd like for you to weigh in on the article talk page. Thanks. Paranormal Skeptic ( talk) 15:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Tznkai, in response to your comments:
Allow me to respond:
Please don't lecture and threaten. It's tedious and annoying. If you can offer suggestions that will improve the article or encourage dialogue then do so. This pointless diatribe is exactly the kind of frustrating, non-productive banter I was referring to in my comments which Dave Souza removed. - DannyMuse ( talk) 01:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
For the sake of historical editing history, I am including this additional comment on your post from Jim62sch:
Hi Tznkai. I just noticed this mess. I just skimmed it, but let me get this straight - the block was undone because you aren't considered "uninvolved" re:FM? Granted, it was a couple years ago, but if my memory serves me, you disagreed with FM more than you agreed with him on the ID pages. I mean, not serious angry clashes, but fundamental enough differences. Or have I confused things? Guettarda ( talk) 06:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
This place has gone beyond crazy. As I recall, clashing with someone because you called them out on their misbehaviour wasn't considered "involvement". Guettarda ( talk) 06:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Ay, reaching for my {{ npov}} and {{ OR}} tags for that version of the origin of the ID cabal meme and how it relates to civility on Wikipedia. Now, a balanced version might also account for how scores of hardworking FAC and FAR editors saw some distinct unpleasantness on a widely followed talk page and formed their own opinions, without ever going anywhere near WikiReview. But yes, the community is terribly fractured, not only because of admin abuse, but also because of IRC abuse (and other backchannel and off-Wiki cabalish forms of communication) and a failing and partisan ArbCom. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
There is a related discussion taking place here-- Domer48 'fenian' 13:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Alert on WP:NOR. I just restored it, but don't have time for a lot of arguing. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I know that the topic probably has you tensed up, and you're probably reading ahead, waiting for the first inective so here it is.... F@*$ing well done. No joke. I've spent the best part of a year trying to get everyone to behave.. the fighting is pretty much non-stop (and the guy who asked me to look in on it has now left WP for good apparently. I didn't comment more then the base because well, at this point I was in so deep that you probably didn't want people who hadn't stepped knee deep into the muck trying to clean it out (Alison and I both qualify under that category). If you ever want background, or want to know my thoughts on working with various editors, please don't hesitate to contact me here, via email or (when I'm on it), IRC. SirFozzie ( talk) 04:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I have already made the comments on the board mentioned, apologies however i have only just noticed your comments to bring any further advice on the editors conducts be brought to your talk page; as follows:
Tznkai i think you have been very fair with a very difficult situation administering everyone here. Further to user Ryan Postlethwaite comments regarding the edit warring of user Sarah777 , I would also like to add that this user (Sarah777]] is less than civil on the talk pages with this shocking statement comparing British people to Nazi`s here [16] and a futher more worrying comment here [17] which was commented on by a admin as being racist here [18] -- Rockybiggs ( talk) 09:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
What edit warring? Traditional unionist ( talk) 14:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I believe I'm entitled to be shown the diffs for the "edit warring" you refer to? Please show them. Sarah777 ( talk) 08:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Tznkai; i believe this editor Highking should be considered for possible probation, as this user has a very long history of being involved in the `troubles` articles as well as removing the British isles from Wikipedia.-- Rockybiggs ( talk) 16:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Tznkai. Your last edit on Sarah777's talk page was to say "I will reexamine the issue after I have responded to the other editors sanctioned". Can I ask how you're progressing with that as I think it's important that the issue is re-examined, and quickly. If it's going to take some time, I recommend that we use an innocent until proven guilty approach and lift the probation unless and until we're certain it's necessary and justifiable. I'm minded to lift it myself but don't wish to start a wheel-war. If in doubt, perhaps a discussion at WP:AN would be a good idea to see what the wider admin community thinks. Cheers, Waggers ( talk) 10:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Email en route. Risker ( talk) 20:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
...always wind up at ANI, so I've brought this one there myself: [19]. Just to let you know. Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 23:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
...but it's becoming pretty apparent that you're out of touch with how blocks work on Wikipedia nowadays. Maybe you should ease yourself back in - how long has it been since you wrote a quality article for Wikipedia? Kelly hi! 23:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Tznkai, in light of your long absence and controversial record since your return, have you considered standing for RfA again, or opening yourself to recall? I feel that your administrative conduct has been unwise, and I also feel that an active administrator ought to contribute to articles at least occasionally. Everyking ( talk) 00:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Tznkai: You're doing a good job. I prefer different methods these days, but your approach has results, and is not particularly wrong. Of course, by being forceful, you're also going to be questioned.
Do keep checking to make sure you're not making any errors, and do engage with others and explain what you are doing.
(Also, I'd love to convert you to the light side of course, but that's a different story :-) )
-- Kim Bruning ( talk) 15:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ubgatsby, interesting. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I liked the policy link you provided to no-no... Gave me my laugh for the day. Paranormal Skeptic ( talk) 17:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Tznkai I have tried but Thunderer just comes out with the same tired accusations every time I edit and if you look at the history you will see that every edit I have made has been reverted by him. What am I supposed to do consensus was reached on the talk page yet content is still not in the article. Could you please give me some advice on how to proceed here because I really don't know if it is possible to work with a WP:SPA who doesn't WP:AGF with any edits I make. BigDunc Talk 21:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Intelligent design has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your contribution to the discussion here. I was recently part of an AE case and was subject to the remedies outline here a WP:1RR on all Troubles Articles, applyed to all Editors of those Articles. This was amended as you will have noticed by an additional amendment at AE here. Now since then I do not believe that I have breeched sanctions. I been extremely polite, civil, and have been in no way disruptive. With this is mind, could you possibly point to me:
I think it only right and proper, and in the intrest fairness, that to defend myself I should first know what it is I’m supposed to have done, do you not agree? There is not much of a talk page to go through, and my edits were very limited. Thanks in advance, -- Domer48 'fenian' 20:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Linked discussion here. -- Domer48 'fenian' 13:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I haven't attempted to, nor do I attempt to impose anything. I have been engaging in discussion and making proposals: more than you or anyone else has done to attempt to address the problem. You have a better idea, go right ahead, thats part of the wiki way.-- Tznkai ( talk) 11:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Tznkai could you have a word with this editor. Is he supposed to be neutral if he is too become a mentor for The Thunderer with comments like this he is staring off on an antagonistic vein and I will not stand for accusations about tag team partners any longer. As this was a cry of the Thunderer and now his mentor is echoing these cries. Thanks. BigDunc Talk 15:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I have to disagree with you on that last one. It is a well known fact that throwing child sex accusations into the face of homosexuals is a homophobic slur. That editor's consistent reduction of age-structured homosexuality (a phenomenon that ranges from legal to illegal, and from sexual to chaste) to child buggering is an attack on a legitimate homosexual practice. Having said that, what is your suggestion regarding dealing with an editor who gives proof of racism, chauvinism, or homophobia in his edits? Haiduc ( talk) 21:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
See discussion at Talk:Flag of the Republic of Ireland. Wonder if we're going to have to step in there, generally. SirFozzie ( talk) 18:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
The solutions to both problems, vandalism and stupidity, is very often the same. Treating them differently could lead to one becoming the other. Traditional unionist ( talk) 20:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
[20] and [21]. The amount of abuse this editor is willing to hurl at me, not to mention other editors, is seemingly limitless. I don't really know how to begin to address this. Nandesuka ( talk) 05:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello Tznkai. As I feared, the discussion at AE over this editor was eventually archived without resolution. It appears you may be busy, which I understand because I am also at the moment, but did you ever make any progress on your proposed solution? I ask, because whether on purpose or by accident, Vk has not got himself involved in another article on a geo-political conflict that would, by the original intent of the restrictions, have been off-limits. See Talk:ETA#Revisit terrorist discussion.
While I actually agree with his take on the subject, his comments on that page illustrate perfectly why those sort of articles should be off-limits to him indefinitely. He is aggressive, confrontational, rude and immediately personalizes the issue by accusing others of bad faith editing. This is exactly what we don't need when discussing contentious subjects, and this is why it was roundly agreed that Vk could continue to edit only if he avoided these subjects. I was going to inform Vk that this page was off-limits to him per his conditions. However that would simply cause more diversionary bleating about bias. Therefore would you mind having a look and addressing this however best you see fit (I have pointed a few other admins towards this also). Thanks. Rockpocke t 19:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Would you please consider refactoring your set-up of the Obama race discussion, [22] and not being such an aggressive traffic cop in favor of your set-up? [23] [24] I'm afraid that when you close an AN/I thread to restart a perennial discussion with the accusation that other editors have engaged in "ridiculous behavior" you are blurring the line between administrative work and content editing, and doing yourself exactly what editors are not supposed to be doing on the Obama talk page: accusing other editors of bad behavior. It may be unwise to begin with to star the discussion with a threat that it should not be archived. The RfC process is possibly better suited. But in any event, the bolded statement that other editors engaged in "ridiculous behavior" will probably act against consensus and goodwill. Thanks, Wikidemon ( talk) 19:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Your statement was well over 400 words, and I've removed it pending trimming.-- Tznkai ( talk) 01:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
"Since the full circumstances of the de-sysopped user were disclosed to the AC in confidence, the only appropriate way for this user to regain the tools is to convince the AC – the only group of users with full knowledge of the situation – that the circumstances have changed such that we have confidence in his ability to handle adminship without problems." - Morven, on WP:RFAR, 23:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC), seconded by Kirill.
The Arbcom have very conscously put me in a situation where only a full discussion of my personal problems can prevent them from abusing their "secret knowledge" about me. I shall refrain from saying what I think of them for that trick. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 14:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
This is directly contradicted by the quotes that I provided at the bottom of the page. He clearly took the section out of context, and is trying to say 100% opposite of the source. This needs to stop. He needs to be banned from these pages. Ottava Rima ( talk) 16:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, we edit-conflicted. I don't think this is a controversial block - can you suggest why it isn't a simple violation of the arbitration? Black Kite 19:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Please don't remove it from the page until they answer my question about AfDs. Everyking ( talk) 18:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you blocked User:Googlean and User:Avinesh. So shouldn't the related SSP case also be closed? -- vi5in [talk] 16:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Oh, ok! Thanks! -- vi5in [talk] 20:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
In case you hadn't seen it, Haiduc stopped by the noticeboard. Grsz 11 →Review! 02:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not claiming you're wrong, but revert-and-protect always looks bad. You might want to reconsider. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL TALK 22:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Please undo your protection immediately. Not only were you in an edit war on that page, you reverted the other warrer (with rollback no less) immediately before protecting, thus violating protection policy. There's no reason to keep hiding that thread pretending it never happened. Please undo and leave it be. – How do you turn this on ( talk) 22:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
(Originally a response to How do you turn this thing on)
Not all edit wars were created equal - In this case, there is blatant drama mongering. The standard course of action would be to block Giano, but since I am trying to control the forest fire and reduce drama, I obviously am not going to do that. I am not enforcing a content position, I am stamping down on disruptive editing. Giano can, and has taken the issue up on Jimbo's page, RfAr and a number of individual talk pages, none of which I particularly care to do anything about, as those are logical places to take up the argument.
And no, there wasn't harm for a while. The previous Scott v. Secret argument was shut up after I shut the thread down the first time, Giano brought it back up, but the argument had essentially stopped, so no big deal. Giano's last entry however, was inflammatory, and as I have stated, drama mongering. That takes the thread out of useful/harmless to disruptive, thus the action.-- Tznkai ( talk) 23:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Tznkai , I believe I may have made a mistake yesterday, when I suggested that Thunderer be unblocked. I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. However today, despite our unblock requests and their undertaking, they have gone and reverted five times on the USC Article, [25], [26], [27], [28] and [29]. Now I gave a very detailed rational on the talk page here so there is no reason to be consistently reverting me. Could you please ask them to stop now, because its getting ridiculous. Now Jehochman suggest I contact you or WP:AE, I came here hoping for less drama, thanks -- Domer48 'fenian' 21:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
When you drop a link into a block log [30], could you please use a permanent link? I am trying to check this out, and man, I've got to search the ANI archives. Jehochman Talk 10:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your note to the participants in the UDR mediation. They managed to get many people involved in their squabbles. You hit on concerns that the mediators have been trying to get across, such as the need each to be responsible for his own behaviour and not that of others. Hopefully your words will sink in. Things are quiet for the moment and I hope that, if and when they return to the mediation, they will mediate seriously and in good faith. Sunray ( talk) 00:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. Anything to smooth the process. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. I was linking from somewhere to this comment, and I was trying to find out whether it had been archived on the Cold fusion case pages. I've been looking but can't find the clerk notes there. I notice some cases have clerk notes, but some don't. Do you know what the usual practice is with regards to archiving clerk notes or not? Carcharoth ( talk) 17:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Hiya Tznkai. Forgive my naivety, but why is there always a 'high drama' around blocking/unblocking Giano? I've no problem with G personally; but I'm perplexed with the 'stay away from him' aura. GoodDay ( talk) 22:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Please do not contact me on my talk page regarding RfArb/Cold fusion. I would like to receive no notification of any decisions at that location. All further communication regarding this case should be done over e-mail. I will no longer be discussing anything related to the arbitration above board on Wikipedia.
Thank you.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 00:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Tznkai - I don't think that removing the RfC on date linking was the best option. A lot of editors have made useful comments there without any personal attacks, and I don't think those contributions should be lost. If any action is necessary to stop incivility, I think it would be better to target it at the editors and not the discussion (or if at the discussion, in a way that it can continue). I agree that there is little to be gained from the discussion other than peace and quiet, but that peace and quiet is badly needed given the number of separate arguments going on over this ( AN/I AN/EW1, An/EW2 AN/EW3 AN/EW4, User_talk:Tennis Expert, Master of Puppets, Colonies Chris, Tony1, HJensen, Ohconfucius Rambling Man on Tour...) - if that isn't evidence that this needs sorting I don't know what is. Unfortunately, I can't see anything other than an RfC on this matter being accepted as a binding expression of community consensus either. As painful as it is, I think there's more to be gained by doing everything necessary to get the RfC through to some final decision. Best, Knepflerle ( talk) 19:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I think it is inappropriate to delete the RfC discussion. If you think that it is unproductive, then archive it. If you think there are incivil actions or comments, revert or refactor those individual trangressions. DOUBLEBLUE ( talk) 19:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
You may not be aware of it (though since you blanked it, maybe you are) but an RFC was already being worked on when Tony decided to hijack it. That RFC, which has yet to go live, is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date Linking RFC. And I agree, the discussion is an utter waste of time, but those pushing this change are doing so by automated and semi-automated means (basically forcing it on the rest of us). To be absolutely clear, the language at the subpage RFC was worked on by multiple editors and had mostly come to agreement. The language in Tony's RFC at WT:MOSNUM was created entirely by Tony with no input from other editors. Attempts to balance the RFC with additional information has been reacted to aggressively by Tony and his supporters (the "big green box" fiasco; and for what it's worth, the big green box was my addition, an attempt to address concerns that the questions/topics were being changed by showing that the messages were clearly separate from the original wording). At any rate, you're brave to have set foot in there. :P — Locke Cole • t • c 21:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Bad idea blanking the RfC, exactly what I would expect a totally clueless admin to do. Now I have no idea if Tznkai fits that description, as I don't know what else he does on Wikipedia. I hope this was a one-time mistake, not to be repeated.-- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 20:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if I threw a wrench into your attempt to clerk the AE page. I wasn't sure what "comments after reblocking" was intended to address, since no reblock had been made, and comments were being put into another section about the proposed reblock... Avruch T 21:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
This article is a hoax. Not sure what the procedure is though.-- Vintagekits ( talk) 13:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Tznkai could you have a look at the USC article Thunderer has come back from his 3RR block and has started reverting again. And leaving edit summaries like remove POV opinionated rubbish from the Republican cabal. He has inserted images that I removed as they were fair use violations. I don't want to remove them again as this will lead to an edit war thanks. BigDunc Talk 17:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Tznkai I just wanted to update you on a possible problem here. If you would prefare I go to AE I will totally understand, as this is going to get seriously out of hand, with three "new" editors. To avoide any problems for myself I'd welcome any advice and suggestions, and would have no problem with my edits being monitored. Is there no way that the mediation could be re formatted and put back on the rails? -- Domer48 'fenian' 09:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Tznkai,
I just posted evidence on the Cold Fusion case. I understand that you have to cut things down. I have presented evidence which goes well over the word count, though not the diff count. I ask that you leave it. I believe that the limits exist so that people will be succinct, while still having enough space. But that is for the average party to an Arbitration Committee case. However, ScienceApologist is not an average party. There is much, much more evidence concerning him. I believe that the sections are succinct, and all of them are relevant (several were already cut). Also, the quotations will make it easier for the arbitrators, because often the relevant quotes are hard to find in the diffs. Durga's Trident ( talk) 01:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Indef blocking for talk page rants (both user and article) is I think excessive. Andries ( talk) 13:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Hiya Tznkai. Is the Giano blocked or unblocked? GoodDay ( talk) 00:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
You wrote: Perhaps I was too subtle: this entire situation could have been avoided with an unblock message and summary that didn't attract drama and bring up unnecessary issues.--Tznkai (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Should that be interpreted to mean that your primary dispute with WJBscribe's action was the unblock summary he used? I have a hard time believing that is your major problem with the action, but your comment certainly does leave that impression. Given that Will discussed the issue with Deskana, Deskana acknowledged that his action was taken without the required approval and then declined to reverse it himself... It seems to me that Will took the best action, an action that to my mind is superior than posting his concerns and waiting for a consensus develop over a period of hours or days. If he had done that, I feel sure that the situation would have escalated far more than it has at this point - to another arbitration case, perhaps censure of Deskana, etc. Avruch T 02:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I see you chose to delete part of a conversation, but left the offending false statement in place that started it. Any particular reason? I have no objection to deleting it, but ask that you not take sides and that you be thorough. It is also normal practice to leave a note and diff in place. -- Fyslee ( talk) 14:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/141.154.12.190 <--- User:Moulton. rootology ( C)( T) 23:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Reply for you at my talk page. (Feel free to delist this message once read.) AGK 18:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Tznkai, I come here to ask you a favor. Since you're an ArbCom clerk, could you relocate a discussion under Ryan Postlethwaite's comment on this vote page just like others discussions on other voter pages were moved to their talk pages. Thanks.-- Caspian blue 20:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay, but I don't visit Wikipedia very often and I'm not really interested in talking much more about the arbcom elections. I've pretty much made what I think clear and I'm just not going to change my mind about it. Grace Note ( talk) 23:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
[32] rootology ( C)( T) 02:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
This looks like a job for WP:SHUN, in my humble estimation. MastCell Talk 05:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I intend to edit this article again as the mediation has ended due to The Thunderer refusing to take part. Nowhere does it state here that I can't, but I wanted to run it past you first for your opinion. BigDunc Talk 17:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
The vote pages/talk page have not been vandalised, more an unperson of your making made some edits. Please provide more accurate protection summaries next time, and read up on what WP:VANDALISM is, since you appear to misunderstand what it is. Majorly talk 19:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Can you unlock my questions page? Voters deserve to ask questions about me (and I would like to answer without using admin functions). Cool Hand Luke 23:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Could you unprotect my questions page as well, please? I know it is "only" semi-protection, but I want even the newest editors to be able to ask questions, even if they don't have suffrage in the elections. If at some future point you feel, as a clerk (are there any official election clerks? I've only seen unofficial ones), that semi-protection is needed again, could you place a notice directing non- autoconfirmed accounts people to a place where they can ask questions if they find they can't edit my questions page? Carcharoth ( talk) 21:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
stop please. You're indenting wrong, you need to use a #:, not a :. The latter messes up the numbering. ST47 ( talk) 03:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Tznkai, I know you blocked within the terms of PD's 'conditions', but I wonder what harm might come of Peter Damian contributing to mainspace - so I've lodged a request at RFAR to see if we can get ArbCOM sanction to do that. (not sure if I should list you as involved party, the action is not about your block, but potential future blocks for the same thing - please advice) Regards -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 21:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for checking over my withdraw forms, eh? Wily D 15:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I've responded here. My remarks are necessarily brief. If you are searching for more, you might let your own note to the three participants on each of their talk pages be your guide. You have shown exceptional diligence in dealing with this matter. Many thanks. Sunray ( talk) 22:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, could you remove the threaded comments from the Scientology RFAR please? Another editor left a slanted question beneath my opening request. I replied at his/her talk and asked him/her to remove it, per RFAR convention. But the other editor hasn't complied. Best wishes, Durova Charge! 02:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Jumped the gun on the implementation note. :-) 5 votes for several proposals that you marked as passing. FloNight ♥♥♥ 15:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Tznkai - was the issue with the possibly compromised account resolved when Daniel archived it as having passed? [33] Avruch T 17:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Good heavens, is that party still going on? It must be the mother of all festivities. Don't you ever sleep? Bishonen | talk 15:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC).
Re this. I actually reread a lot of this stuff, since I genuinely do like both of them, but damn... nothing else will work but a forcefield at this point. rootology ( C)( T) 19:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Should this be noted on the cold fusion page? I was going to do it but thought it might not be my place. All the best, Verbal chat 22:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Was this [34] a typo? :) Sticky Parkin 20:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Tznkai, you are awfully prickly at the moment - I'm frustrated with the length of time the RFAR took in general, not by you not stepping to attention the minute a motion passes. So I'm sorry if you thought it was a dig. Peace. -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 21:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Permanent is sharp-P-complete you say it's probably a copyright violation. Can't you explain that by pointing out a book or a web page or the like that you think it's copied from? Why would you make such an accusation without doing that? Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Want to try to figure out how to get this implemented? Let me know... ++ Lar: t/ c 17:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I note your block notice on Abtract's page - but cannot see a block logged at
WP:RfAR/Abtract-Collectonion#Log of blocks, etc. If this is a different ArbCom involving Abtract (I am aware of one) and you have already logged the incident I apologise for querying the matter, although I would suggest that a link to it on Abtract's page might help a reviewer of any unblock request. Cheers.
LessHeard vanU (
talk) 22:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)... or I could look in your contrib history and see the Haines ArbCom discussion (but since Abtract has more than one ArbCom under his belt it may still be worthwhile noting the context on his notice).
LessHeard vanU (
talk) 22:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
As requested, my corn chowder recipe (approximately, I honestly make it up as I go once I buy the ingredients, and its pretty hard to screw up). Warning, it's a pretty rich meal:
I think that's all I basically do, but I usually end up pitching a bunch of other stuff in there depending on my mood, like a bay leaf or two, or maybe some tabasco, or whatever weird thing strikes my fancy. A finely diced stalk of celery is good sometimes, too, for texture. My whole thing though is to super-finely dice up the veggies, so the focus is the broth, salt pork, and corn, with the rest for flavor and texture only--if you look at the photo, you can hardly tell what veggies are in there! It's not the, er, healthiest of meals, but it hits the spot on a cold day. :) rootology ( C)( T) 19:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Tznkai - I notice you commented on the review board - it's customary here at wikipedia to sign talk page posts with 4 tildes ~~~~. PS I have a great recipe for chicken breast with olives, cream and white wine with pasta if you're interested. :-) -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 21:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; I will look forward to working with you in the year to come.
Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2009. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of
Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement.
Best,
Risker (
talk) 04:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Tznkai - thanks for your kind message on my talk page. Happy New Year to you, and let me take this opportunity to apologize for my part in our disagreements last year. With respect - Kelly hi! 08:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Dear Tznkai,
Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.
Kind regards,
Majorly talk 21:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I got your email. I voluntarily requested the removal of my administrative tools a couple months ago, because I realized I was spending too much time in working on disputes and not enough time on content. At the present time, I'm not interested in taking on additional tasks related to handling disputes, so I am definitely not interested. GRBerry 14:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
See RFAR and new post at Clerk board. Then archive some of your talk page.;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 16:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! That page was getting annoying! Hopefully the editor will get the hint this time!-- Sallicio 19:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to create an article about this group - www.thecommune.wordpress.com - who emerged from a split in the Alliance for Workers' Liberty. The AWL article references them and has a red link to the group.
So I wanted to create a piece here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Commune
But after repeated deletions it is not possible. The group, also called the International Communist Group, has been referenced in other left-wing media, e.g the Weekly Worker (www.cpgb.org.uk) and has produced its own newspaper and held several meetings.
So I wondered how to unblock this 19:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I've added a response to your question on journalist notability here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Journalism#Notability_guidelines 19:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
19:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
This user has 2 edits in December 2007 prior to the contributions on the evidence page of the Fringe science ArbCom case. The wording ("pro-science" right wing) and style is very similar ot that of MaxPont on the evidence and workshop page ("pro-industrial" right wing); it looks like the evidence of User:Durga's Trident at the cold fusion case. I wonder whether you or one of the two clerks assigned to the case could check whether the two users are connected in any way (sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry). (I am asking you because you came to my talk page to request a change in my evidence, which I made although you don't seem to have noticed.) Mathsci ( talk) 14:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
This is PhysicsEng, and I can assure you that I only use one account, this one, when posting anything on Wikipedia. It is the only acct I have ever created on Wikipedia. I have no idea who Durga is, or any of the other users mentioned above...
And yes, I probably did make some edits way back in Dec.07... since ScienceApologist was clearly in the wrong and violating numerous standards, and yet, he seemed to get away with it just because he was an editor, and even threatened that he 'had friends in high places', and would get you banned if he wanted... meaning that he knew some sysadmins or something. Why do you think its been so long (Dec'07) since I've taken valuable time to contribute anything??? Because I was so frustrated with the havoc caused by SA, and the fact that the CF page was reverted back to the 2004(?) version. What a friggin' travesty. I AM one of the uninvolved, but SELF-INFORMED, persons who HAS read many of the papers on CF, and how a miscreant like SA can push his editorial weight around when he hasn't even read any of the latest papers is beyond me. So much has taken place since 2004, that the CF page has still got a long way to go to be current... Fortunately, I see that there is now an Arbitration case against SA, and I hope this guy is banned forever. The damage he has done by driving good people away from Wikipedia, far outweighs what editorial contributions he's made. It's about time that some one of higher authority seriously investigate this guy... PhysicsEng ( talk) 03:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I have nothing to do with this. —— Martinphi Ψ~ Φ—— 06:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Tznkai - regarding ban of Pcarbonn notice posted by you: "Tznkai (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC) on behalf of the Arbitration Committee."
I am writing a news story on the ban of Pcarbonn. Can you please explain/show me the reason for the ban? StevenBKrivit ( talk) 00:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
ArbCom clerks vandalising? What next? Sceptre ( talk) 06:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for this. I apologize for my part in it. -- InkSplotch ( talk) 13:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Would you mind if I de-indent your comment? It pretty much cuts to the heart of the matter. If it was in continuation of the thread and so directed at me, then I must confess that I have not assessed the RfC, my comments merely reflect implementation in case of a consensus for usage. ˉˉ anetode ╦╩ 17:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if you can help. As someone involved in the topic bans on User:Vintagekits I was wondering if you could shed some interpretations on something. User:Vintagekits has recently opened this Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_7#Category:Northern_Irish_people to change it to People from Northern Ireland under the grounds of Northern Irish not being a valid demonyn. Now I'm not interested in a debate on the right or wrong of the claims, but I'm just unsure as to the interpretation of the topic bans and whether this would constitute something that falls within the prohibited topics for this user. I'm uncertain about the geo-political dispute bit, as it could be interpreted by some that it may come under that is, by their own admission, very Irish-Republican and anti-Northern Ireland.
I'm uncertain about any interpretation, but feel the query may come up at some point in the discussion, so wanted to head any uncertainties off at the pass. So thanks for your time. Canterbury Tail talk 02:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, blocking is boring. I think I have a better idea [35]. Cheers. M0RD00R ( talk) 00:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The only reason the warnings were removed is that they are from Angelo De La Paz. If you gave me the warning, I would have never removed it, but I do not need any warnings from a person who insulted me six times [36] [37] [38] and openly expressed his Albanian extremist opinions on very delicate topics [39] [40]. When I answered on his insults one of the administrators used it as a main argument to block me. My duty was to answer you for the injustice. -- Forsena ( talk) 19:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
That looks really bad. Further division between admins and proles is not going to help the situation. DuncanHill ( talk) 22:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
The majority of the people commenting are admins, is the protection going to do any good? – xeno ( talk) 22:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how the protection will do anything. Most of the people commenting are administrators anyways, so discussion won't really stop. Secret account 22:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Ahh I see, it was a subpage you were forming. My apologizes. Secret account 22:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
"Phew"! Thank you for that! Pedro : Chat 22:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Whoops :) Thanks for fixing that. seicer | talk | contribs 05:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry you didn't like it, especially since my inspiration came from your block of Martinphi. Bishonen | talk 01:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC).
I understand why someone might feel I am a previous editor, given that I show knowledge of wikipedias inner workings. I have been 'lurking' for quite some time but have only just now felt imformed enough to comment. I would never call myself an editor simply because I do not edit. I understand the benifits to having a log in name and have contemplated it. I'm just someone who watches... and sometimes questions if I feel there is something that should be said. 198.161.173.180 ( talk) 19:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
In agreeing with Shoemaker's Holiday (I doubt he expected my name to go so early there - so much for factionalism), I said "The fraction of the community that is upset about Giano's behavior is also a significant cause of the behavior that is complained about, and this mess will only go away if both sides change their behavior." You agreed with Shoemaker's Holiday but quibble with that comment of mine. The primary thrust of what I was mentioning was the administrative noticeboard culture. See also my endorsement of Sam Blacketer's view.
Those who are upset with Giano are largely denizens of the administrative noticeboards. (Those who don't read them are largely unaware of Giano.) Unfortunately, I keep seeing more and more evidence that to get anything done using the noticeboard, one must create drama there. (At least one Wikipedia Review commentator has described our goverment structure as a Drama-cracy (though I think they spelled it differently).
If things on the noticeboards were attended to and dealt with before drama, then editors wouldn't feel a need to cause drama in order to accomplish something. The only way for that to happen is for there to be a lot more diligence in attending to things where no drama exists. I don't know where the need for drama came from; it far predates my regular reading of the administrative noticeboards. But the readers of those noticeboards need to change their behavior so that causing drama is not a method that is advantageous. Recent history has been reinforcing a belief that causing drama is the best path to getting a situation attended to. GRBerry 20:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Any chance you could move this from an artical to a user page? Bihco ( talk) 09:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi. User:Pcarbonn has posted a considerable amount of information on cold fusion on his user page, including a link to a supposedly "better" version of the article. I don't know if this is a violation of the letter or only the spirit of his ban, but I think someone official should look at it. I'd prefer to avoid getting in the middle of this so please just reply here either way. Thanks. -- 72.70.28.2 ( talk) 16:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I didn't entirely understand your comment. Is there something I can help with? -- ROGER DAVIES talk 16:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia's coverage of journalists sucks.
nice job explaining my somewhat obscure ref. I was a little dismayed this plot element isn't in the article. thoughts? (or is my memory failing me; did these personalities not emerge until the shadow books?) – xeno ( talk) 21:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
could you give me your opinion on something?
If I were to edit an article slightly related to Korea right now, would that be a real dumb idea considering what is currently going on in ANI?
I was not considering anything controversial just a few edits to this article [ [41]] as the way things are going I am not going to be able contribute on that article for a while.
カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! ( talk) 15:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Should I have something displayed on my user/talk pages stating that I am subject to a topic ban? カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! ( talk) 03:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up on the delinking injunction. TJRC ( talk) 21:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
This was just beautiful. Have you ever read any Richard Holloway? I read his On Forgiveness recently and I am so glad to see you take a similar stance to the one I believe in. Good wishes to you, -- John ( talk) 08:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Well as long as the topic ban is not modified or another silly ANI report is not made against me, all I wish to say is:
1. "Sennen goroshi has been using "sock IPs" to evade to get him block sanction, so if I suspect that some IP users/accounts linked to him, why I can't report him by myself?" No, Caspian I did not use sock IPs to evade anything, I edited a few times with an IP, and never tried to hide the fact that it was me, stop trying to make more drama.
2. I am not going to respond any more as the topic ban was put in place because of the continual drama on ANI, I consider taking the drama to an Admin's talk page instead of ANI not to be an acceptable alternative - make a sandbox page dedicated to all the editors that you dislike and outline every single detail there instead. The topic ban was supposed to be an end to the drama, not just a reason to take it from ANI and move it somewhere else or involve anyone else. I consider this to be very very finished. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! ( talk) 04:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
if anyone is interested, I will respond on my talk page. I refuse to fill this talk page with more drama. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! ( talk) 05:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology ( C)( T) 08:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC) |
I'm going to address this to both of you for the sake of convenience.
In my view, a crucial concept needs to be introduced into this " tipping point" moment; and more importantly, this constructive notion needs to be incorporated in whatever process ensues.
George Santayana wrote: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Wikiquote expands on this theme by explaining that the well-known observation has produced many paraphrases and variants, e.g.,
I've posted Santayana's image so that the reiterated caption may provide deliberately redundant emphasis. As you may know, receptive learning skills are sometimes enhanced by engaging more than one of the cognitive processing modalities. Studies of learning
English as a Second Language (
ESL) have shown that enhanced comprehension and retention are reported when language comprehension centers in the brain are engaged in a context of simultaneous visual stimulus. It is my intent that Santayana's salutatory saying is underscored in an exceedingly plain and non-controversial manner. --
Tenmei (
talk) 19:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Tznkai, I need your clarification as you promised in order to concentrate on editing articles. I believe if Sennen goroshi would apologize for his outrageous personal attacks and not harass Korean editors, the drama did not even start "again" at ANI.
Thanks.-- Caspian blue
1. Caspian is not allowed to discuss my actions on the talkpage of any admin. 2. I am not allowed to discuss Caspian's actions on the talkpage of any admin. 3. Caspian is not allowed to edit ANI/any similar board, unless invited by an admin, who is aware of the topicban. 4. I am not allowed to edit ANI/any similar board, unless invited by an admin, who is aware of the topicban. 5. Neither of us are allowed to solicit other editors into making a report against eachother.
I consider this to be necessary as I don't want the drama transferred from ANI to Admin talk pages - when I am accused of something, I have the natural desire to defend myself - and the point of the topicban was to remove the drama, rather than move it elsewhere - neither will it be productive if we concentrate our attentions on other editors.
There are enough editors/admins on wikipedia to report socks/vandalism/etc without Caspian and myself getting involved - in the event of something not being noticed by others a quick E-mail to an admin would be far less dramatic, and unless action was taken, far less likely to invite a response from other parties.
Perhaps the ability to contribute on the BLP board etc would be useful as this is more content related, than editor related.
カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! ( talk) 05:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I notice that you were the blocking admin here. I have left a comment and diffs on Elonka's talk you might find interesting. -- Fyslee ( talk) 05:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, re your note, I have no problem abiding by these guidlines, although I have had difficulties with certain editors. Would it be possible to get some neutral arbitration on some articles to avoid the need for edit wars? In particular the Dunmanway Massacre, which is still a work in progress.
Thanks.
Jdorney ( talk) 15:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I already did ask for a Third Opinion but got accused of 'canvassing'. [46]. Without wanting to get into something that might be contstrued as a personal attack, I just haven't been able to find any common ground with one editor in particular. However I think this article should work itself out over the next few days. And if not I'll ask for mediation. Cheers Jdorney ( talk) 15:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Anyone ever read Zhuangzi Speaks: The music of nature, by this guy?: [47]-- Tznkai ( talk) 16:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
There's an ANI thread ( [48] ) on the blocks of BigDunc ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I'm notifying both Deacon and Tznkai ...
In my opinion, the reblocking for longer time period violated existing policy that we let blockees vent on their user talk page. I agree that what he posted in the talk page and edit summary was indefensibly rude and uncivil. However, the duration and degree was short and moderate, not extended and extreme. If he'd kept it up for days or made more vicious or more personal attacks on individual admins then the situation would be different, but what happened so far does not to me justify the extended block.
I am all for making Wikipedia more polite, and I deplore BigDunc's conduct here. But we have to be realistic - people object to being blocked, and vent about that. Reblocking people who vent leads to a vicious circle where a single minor incident spirals out of control into destroying someone's relationship with Wikipedia. That violates the intent and policy behind blocking.
Administrators need to be sensitive to not abusing people in the process of enforcing policy, particularly blocks. I believe that, well intentioned as the reblocks may have been from a civility standpoint, they were ultimately a mistake and counterproductive.
I propose to reduce BigDunc's block to the original 48-hr duration later tonight, after discussion on ANI. I am notifying both of the admins who reblocked him (Deacon and Tznkai) to allow discussion and get your input prior to any action being taken.
Please contribute your comments to the ANI thread to keep things centralized...
Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 01:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I think I will take you up on your idea to write an essay about punishment with regard to blocks on Wikipedia. The proposal I created is going to fail, and the reasons people keep giving for opposition continue to state the same fallacies I've had to repeatedly explain. I think a detailed essay covering all of the issues might be better. Thanks for the advice. Chicken Wing ( talk) 20:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I have raised comments you made in a past discussion here. To insure that I did not misrepresent you and your opinions, could you please look them over, and if you consider them inappropriate please let me know and I’ll strike them from my post. Thanks -- Domer48 'fenian' 19:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm just messaging you because you offered some support in a rough patch not too long ago. I just wanted to bring to your attention my own talk page, and the talk of Dunmanway Massacre. It seems the actual edit itself is no longer important, certain users haven't read the post, but one users determination to silence my very legitimate point and paint me as a troll is simple a blast from the past. Can you take a look? Its really pissing me off. Thanks. NewIreland2009 ( talk) 07:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I really appreciated this. Thanks, and keep up the good work. -- John ( talk) 01:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
You may recall that we butted heads quite a lot several months ago over troubles related AE threads and I now see that that was all mostly my fault. Since I abandoned the area, I have been watching your contributions to noticeboards and the like and have been more and more impressed with the value of your input and your worthwhile practical commonsense approach, so I just wanted to say sorry for being a dick and thank you for being so sensible. Spartaz Humbug! 10:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
For high quality and practical contributions to resolving disputes that always puts building the encyclopaedia first. Spartaz Humbug! 10:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC) |
I've noticed that you have reverted a change I have made to my personal Arbcom section. If I understand the Arbcom discourse structure properly, it is not allowed for editors to interfere in each other's sections and leave long comments, let along, provocative insults on it. Is this correct? Jaakobou Chalk Talk 08:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
User:Tznkai/Archive 3 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
As the person overseeing Caspian Blue, could you please have a look here, and inform him that bringing his antipathy towards me into unrelated discussions is completely unacceptable? Thanks. // roux 18:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
(out)Indeed I did begin to suggest similar things at ANI. Because it works. Any editor on Wikipedia may propose solutions on ANI, so there's that dealt with. Also, can you please show me where in that thread I said I hadn't investigated the matter? I'll be waiting. I have not been incivil; the 'grow up' comment was a short form for 'Grow up and take your antipathy towards me somwehere else, because it doesn't belong here. You may be upset that you are currently restricted by sanctions which I proposed, but it's worth noting that those sanctions were pretty much unanimously supported by everyone else who commented at the time. It's further worth noting that the reason those sanctions were imposed by Tznkai--the straw that broke the camel's back--was because instead of actually defending yourself, you did exactly what you are doing here: you began attacking me for absolutely no reason. So grow up, suck it up, recognise that your behaviour is totally inappropriate and you were lucky to get away with only a topicban. Your renewed antagonistic behaviour towards me is only likely to add more restrictions to your editing, and isn't going to do you any favours.'
I didn't say all that at the time because it wasn't necessary and would have only created the drama you seem to think I enjoy creating. I don't. I look for quick and effective solutions to problems. You don't; you would rather argue, as evidenced by the fact that you started attacking me here and at your topicban discussion, and indeed at the MedCab case I attempted to mediate between you and Bukubku (I think it was Bukubku; I can't be bothered to dig it up). You have absolutely no interest in looking at your own behaviour or even trying to understand how there is a problem with your behaviour--even when (if memory serves) everyone who commented on the topicban proposal agreed with it.
And as for your statement "Your visit here to report me for the unrelated matter with my banned area is a retaliation". No, you're quite wrong. I am well aware--as I said above--that this isn't part of your restrictions. I should know; I wrote them. What I did say is that because Tznkai is already overseeing you, s/he is the best person to talk to about this. I'm sorry that you misunderstand; it's probably because English is not your first language. And no, that is not an attack; I certainly wouldn't understand anything you said in Korean or Japanese or Urdu for that matter.
The reason I propose such solutions is that they are both fast and effective. Dealing with problem users often drags on for a ridiculous amount of time, wasting everyone's energy and sucking up volunteer resources. Quick and effective--but thought-out--solutions are best for the people involved because they can move away from their dispute, best for the other editors who have gotten sucked in because the dispute ends, best for the project because less of our finite volunteer time is eaten up by dealing with twits who have nothing better to do than snipe at each other.
So. I have done nothing wrong here, but you have. I really strongly suggest that you re-examine your behaviour before admins get involved, because I have the feeling it will not end well for you, given what Tznkai said at your topicban discussion about why s/he imposed the restrictions. I tried requesting that you remove your off-topic and personal comments, and you have chosen not to do so. I have tried explaining to you what is actually going on, and you refuse to listen. Instead, you follow your usual pattern of attacks and accusations. That's your choice to behave that way, and you will eventually have to face the consequences of continuing such behaviour. If you would actually like to enter into a dialogue of constructive criticism with me, you are more than welcome to. If, however, you would rather persist in attacking me and making ridiculous accusations, then please consider this your final and only warning before I seek to have a prohibition on interactions with me added to your general editing restrictions. I don't need the stress you cause. // roux 20:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Tznkai, this thread had grown quite a bit while I worked quietly on the following: A. In the archived Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive510#Sennen goroshi Caspian Blue, please allow me to refresh your recollection, not so much about what you wrote, but why did you write it? What you were thinking at the time? -- see here:
B. You probably overlooked the final diff in this WP:AN/I-thread before archiving. As I construed Caspian blue's words, what struck me was the absence of any sense that Caspian blue could have or should have handled anything differently -- no remorse, no regret, no reason to abate a campaign to denegrate Roux, albeit in the coded language which Wikipedia policy defines as civility. -- see here:
C. In a context inspired by "A" and "B," you may recall that I posted a cautiously neutral comment on an iteration of this talk page (which has since been archived). My muted message was so cautiously inoffensive that you wondered what was the point; and Caspian blue responded to my intolerable temerity with serial, escalating, exaggerated comments while I sought to avoid exacerbating any incipient conflict -- see here:
D. In the context now created in this newest thread, please allow me to remind you of a tidbit of conventional wisdom that roux and others misunderstand -- and Wikipedia is ill-served by this continuing misconception. The fact-of-the-matter is this: It is demonstrable that it does not take two when Caspian blue is involved -- see here:
In the rhetorical sense roux used above, I too have been Caspian blue's "dance partner." The ordeal engendered a string of bitter lessons learned the hard way. As an over-bearing dance partner with me and others, Caspian blue has learned that derogatory, provocative tactics work very well indeed, usually causing ill-informed observers to presume that " it take's two to tango." While, I still refuse to say very much, I'm mindful of Wikipedia:Silence and consensus. As I tried to explain earlier, my continuing restraint should not be taken to imply qui tacet consentire videtur ("He who remains silent is understood to consent"). To whatever extent I can affect what develops from this newest incident, I would oppose ascribing any kind of "benefit of the doubt" in whatever process unfolds. I am offended by the heedless harassment of roux by Caspian blue, but it represents only the tiniest part of the parade of harms which are documented in Caspian blue's edit history. Bluntly, Caspian blue is a "toxic long-term warrior" who poisons the collaborative editing which makes Wikipedia possible. What bothers me most is the likelihood nothing will happen which encourages Caspian blue to reconsider strategies and tactics which ultimately profit no one. -- Tenmei ( talk) 21:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC) |
So Tenmei you can't stop hounding me and making such attacks rooted on your deep grudge. Now let go of the report on your extreme incivility right after an admin accused you for your incivility. At that time, another you-know-who admin who has watched you for a long time suggested me to take your unwarranted attacks to ANI, so I did. You have gotten frequently lectured how you offend people, so this attacks Bluntly, Caspian blue is a "toxic long-term warrior" who poisons the collaborative editing that makes Wikipedia possible. is just mirroring yourself; "Toxic long-term warrior" who poisons the collaborative editing that makes Wikipedia possible.". That is you, Tenmei. Oh, you also attack "Roux as a heedless harasser". Well, Tenemi, I believe when you say such thing much out of line, you're all responsible for your action.-- Caspian blue 22:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Tznkai, per this edit by Caspian, I would appreciate it if you would restrict him from interacting with me in the future. I have no problem not interacting with him, seeing as I don't interact with him anyway. // roux 22:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Despite the length of the discussion, I actually did in fact, read it a few times, and I want my talk page back. Between the three of you you've written some 3,579 words, and I cannot imagine this is remotely important to justify the time expended or the rancor. Its bad enough that you can't remain civil to each other (bickering, however restrained in vocabulary, is still uncivil or at least unproductive on all sides), but do you really have to drag a non participating party's talk page into it? I didn't get a word edgewise, but that didn't prevent this free for all. So, put yourself in my shoes, and ask at what point do you all start looking like idiots? I will not answer any questions raised, because they are not important. What is important is you all stop bickering.
Request for intervention Declined. Get off of my talk page.-- Tznkai ( talk) 14:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Please would you check out this article for WP:UNDUE etc. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
To answer your question, no I don't want to be a test case and doubt I would enjoy re-running RFA. But I think it is important to be accountable, and if that means every now and then a frivolous recall request and the process works like it should, just to ensure that if I did ever mess up, I'd hear about it loud and clear, I'm willing to accept that. Thanks for the sentiments though. MBisanz talk 23:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Re the banner at the top of Talk:Cold fusion about a ban, that you posted on behalf of the Arbitration Committee: As far as I remember I've never had any interaction with the editor mentioned; I started editing Cold fusion after the editor was banned; but every time I come to the talk page, I feel embarrassed to see that sort of prominent notice about a specific individual. It seems undignified to me. I would prefer to have the banner removed: I think it's unnecessary and that enough people know about the ban. Note that a brief, low-key mention of another editor's ban was recently removed from the same talk page as a personal attack: [50]. If it's not possible to remove the banner, would it be OK with you if I move the name of the editor into the hidden part, and/or move the banner to the bottom of the collection of banners on the talk page? Thanks in advance for considering my request. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 22:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
This particular canon says : “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.” [51] [52] This is what this story is about, in the article José Cardoso Sobrinho. In truth, the vast majority of excommunications are automatic ( latae sententiae), and they don't even need to have the opinion of a bishop. All abortionists and their friends are de facto excommunicated, this is a taboo that the media do not really understand because they are not specialists in the laws of the Church. Also, many abortionists were originally Jews because it was forbidden for Christians to practice in that field. I also think that Canon 1398 would deserve an article unto itself (or at least a stub), along with other controversial or misunderstood canons. ADM ( talk) 07:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Heyo Tznkai,
Best I can see,
this 'timeline' section is evidence presented by MeteorMaker and should be marked as such. If you agree with my perception here, I'd like to request that you fix it.
Warm regards,
Jaakobou
Chalk Talk 09:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I reverted your closure of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dicklyon 2. The last comment (mine) was only a few days ago. The dispute is ongoing and unresolved. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
This section has become unreadable (at least in Safari 3.2.1/OSX 10.5.6). All I can see when I uncollapse it is "{{2}}" (disregard quotes and nowiki tags). The discussion may have stopped but the section is still referenced from several other sections, due to the Google search arguments there. Could you look into that? MeteorMaker ( talk) 18:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
The Komondor article is usually edited wery seldomly indeed, but lately I had a lot of trouble and discussion and also asked for third oppinions on its size and appearence. This breed being fairly unknown, not many people check that article, or try to defend it from bias. I think it is strange that suddenly four newly created accounts which do not edit anything else but Komondor related topics, all of the sudden appear one after the other, and start working in the same direction, trying to modify the impresion of the breed size, supporting each other in all ways.
All this started because of one picture taken of an (appearently small) Komondor at Westminster Dog Show and used at the lead of the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show article.
And all of them are referring to this certain Komondor dog, called Quincy, (which is said to be the one in that picture). All accounts try to adjust the Komondor dog article to make it sound like the breed is smaller which means, to look more like that dog in that picture.
A dog the accounts and IP might be related to (thoug they deny this), or like this dog, which the accounts all call Ouincy, could be this dog here, http://clubs.akc.org/kca/theshow.htm a Komondor dog with a longer body than the international standards calls for (body lenght should be max 104% of the heigt at the dog at the whiters).
User(s) repeatedly removed relevant and sourced facts about size and body type..
Combined IP adress :70.121.204.57 and red link User:Meoconne assisted by User:Lynovella, repeatedly reverted edits at Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show and Komondor dog breed articles, and removed facts from the Komondor article, such as: the dog breeds average height (30 inch), the fact that no upper height limit is given. [1] leaving only minimum height and even other relevant and sourced breed caracteristics like square body (a dog term for a dog with short back) too.
Both average height (sourced) has been removed, (several times),
[53]
[54]
[55],
[56]
[57]
[58] upper limit height (sourced)
[59],
[60] mentioning other similar Hugarian sheepdogs
[61], which all of them are relevant information for this encyclopaedia article on this dog breed, and when I (and even ClueBot)
[62]
[63]
[64]
[65] put them back he keeps removing them again
[66], and makes quite a few unhelpful edits instead
[67], removing reference title,
[68] without any consensus.
This is both
Wikipedia:Edit war, and disruptive editing
[69],
[70].
This edit was also copright violation, an exact copy from the FCI Komondor Standards [71], poorly formulated edit added upper case The above mentioned newly created new red link user accounts are all editing the same articles, Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show Komondor and nothing else.
They are all concentrated on the same issue at Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show and Komondor dog breed, trying to adjust the article to show that Quincy is a perfect dog according to the breeds standards.
User(s) were editing the
Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show and the
Komondor dog article as an IP adress, IP adress 70.121.204.57, than under one username,
User:Meoconne
[72] He or she probably also edits the Komondor article and talk page as
User:Lynovella and continues in the same time as IP adress 70.121.204.57.
First they were trying to ignore breed standard, other sources and pictures presented in argumentation on the talk page .
It is also possible that the account
User:Goldie102 has been created to support this issue around this Quincy dog, now, after a heated debate, claiming that the dog has perfect appearance, size, proportion and weight all according to the debated and well sourced International Komondor standards see edit
[73].
I know sockpuppets are not allowed on Wikipedia.
I strongly suspect these are socks, can you check them, please?
Warrington (
talk) 12:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
WHAT?! I am ineligible to vote simply because I haven't made 150 edits?! This is crazy! Aren't my opinions as valuable as everyone else's? Does the fact that I'm new here determine that I have less ability to choose the right CheckUser? This is absolutely ridiculous and ludicrous. I refer you to WP:DONTBITE. E. Novachek ( talk) 23:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Imagine that the United States had refused to allow people to vote unless that they had improved the nation 150 times. Wait, that would be a good thing, because then Barack Obama wouldn't be President. This is unthinkably ridiculous. My opinions and I are just as important as the Wikipedians who have been here "forever." Let's stand up and change this discriminatory, unbelievable rule. Huck2012 E. Novachek ( talk) 00:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Are you going to reply or just ignore me? I would call you a coward if I hadn't been brought up to be polite and respectful to my fellowman. E. Novachek ( talk) 15:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Tznkai,
Could it be that you forgot to notify NoCal100 ( talk · contribs) of the opening of the case?
Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 06.03.2009 08:37
Re
this edit: Since I've borne the brunt of the allegations on the evidence page, I'm naturally a little worried that essential rebuttals may go unnoticed, and that's why I feel that direct links are helpful. I agree the location in my own evidence section might imply ownership. Could the links perhaps simply be given their own section?
MeteorMaker (
talk) 10:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Tznkai -- I notice in the Judea/Samaria arbitration that you moved a comment of mine from the evidence talk page to the evidence page, but then later flagged my evidence section as surpassing the word limit. I didn't mind it being moved, but I'm hoping now I don't have to delete it since it takes me over 1000 words. I added the section in talk because it was an issue raised in several evidence sections, and it seemed to me that discussion was appropriate. Please let me know if I need to do something in any case. Thanks, Mackan79 ( talk) 07:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry! I thought it had been by refactored by your cutting it off at ~1000 words. I didn't realize you wanted me to rewrite the whole thing. I'll do it today – thanks for your note.-- G-Dett ( talk) 18:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry to bother you, but since you've been doing clerk actions on the page I wanted to let you know, in case you were wondering, that I would like the diff provided by Nishidani to remain in my evidence section. [74] Thanks. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 12:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm thinking another review on the size limitations of evidence sections is in order so that editors will have the opportunity to correct this rather than having their notes chopped up arbitrarily. Cheers, Jaakobou Chalk Talk 14:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Martinphi has requested an unblock. As you were the blocking admin (a million thanks, BTW), you should be aware that it is being discussed at WP:ANI. Skinwalker ( talk) 13:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
To anyone who's asked for my help or otherwise had an inquiry, I've been uncontrollably busy with outside concerns. Please leave a brief message here or by e-mail reminding me what you needed and I will try to get to it tomorrow.-- Tznkai ( talk) 00:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm thinking another review on the size limitations of evidence sections is in order so that editors will have the opportunity to correct this rather than having their notes chopped up arbitrarily. Cheers, Jaakobou Chalk Talk 14:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
WP:ANI#WP:OUTING. Perhaps I overstepped my bounds, but this needed to be quelled, in my opinion, as soon as possible. OVERSIGHT was informed, so the arbs know about it. -- Avi ( talk) 19:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Aeons ago (in our wiki-time frame), you seemed to solicit an explanation for what I'd hoped would become a constructive contribution:
Doubtless, you will not recall my oblique comment in the now-archived "Note on the topic bans (Caspain Blue and Sennen goroshi)" -- here, nor are you likely to have remembered the responsive sub-thread. In that context, my mild voice was drowned out:
I invite your attention to the topic again, this time in a new context -- here. My purpose in contacting you now is two-fold. Initially, I want to ask questions about how to use diffs more effectively than I manage to demonstrate in this message; and secondarily, if you are willing, I would hope to amplify what I could not in January.
If this is perceived as an unwelcome intrusion on your talk page -- as you seemed to construe this -- I will simply stop with an apology for having knocked on the wrong door. -- Tenmei ( talk) 16:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I would like to help, but I'm concerned you've put me in something of a bind. In your explanation here, you say that over-length evidence will be collapsed and moved to the talk page. But here my evidence wasn't too long, until you did the opposite and moved my talk page comment to the evidence page. I would move my comment back to the talk page, but of course that would be to undo your action. Besides that, the section you moved is now cited in response to Roger Davies' inquiry. here. If we need to stick to the original limit, my only suggestion is to move my comment back to the talk page. Otherwise I would certainly appreciate any suggestion you have. Thanks, Mackan79 ( talk) 08:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Am I correct in thinking that you are the administrator who removed my discussion from this [75] thread?
I have explained here [76] why I think my block was a mistake, and my reasons apply equally to the removal of discussion involving an important issue in the arbcom case. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 13:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I worked on it at one point and forgotten about it. You've reminded me to get back on it though. Chicken Wing ( talk) 16:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Way to deny recognition to opportunism [77]! Chillum 16:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Sure... Malleus, you are not a duck, you just just quack and walk like a duck(This is of course a metaphor referring to the Duck test). Chillum 16:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Tznkai, thanks for your note. I'm sorry for the delay; I started at it, then found it onerous and began to procrastinate, then forgot. How's that for an excuse.
I'll do it tonight when I get home from work. Promise. All best, -- G-Dett ( talk) 18:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Tznkai, I'm leaving you a note of this edit (which I reverted). I don't think it's unreasonable to expect experienced admin users not to make edits like that. Thanks. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 05:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Tznkai. I would appreciate it if you would give me some advice and/or assistance about how to move forward with the draft guidelines here (note that the section linked to is a first draft, and there is an updated version lower down).
I've been thinking it may be a good idea to notify all the parties to the case who have not commented on the guidelines, to make sure they're aware of them. For example, MeteorMaker has not edited much in the past few days and may not be aware of the draft guidelines (but is editing about now). If you also think it would be a good idea to notify the parties about the draft guidelines, I would appreciate it if you would be willing to do the notifications.
Involved parties: Have they commented on the draft guidelines?
I think we also need to do an RfC ( Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment on policy and conventions). I'm not sure whether to do that now, or to wait a few days to allow more discussion and development of the guidelines first.
I put a link at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Israel–Palestine, but now I'm thinking maybe that wasn't appropriate, since the naming conventions page is (primarily) about titles of articles, while these guidelines are about use of placenames within articles. However, there may not be a better place, so maybe the link is OK there. (I also put links at WP:ISRAEL, WP:PALESTINE and the workshop talk page.) I'm also wondering what to name the page if the guidelines are put on a separate page, e.g. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Israel–Palestine) or Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Use of placenames or something. And when to move them to a separate page, e.g. just before the RfC, with a {{ Proposed}} template. If you would be willing to take the lead in getting some of these details worked out I would appreciate it. Thanks for all the stuff you've been doing on the case: well done. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 21:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
On the talk page for Abortion, I've just received personal attacks from KillerChihuahua and Jim62sch. Am I not allowed to object to this? Their response was knee-jerk, applying a blanket assumption of bad faith to anyone wanting to include a relevant image. I see from Jim's talk page that he has a habit of being uncivil, but KillerChihuahua is an admin, and so I might expect better of her. Sorry to drag you into this, but well established editors shouldn't behave like this. Fences and windows ( talk) 13:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, do I just copy-edit it (with strike throughs and ... added words in italics)? Or is one meant to repeat a whole section, fixed, in the footnoes? I have comments, too, but a whole bunch of changes that won't change the intended meaning. Tony (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I enjoyed reading this comment, and without looking into the details too much, I think I very probably agree with it, and your next comment in that thread, and the similar comment on CENSEI's talk page. Nevertheless,
Whack!
You have been trouted for: blastiferous drama-mongering at AN/I. Blustering comments from third parties achieve nothing. Keep cool, dude. Nothing personal. -- Noroton ( talk) 19:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 22:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about this, (which you fixed); I was trying to address the redlink and grammatical issues in this series. I guess I must have not only clicked "undo" instead of "edit", but had a large range selected, or edited from the wrong tab; I'm not sure. Thanks for catching the error. Whatever404 ( talk) 00:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Please refrain from moving my response.
The arbitration committee made an announcement on the main discussion page for arbitration issues. I responded to it there. You initially attempted to move it out of context; you then attempted to remove it to another page, not usually used for discussion, which merely repeated the announcement.
I posted my response in the right and proper place, and I think it is very poor form for a clerk to try and use their role to suppress critical commentary of committee decisions. Rebecca ( talk) 01:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Now I know everyone hates a grass, but this guy's behaviour is just getting silly now. You collapsed this long thread - which had descended into some fairly wild and unsubstantiated smears about anti-Semitism, directed against "90-100% of the users who initiated this arbcom case, and who support it" - and warned editors that you would "likely interpret any attempt to continue the conversation to be disruptive to the Arbitration proceeding". Well funily enough, he's just done that with this edit, where he simply more or less repeats the comments and accusations he made earlier, as well as repeating the claim that User:Pedrito - who "initiated" the case, and hence was clearly a target for the accusations - was "whining". Not only is this, as you suggest, disruptive to a page which is probably confused and over-populated as it is, but he has been blocked twice now in recent days for banging on about this and making these repeated personal attacks against editors, who unsurprisingly do respond to rebut the stuff he throws around like this. -- Nickhh ( talk) 16:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, will do. If you get a chance, could you ping on the parties and ask them to take a look at my question on the workshop? Thanks! Kirill [pf] 18:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Re this edit of mine: since someone questioned me about this on my talk page, I thought I would just explain to you my reasons for being repetitive.
On the evidence talk page, MeteorMaker has (if I counted right) eight times misquoted paraphrased Jayjg as saying "distasteful ethnic discrimination" or "ethnic discrimination". Since some people might read only part of the page, I feel it's important to put a note immediately after each of these misquotations, to inform readers that they are inaccurate(12:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)). I included a request not to move the notes, because a similar comment I had made earlier was
moved by MeteorMaker such that it ended up somewhat separated from the comment it's correcting. I tried to keep the notes short. I'm sorry if I overdid them. I defer to your judgement as to what, if anything, needs to be done with them. ☺
Coppertwig (
talk) 23:09, 14 April 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. |
Hi. We've never met. I'm Rlevse and a current arb clerk and saw your thread on Raul654's talk page. I've emailed the current arbs (Raul is a former arb) about this. Since I'm not familiar with you at all, other than seeing your name on WP:AC/C before, I asked the arbs and other clerks about whether you should come back as an official clerk or as a trainee for a brief refresher time as official clerking requires arb approval. Welcome back! — Rlevse • Talk • 23:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
You picked an unfortunate time to return; your reappearance at the same time that the Poetlist sockpuppet brigade has been unmasked has caused a few people on Wikipedia Review to conclude that you are also part of that sockpuppet ring. I hope you don't mind, but I ran a quick checkuser, to be able to refute this allegation if possible. For anyone watching, you are totally Unrelated to those other accounts and editing from an entirely different continent. Sorry to barge in like this, but it seemed best to get this nonsense out of the way as quickly as possible. Happy editing. Thatcher 04:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
In case you're wondering what on earth this is all about: [1] When your name popped up it was a definite wtf? sort of moment. rootology ( C)( T) 04:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Re: this [3], go right ahead. Be my guest. Regarding the issue of Kirker's block, it was a very bad block and I called it as such. If you cynically wish to view me as some kind of puppet for doing so, I guess that's your privilege. If, on the other hand, you choose to actually look into the situation that has aroused my ire so greatly, I'm sure you'll be somewhat more sympathetic. You are also more than welcome to look into my edits to see what kind of user I am. All 2400+ of them. Once again, be my guest. AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 10:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
The edits by 24.207.237.221 follow an existing history that are purposefully have run counter to the guidelines established in WP:TVS -- he refuses to contact or converse with anyone about his edits, and when his edits are reverted, he shifts to a new IP number and begins anew. He is referred to among the members of the WP:TVS project as the "St. Louis Vandal," primarily because many of his edits are tied to St. Louis television stations. Recently, the St. Louis Vandal has been tied to BenH, who has also created an established pattern of abuse. There has been an ongoing discussion over time regarding his abuse on the talk page at WP:TVS. -- Mhking ( talk) 16:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
You requested a UBX for inviting people to improve an article on the IRC. Unfortunately I didn't get the chance to post this there, but I've just created one for you. Use {{User:UBX/improvepage|[[article]]}} to show the following:
I know it's a little bland so feel free to change it and spice it up a bit if you so feel the need :)
Kind regards
— Cyclonenim ( talk · contribs · email) 01:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Dear Tznkai, editor user:Enzuru removes the "Politics of Islam " and "Jurispudence of Islam" from the template of Islam. The view is shaped by User:Enzuru's understanding of Islam and based on his perception of Politics and Jurisputance rather than the factuality. Removing these issues (look at this edit [4]) or moving beyond the visible sight (look at this edit [5]) is a clear violation of POV. these concepts are currently, and correctly, represented by many sub articles in Wikipedia. The editor also accepts that removal of them is a NPOV violation (look at this edit [6]). The editor claims that NPOV tag can stay at the template forever. (look at this edit [7]) The editor claims that he will support only one link to these concepts. The articles regarding "Politics of Islam" and "Jurispudence of Islam" are not single articles (complex issues). They are not created by me. It can not be claimed that they are reflecting my point of view. Besides, there is not a single article regarding "Jurispudence of Islam." This editors activity is a clear violation of NPOV policy. As an administrator, could you guide this user to be more sensitive regarding to the policies of wikipedia. I tried to achieve this but I have problem in understanding why he is linking these major concepts to "Prayer." If he thinks "Prayer" is a major concept, he can add that to the template. I do not see the link between these issues. If he thinks the template is too big, the shape and size can be changed (format of the template). The content has to be true to the concept. Thank You-- TarikAkin ( talk) 02:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you; looks like someone else took action and blocked him [8]. Magidin ( talk) 06:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Do you feel there are any problems associated with leaving Wikipedia for two years, then immediately reassuming your role as clerk upon your return? I personally have some concerns about it—at the very least, shouldn't there be a readjustment phase, catching up on everything that's happened in the last two years and how things may have changed in ways relevant to arbitration? Everyking ( talk) 06:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I would add that those who are used to seeing the usual suspects clerking cases may be confused when they see a new name suddenly pop up clerking. 30 months is an awfully long time on Wikipedia. As I said on AN, some degree of easing your way back in first would be good. Things do change, and you weren't around for the discussions involving Sceptre's block. Please don't take this the wrong way. Just consider that those who weren't around when you were editing two years ago will take a while to adjust to someone returning like this. Carcharoth ( talk) 17:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
The vandal I reported is everything else but a confused newbie. Please check this guy and his vast list of suspected socks and you will see how all the edits are similar. Actually this is the fifth or so time an IP in that range has been spamming my talk page with some Tanoli tribe nonsense. De728631 ( talk) 16:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Welcome back! My goodness, Tzn, I didn't think I'd ever see you again. This is good news. :-) KillerChihuahua ?!? 19:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
In the interests of disengaging, I'm not going to respond further, I'll let others decide what, if anything, needs done. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 22:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
You gots it? My spousal unit is looking neglected. KillerChihuahua ?!? 00:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
At your service. T0mpr1c3 ( talk) 01:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC) The edit was not exactly a revert - Books commented out my version, can you see the new "< !-- ... -- >".
Thanks & goodnight. T0mpr1c3 ( talk) 01:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Just FYI - if you're going to walk into the bear pit of the Palin articles, here is a rundown of the current memes. Yes, I know it's just a blog and not an RS, but it's a first introduction of some of the stuff that's been circulating, and has some useful links to real reliable sources. At some point or another, I have seen every single one of these memes pushed at the Palin articles. Thanks so much for stepping up. With respect, and best wishes - Kelly hi! 01:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
At AN, you said of Cenarium's post: A few of the cited edits are minor proofing edits, and while probably not a good idea, also not a big deal. Not so. Only one was a proofing effort, and it was a bad one which moved the article from being inside the guidelines to being outside them. While drama reduction is good, best ensure one does not attempt it at the expense of the facts, especially as an admin commenting on admin actions. 86.44.28.222 ( talk) 20:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer to have a look at this page. I've summarised the issue in the discussion section, below your comment, in as few lines as possible. I think the issue was an over-zealous admin lockdown of the page associated with reverting to a version preceding the creation of a section about Doug Bollen, which had not been controversial and which seemed to have reasonable agreement in the discussion section. Lotaresco ( talk) 17:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I think your suggestions are reasonable. For my part, I'm happy to do other stuff, as I find the editing environment there currently untenable. I don't really have enough investment in the page to make mediation worthwhile; I got involved because I saw repeated and egregious violations of 3RR justified with BLP, and my involvement was focused on pointing out that a BLP exemption to edit-warring did not apply in this case. I regret being sucked in further than that, but when the attempted resolution met with aggressive posturing, I felt that a 3RR report was justified. I've already been on self-imposed 1RR at most on the page, and I think I'll limit my talk-page involvement to further discussion of the Washington Times article, if that. I don't feel strongly enough about the matter to deal with editors who are convinced they're at war, and some of the behavioral issues are bothering me to the point that I'm not sure I can edit effectively there. I do hope you find a solution to the ongoing edit-warring, and I'll keep an eye out; if the atmosphere becomes more tolerable, I'll probably resume editing, though again under self-imposed 1RR. Good luck. MastCell Talk 17:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello Tznkai. Can I give a character reference for a couple of people involved in this debate? I've only superficially looked at any new data, and it is certainly possible that people who've behaved well in the past could really be socks. I've interacted with AlasdairGreen27 on some sockpuppet cases, and his contribs were made in good faith, though I didn't always agree with his deductions. Rjecina has been involved in many controversies, and admits his limited knowledge of English. He's always seemed to me well-intentioned, though anyone can get carried away in the heat of a debate.
An additional quirk is that many of these editors have had sockpuppet cases filed against them in the past, or have filed cases themselves, and they by now are very familiar with the SSP and RFCU machinery, as well as ANI. The case that Rjecina has just filed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Brzica milos etc seems to me sweeping and excessive, though Velebit is a true sockpuppetteer dealt with long ago. Enter this realm only if you are willing to be very patient :-). EdJohnston ( talk) 17:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Have a good night free of stalking sockpuppets! -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 04:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
... so here it is:
And that is only today/
— ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
[14] — Rlevse • Talk • 02:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the acknowledgment on my talk page.
You might look at this if you have time- need all the input possible (: —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
... would be best to leave semi-prot as per other US elections related articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi there Tznkai. Since you have commented on a recent case, could you please have your say here? Thanks. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 05:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I just made this comment on the Parapsychology talk page, and inserted it beneath my original comments, not at the bottom. As an apology it needed to be placed closer to my offending comments, I believe. I wanted to be sure that you saw my apology.
Can you please indicate to me where the decision was made to revert the indefinite ban? Never mind -- found it
here. Redelete on its way. Thanks! -
CobaltBlueTony™
talk 15:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I've created a template shortening the work for you, it is the same thing as used on your userpage, converted to template form. Cheers. — Sunday Scribe 00:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder this morning. Guettarda ( talk) 02:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
and thanks for a different reason. [15] -- Abd ( talk) 18:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Look at the history. I didn't want to put a time limit on the semiprotect because that also limits the moveprotect. Feel free to remove the semi whenever you want. NawlinWiki ( talk) 23:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
This seemed like a fairly clear-cut case of edit warring to me, and I did block him; however, I suppose I should have been more descriptive with my edit summary. I'll try harder on that in the future, thanks for the note. Glass Cobra 15:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps locking it is best, I have no desire to get into an edit war, however with 4 or 5 editors involved it might turn into one anyway. Let's hope this forces everyone to actually use the talk page and obtain some consensus. Sorry if I made your job a little harder. Sennen goroshi ( talk) 18:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
let me see if I can say this correctly without putting my foot in it.
I assume your comment was directed towards me regarding abuse of process. If it wasn't then I have put my foot in it, and please accept my apologies.
If it was directed towards me then I don't really understand. By the time I had edited that article for first time in my wikipedia history, the user in question had already made six reverts. She had already been warned for 3RR on that article by another user - she was well aware of 3RR. I'm sorry but I don't see it being my responsibility to warn a user who has already made six reverts, as they have already gone way over the threshold - if I was an ass, and goaded someone into making their 4th revert, then jumped straight to making a 3RR report, then yeah, I would agree with you.
I don't see her edits being within the exceptions to the 3RR rule, maybe 1 or 2 were borderline, but it certainly the vast majority were content disputes and in my inexperienced opinion, well within what the 3RR is there to prevent.
But then again, I may have totally misunderstood what you were trying to say, either way for my own curiosity I would love it if you could indulge me and clarify this. thanks Sennen goroshi ( talk) 18:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, what you put on my talk page made sense. I think it is hard to count reverts, especially when they are different reverts on the same article and you are working on several closely related articles. It would be nice if the 3RR rule require a specific warning relating to the article you are about to/have just made a 4th revert on, before a 3RR report could be made. thanks Sennen goroshi ( talk) 18:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
(old stuff deleted and now new question)
Is it important to put in my complaint against Kelly her incivility and Kelly's insistence that her own research trump all published sources? Or should I just put in her reversions? (34 over 3 days and I honestly don't know how many of them fit the technical defintion of "reversion") GreekParadise ( talk) 04:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I have decided - on Doug's good advice -- not to file a complaint against Kelly and to start anew. But I am curious. Can you file a report on someone in general for incivility? Or for insisting that own research trumps published sources? Or just 3RR? You may respond on my talk page if you like and delete this. GreekParadise ( talk) 04:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Read American and British English differences#Formal and notional agreement for why "the committee acknowledge" is acceptable (as well as being the wording used by the committee). DuncanHill ( talk) 01:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Since Kelly alleges that you're not a neutral admin in this situation, I've asked for someone to look into it at WP:AN. Cla68 ( talk) 03:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Tznkai, I think consensus at ANI has turned against the block. Would you please unblock Kelly?-- chaser - t 04:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
Bstone ( talk) 04:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be a good idea to refrain from getting involved in these kind of matters so soon after your return. It is only natural that you'd need an adjustment period to familiarize yourself with how the community functions at this point. With regards to admin matters, I'd suggest sitting back and observing for a while. Everyking ( talk) 08:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Block is ok, IMHO. People should remain civil at all times. (I'm open to anyone explaining to me why the block would be wrong?) -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 21:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, yeah... I'm pretty busy, but still casually active. Thanks for noticing! David Bergan ( talk) 21:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
On the Abortion debate talk, I've proposed removing the "Church And State" section. As a contributor to the article before, I'd like for you to weigh in on the article talk page. Thanks. Paranormal Skeptic ( talk) 15:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Tznkai, in response to your comments:
Allow me to respond:
Please don't lecture and threaten. It's tedious and annoying. If you can offer suggestions that will improve the article or encourage dialogue then do so. This pointless diatribe is exactly the kind of frustrating, non-productive banter I was referring to in my comments which Dave Souza removed. - DannyMuse ( talk) 01:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
For the sake of historical editing history, I am including this additional comment on your post from Jim62sch:
Hi Tznkai. I just noticed this mess. I just skimmed it, but let me get this straight - the block was undone because you aren't considered "uninvolved" re:FM? Granted, it was a couple years ago, but if my memory serves me, you disagreed with FM more than you agreed with him on the ID pages. I mean, not serious angry clashes, but fundamental enough differences. Or have I confused things? Guettarda ( talk) 06:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
This place has gone beyond crazy. As I recall, clashing with someone because you called them out on their misbehaviour wasn't considered "involvement". Guettarda ( talk) 06:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Ay, reaching for my {{ npov}} and {{ OR}} tags for that version of the origin of the ID cabal meme and how it relates to civility on Wikipedia. Now, a balanced version might also account for how scores of hardworking FAC and FAR editors saw some distinct unpleasantness on a widely followed talk page and formed their own opinions, without ever going anywhere near WikiReview. But yes, the community is terribly fractured, not only because of admin abuse, but also because of IRC abuse (and other backchannel and off-Wiki cabalish forms of communication) and a failing and partisan ArbCom. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
There is a related discussion taking place here-- Domer48 'fenian' 13:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Alert on WP:NOR. I just restored it, but don't have time for a lot of arguing. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I know that the topic probably has you tensed up, and you're probably reading ahead, waiting for the first inective so here it is.... F@*$ing well done. No joke. I've spent the best part of a year trying to get everyone to behave.. the fighting is pretty much non-stop (and the guy who asked me to look in on it has now left WP for good apparently. I didn't comment more then the base because well, at this point I was in so deep that you probably didn't want people who hadn't stepped knee deep into the muck trying to clean it out (Alison and I both qualify under that category). If you ever want background, or want to know my thoughts on working with various editors, please don't hesitate to contact me here, via email or (when I'm on it), IRC. SirFozzie ( talk) 04:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I have already made the comments on the board mentioned, apologies however i have only just noticed your comments to bring any further advice on the editors conducts be brought to your talk page; as follows:
Tznkai i think you have been very fair with a very difficult situation administering everyone here. Further to user Ryan Postlethwaite comments regarding the edit warring of user Sarah777 , I would also like to add that this user (Sarah777]] is less than civil on the talk pages with this shocking statement comparing British people to Nazi`s here [16] and a futher more worrying comment here [17] which was commented on by a admin as being racist here [18] -- Rockybiggs ( talk) 09:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
What edit warring? Traditional unionist ( talk) 14:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I believe I'm entitled to be shown the diffs for the "edit warring" you refer to? Please show them. Sarah777 ( talk) 08:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Tznkai; i believe this editor Highking should be considered for possible probation, as this user has a very long history of being involved in the `troubles` articles as well as removing the British isles from Wikipedia.-- Rockybiggs ( talk) 16:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Tznkai. Your last edit on Sarah777's talk page was to say "I will reexamine the issue after I have responded to the other editors sanctioned". Can I ask how you're progressing with that as I think it's important that the issue is re-examined, and quickly. If it's going to take some time, I recommend that we use an innocent until proven guilty approach and lift the probation unless and until we're certain it's necessary and justifiable. I'm minded to lift it myself but don't wish to start a wheel-war. If in doubt, perhaps a discussion at WP:AN would be a good idea to see what the wider admin community thinks. Cheers, Waggers ( talk) 10:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Email en route. Risker ( talk) 20:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
...always wind up at ANI, so I've brought this one there myself: [19]. Just to let you know. Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 23:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
...but it's becoming pretty apparent that you're out of touch with how blocks work on Wikipedia nowadays. Maybe you should ease yourself back in - how long has it been since you wrote a quality article for Wikipedia? Kelly hi! 23:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Tznkai, in light of your long absence and controversial record since your return, have you considered standing for RfA again, or opening yourself to recall? I feel that your administrative conduct has been unwise, and I also feel that an active administrator ought to contribute to articles at least occasionally. Everyking ( talk) 00:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Tznkai: You're doing a good job. I prefer different methods these days, but your approach has results, and is not particularly wrong. Of course, by being forceful, you're also going to be questioned.
Do keep checking to make sure you're not making any errors, and do engage with others and explain what you are doing.
(Also, I'd love to convert you to the light side of course, but that's a different story :-) )
-- Kim Bruning ( talk) 15:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ubgatsby, interesting. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I liked the policy link you provided to no-no... Gave me my laugh for the day. Paranormal Skeptic ( talk) 17:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Tznkai I have tried but Thunderer just comes out with the same tired accusations every time I edit and if you look at the history you will see that every edit I have made has been reverted by him. What am I supposed to do consensus was reached on the talk page yet content is still not in the article. Could you please give me some advice on how to proceed here because I really don't know if it is possible to work with a WP:SPA who doesn't WP:AGF with any edits I make. BigDunc Talk 21:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Intelligent design has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your contribution to the discussion here. I was recently part of an AE case and was subject to the remedies outline here a WP:1RR on all Troubles Articles, applyed to all Editors of those Articles. This was amended as you will have noticed by an additional amendment at AE here. Now since then I do not believe that I have breeched sanctions. I been extremely polite, civil, and have been in no way disruptive. With this is mind, could you possibly point to me:
I think it only right and proper, and in the intrest fairness, that to defend myself I should first know what it is I’m supposed to have done, do you not agree? There is not much of a talk page to go through, and my edits were very limited. Thanks in advance, -- Domer48 'fenian' 20:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Linked discussion here. -- Domer48 'fenian' 13:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I haven't attempted to, nor do I attempt to impose anything. I have been engaging in discussion and making proposals: more than you or anyone else has done to attempt to address the problem. You have a better idea, go right ahead, thats part of the wiki way.-- Tznkai ( talk) 11:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Tznkai could you have a word with this editor. Is he supposed to be neutral if he is too become a mentor for The Thunderer with comments like this he is staring off on an antagonistic vein and I will not stand for accusations about tag team partners any longer. As this was a cry of the Thunderer and now his mentor is echoing these cries. Thanks. BigDunc Talk 15:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I have to disagree with you on that last one. It is a well known fact that throwing child sex accusations into the face of homosexuals is a homophobic slur. That editor's consistent reduction of age-structured homosexuality (a phenomenon that ranges from legal to illegal, and from sexual to chaste) to child buggering is an attack on a legitimate homosexual practice. Having said that, what is your suggestion regarding dealing with an editor who gives proof of racism, chauvinism, or homophobia in his edits? Haiduc ( talk) 21:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
See discussion at Talk:Flag of the Republic of Ireland. Wonder if we're going to have to step in there, generally. SirFozzie ( talk) 18:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
The solutions to both problems, vandalism and stupidity, is very often the same. Treating them differently could lead to one becoming the other. Traditional unionist ( talk) 20:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
[20] and [21]. The amount of abuse this editor is willing to hurl at me, not to mention other editors, is seemingly limitless. I don't really know how to begin to address this. Nandesuka ( talk) 05:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello Tznkai. As I feared, the discussion at AE over this editor was eventually archived without resolution. It appears you may be busy, which I understand because I am also at the moment, but did you ever make any progress on your proposed solution? I ask, because whether on purpose or by accident, Vk has not got himself involved in another article on a geo-political conflict that would, by the original intent of the restrictions, have been off-limits. See Talk:ETA#Revisit terrorist discussion.
While I actually agree with his take on the subject, his comments on that page illustrate perfectly why those sort of articles should be off-limits to him indefinitely. He is aggressive, confrontational, rude and immediately personalizes the issue by accusing others of bad faith editing. This is exactly what we don't need when discussing contentious subjects, and this is why it was roundly agreed that Vk could continue to edit only if he avoided these subjects. I was going to inform Vk that this page was off-limits to him per his conditions. However that would simply cause more diversionary bleating about bias. Therefore would you mind having a look and addressing this however best you see fit (I have pointed a few other admins towards this also). Thanks. Rockpocke t 19:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Would you please consider refactoring your set-up of the Obama race discussion, [22] and not being such an aggressive traffic cop in favor of your set-up? [23] [24] I'm afraid that when you close an AN/I thread to restart a perennial discussion with the accusation that other editors have engaged in "ridiculous behavior" you are blurring the line between administrative work and content editing, and doing yourself exactly what editors are not supposed to be doing on the Obama talk page: accusing other editors of bad behavior. It may be unwise to begin with to star the discussion with a threat that it should not be archived. The RfC process is possibly better suited. But in any event, the bolded statement that other editors engaged in "ridiculous behavior" will probably act against consensus and goodwill. Thanks, Wikidemon ( talk) 19:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Your statement was well over 400 words, and I've removed it pending trimming.-- Tznkai ( talk) 01:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
"Since the full circumstances of the de-sysopped user were disclosed to the AC in confidence, the only appropriate way for this user to regain the tools is to convince the AC – the only group of users with full knowledge of the situation – that the circumstances have changed such that we have confidence in his ability to handle adminship without problems." - Morven, on WP:RFAR, 23:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC), seconded by Kirill.
The Arbcom have very conscously put me in a situation where only a full discussion of my personal problems can prevent them from abusing their "secret knowledge" about me. I shall refrain from saying what I think of them for that trick. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 14:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
This is directly contradicted by the quotes that I provided at the bottom of the page. He clearly took the section out of context, and is trying to say 100% opposite of the source. This needs to stop. He needs to be banned from these pages. Ottava Rima ( talk) 16:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, we edit-conflicted. I don't think this is a controversial block - can you suggest why it isn't a simple violation of the arbitration? Black Kite 19:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Please don't remove it from the page until they answer my question about AfDs. Everyking ( talk) 18:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you blocked User:Googlean and User:Avinesh. So shouldn't the related SSP case also be closed? -- vi5in [talk] 16:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Oh, ok! Thanks! -- vi5in [talk] 20:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
In case you hadn't seen it, Haiduc stopped by the noticeboard. Grsz 11 →Review! 02:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not claiming you're wrong, but revert-and-protect always looks bad. You might want to reconsider. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL TALK 22:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Please undo your protection immediately. Not only were you in an edit war on that page, you reverted the other warrer (with rollback no less) immediately before protecting, thus violating protection policy. There's no reason to keep hiding that thread pretending it never happened. Please undo and leave it be. – How do you turn this on ( talk) 22:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
(Originally a response to How do you turn this thing on)
Not all edit wars were created equal - In this case, there is blatant drama mongering. The standard course of action would be to block Giano, but since I am trying to control the forest fire and reduce drama, I obviously am not going to do that. I am not enforcing a content position, I am stamping down on disruptive editing. Giano can, and has taken the issue up on Jimbo's page, RfAr and a number of individual talk pages, none of which I particularly care to do anything about, as those are logical places to take up the argument.
And no, there wasn't harm for a while. The previous Scott v. Secret argument was shut up after I shut the thread down the first time, Giano brought it back up, but the argument had essentially stopped, so no big deal. Giano's last entry however, was inflammatory, and as I have stated, drama mongering. That takes the thread out of useful/harmless to disruptive, thus the action.-- Tznkai ( talk) 23:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Tznkai , I believe I may have made a mistake yesterday, when I suggested that Thunderer be unblocked. I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. However today, despite our unblock requests and their undertaking, they have gone and reverted five times on the USC Article, [25], [26], [27], [28] and [29]. Now I gave a very detailed rational on the talk page here so there is no reason to be consistently reverting me. Could you please ask them to stop now, because its getting ridiculous. Now Jehochman suggest I contact you or WP:AE, I came here hoping for less drama, thanks -- Domer48 'fenian' 21:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
When you drop a link into a block log [30], could you please use a permanent link? I am trying to check this out, and man, I've got to search the ANI archives. Jehochman Talk 10:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your note to the participants in the UDR mediation. They managed to get many people involved in their squabbles. You hit on concerns that the mediators have been trying to get across, such as the need each to be responsible for his own behaviour and not that of others. Hopefully your words will sink in. Things are quiet for the moment and I hope that, if and when they return to the mediation, they will mediate seriously and in good faith. Sunray ( talk) 00:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. Anything to smooth the process. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. I was linking from somewhere to this comment, and I was trying to find out whether it had been archived on the Cold fusion case pages. I've been looking but can't find the clerk notes there. I notice some cases have clerk notes, but some don't. Do you know what the usual practice is with regards to archiving clerk notes or not? Carcharoth ( talk) 17:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Hiya Tznkai. Forgive my naivety, but why is there always a 'high drama' around blocking/unblocking Giano? I've no problem with G personally; but I'm perplexed with the 'stay away from him' aura. GoodDay ( talk) 22:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Please do not contact me on my talk page regarding RfArb/Cold fusion. I would like to receive no notification of any decisions at that location. All further communication regarding this case should be done over e-mail. I will no longer be discussing anything related to the arbitration above board on Wikipedia.
Thank you.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 00:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Tznkai - I don't think that removing the RfC on date linking was the best option. A lot of editors have made useful comments there without any personal attacks, and I don't think those contributions should be lost. If any action is necessary to stop incivility, I think it would be better to target it at the editors and not the discussion (or if at the discussion, in a way that it can continue). I agree that there is little to be gained from the discussion other than peace and quiet, but that peace and quiet is badly needed given the number of separate arguments going on over this ( AN/I AN/EW1, An/EW2 AN/EW3 AN/EW4, User_talk:Tennis Expert, Master of Puppets, Colonies Chris, Tony1, HJensen, Ohconfucius Rambling Man on Tour...) - if that isn't evidence that this needs sorting I don't know what is. Unfortunately, I can't see anything other than an RfC on this matter being accepted as a binding expression of community consensus either. As painful as it is, I think there's more to be gained by doing everything necessary to get the RfC through to some final decision. Best, Knepflerle ( talk) 19:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I think it is inappropriate to delete the RfC discussion. If you think that it is unproductive, then archive it. If you think there are incivil actions or comments, revert or refactor those individual trangressions. DOUBLEBLUE ( talk) 19:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
You may not be aware of it (though since you blanked it, maybe you are) but an RFC was already being worked on when Tony decided to hijack it. That RFC, which has yet to go live, is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date Linking RFC. And I agree, the discussion is an utter waste of time, but those pushing this change are doing so by automated and semi-automated means (basically forcing it on the rest of us). To be absolutely clear, the language at the subpage RFC was worked on by multiple editors and had mostly come to agreement. The language in Tony's RFC at WT:MOSNUM was created entirely by Tony with no input from other editors. Attempts to balance the RFC with additional information has been reacted to aggressively by Tony and his supporters (the "big green box" fiasco; and for what it's worth, the big green box was my addition, an attempt to address concerns that the questions/topics were being changed by showing that the messages were clearly separate from the original wording). At any rate, you're brave to have set foot in there. :P — Locke Cole • t • c 21:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Bad idea blanking the RfC, exactly what I would expect a totally clueless admin to do. Now I have no idea if Tznkai fits that description, as I don't know what else he does on Wikipedia. I hope this was a one-time mistake, not to be repeated.-- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 20:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if I threw a wrench into your attempt to clerk the AE page. I wasn't sure what "comments after reblocking" was intended to address, since no reblock had been made, and comments were being put into another section about the proposed reblock... Avruch T 21:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
This article is a hoax. Not sure what the procedure is though.-- Vintagekits ( talk) 13:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Tznkai could you have a look at the USC article Thunderer has come back from his 3RR block and has started reverting again. And leaving edit summaries like remove POV opinionated rubbish from the Republican cabal. He has inserted images that I removed as they were fair use violations. I don't want to remove them again as this will lead to an edit war thanks. BigDunc Talk 17:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Tznkai I just wanted to update you on a possible problem here. If you would prefare I go to AE I will totally understand, as this is going to get seriously out of hand, with three "new" editors. To avoide any problems for myself I'd welcome any advice and suggestions, and would have no problem with my edits being monitored. Is there no way that the mediation could be re formatted and put back on the rails? -- Domer48 'fenian' 09:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Tznkai,
I just posted evidence on the Cold Fusion case. I understand that you have to cut things down. I have presented evidence which goes well over the word count, though not the diff count. I ask that you leave it. I believe that the limits exist so that people will be succinct, while still having enough space. But that is for the average party to an Arbitration Committee case. However, ScienceApologist is not an average party. There is much, much more evidence concerning him. I believe that the sections are succinct, and all of them are relevant (several were already cut). Also, the quotations will make it easier for the arbitrators, because often the relevant quotes are hard to find in the diffs. Durga's Trident ( talk) 01:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Indef blocking for talk page rants (both user and article) is I think excessive. Andries ( talk) 13:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Hiya Tznkai. Is the Giano blocked or unblocked? GoodDay ( talk) 00:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
You wrote: Perhaps I was too subtle: this entire situation could have been avoided with an unblock message and summary that didn't attract drama and bring up unnecessary issues.--Tznkai (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Should that be interpreted to mean that your primary dispute with WJBscribe's action was the unblock summary he used? I have a hard time believing that is your major problem with the action, but your comment certainly does leave that impression. Given that Will discussed the issue with Deskana, Deskana acknowledged that his action was taken without the required approval and then declined to reverse it himself... It seems to me that Will took the best action, an action that to my mind is superior than posting his concerns and waiting for a consensus develop over a period of hours or days. If he had done that, I feel sure that the situation would have escalated far more than it has at this point - to another arbitration case, perhaps censure of Deskana, etc. Avruch T 02:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I see you chose to delete part of a conversation, but left the offending false statement in place that started it. Any particular reason? I have no objection to deleting it, but ask that you not take sides and that you be thorough. It is also normal practice to leave a note and diff in place. -- Fyslee ( talk) 14:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/141.154.12.190 <--- User:Moulton. rootology ( C)( T) 23:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Reply for you at my talk page. (Feel free to delist this message once read.) AGK 18:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Tznkai, I come here to ask you a favor. Since you're an ArbCom clerk, could you relocate a discussion under Ryan Postlethwaite's comment on this vote page just like others discussions on other voter pages were moved to their talk pages. Thanks.-- Caspian blue 20:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay, but I don't visit Wikipedia very often and I'm not really interested in talking much more about the arbcom elections. I've pretty much made what I think clear and I'm just not going to change my mind about it. Grace Note ( talk) 23:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
[32] rootology ( C)( T) 02:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
This looks like a job for WP:SHUN, in my humble estimation. MastCell Talk 05:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I intend to edit this article again as the mediation has ended due to The Thunderer refusing to take part. Nowhere does it state here that I can't, but I wanted to run it past you first for your opinion. BigDunc Talk 17:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
The vote pages/talk page have not been vandalised, more an unperson of your making made some edits. Please provide more accurate protection summaries next time, and read up on what WP:VANDALISM is, since you appear to misunderstand what it is. Majorly talk 19:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Can you unlock my questions page? Voters deserve to ask questions about me (and I would like to answer without using admin functions). Cool Hand Luke 23:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Could you unprotect my questions page as well, please? I know it is "only" semi-protection, but I want even the newest editors to be able to ask questions, even if they don't have suffrage in the elections. If at some future point you feel, as a clerk (are there any official election clerks? I've only seen unofficial ones), that semi-protection is needed again, could you place a notice directing non- autoconfirmed accounts people to a place where they can ask questions if they find they can't edit my questions page? Carcharoth ( talk) 21:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
stop please. You're indenting wrong, you need to use a #:, not a :. The latter messes up the numbering. ST47 ( talk) 03:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Tznkai, I know you blocked within the terms of PD's 'conditions', but I wonder what harm might come of Peter Damian contributing to mainspace - so I've lodged a request at RFAR to see if we can get ArbCOM sanction to do that. (not sure if I should list you as involved party, the action is not about your block, but potential future blocks for the same thing - please advice) Regards -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 21:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for checking over my withdraw forms, eh? Wily D 15:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I've responded here. My remarks are necessarily brief. If you are searching for more, you might let your own note to the three participants on each of their talk pages be your guide. You have shown exceptional diligence in dealing with this matter. Many thanks. Sunray ( talk) 22:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, could you remove the threaded comments from the Scientology RFAR please? Another editor left a slanted question beneath my opening request. I replied at his/her talk and asked him/her to remove it, per RFAR convention. But the other editor hasn't complied. Best wishes, Durova Charge! 02:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Jumped the gun on the implementation note. :-) 5 votes for several proposals that you marked as passing. FloNight ♥♥♥ 15:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Tznkai - was the issue with the possibly compromised account resolved when Daniel archived it as having passed? [33] Avruch T 17:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Good heavens, is that party still going on? It must be the mother of all festivities. Don't you ever sleep? Bishonen | talk 15:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC).
Re this. I actually reread a lot of this stuff, since I genuinely do like both of them, but damn... nothing else will work but a forcefield at this point. rootology ( C)( T) 19:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Should this be noted on the cold fusion page? I was going to do it but thought it might not be my place. All the best, Verbal chat 22:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Was this [34] a typo? :) Sticky Parkin 20:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Tznkai, you are awfully prickly at the moment - I'm frustrated with the length of time the RFAR took in general, not by you not stepping to attention the minute a motion passes. So I'm sorry if you thought it was a dig. Peace. -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 21:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Permanent is sharp-P-complete you say it's probably a copyright violation. Can't you explain that by pointing out a book or a web page or the like that you think it's copied from? Why would you make such an accusation without doing that? Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Want to try to figure out how to get this implemented? Let me know... ++ Lar: t/ c 17:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I note your block notice on Abtract's page - but cannot see a block logged at
WP:RfAR/Abtract-Collectonion#Log of blocks, etc. If this is a different ArbCom involving Abtract (I am aware of one) and you have already logged the incident I apologise for querying the matter, although I would suggest that a link to it on Abtract's page might help a reviewer of any unblock request. Cheers.
LessHeard vanU (
talk) 22:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)... or I could look in your contrib history and see the Haines ArbCom discussion (but since Abtract has more than one ArbCom under his belt it may still be worthwhile noting the context on his notice).
LessHeard vanU (
talk) 22:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
As requested, my corn chowder recipe (approximately, I honestly make it up as I go once I buy the ingredients, and its pretty hard to screw up). Warning, it's a pretty rich meal:
I think that's all I basically do, but I usually end up pitching a bunch of other stuff in there depending on my mood, like a bay leaf or two, or maybe some tabasco, or whatever weird thing strikes my fancy. A finely diced stalk of celery is good sometimes, too, for texture. My whole thing though is to super-finely dice up the veggies, so the focus is the broth, salt pork, and corn, with the rest for flavor and texture only--if you look at the photo, you can hardly tell what veggies are in there! It's not the, er, healthiest of meals, but it hits the spot on a cold day. :) rootology ( C)( T) 19:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Tznkai - I notice you commented on the review board - it's customary here at wikipedia to sign talk page posts with 4 tildes ~~~~. PS I have a great recipe for chicken breast with olives, cream and white wine with pasta if you're interested. :-) -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 21:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; I will look forward to working with you in the year to come.
Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2009. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of
Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement.
Best,
Risker (
talk) 04:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Tznkai - thanks for your kind message on my talk page. Happy New Year to you, and let me take this opportunity to apologize for my part in our disagreements last year. With respect - Kelly hi! 08:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Dear Tznkai,
Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.
Kind regards,
Majorly talk 21:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I got your email. I voluntarily requested the removal of my administrative tools a couple months ago, because I realized I was spending too much time in working on disputes and not enough time on content. At the present time, I'm not interested in taking on additional tasks related to handling disputes, so I am definitely not interested. GRBerry 14:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
See RFAR and new post at Clerk board. Then archive some of your talk page.;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 16:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! That page was getting annoying! Hopefully the editor will get the hint this time!-- Sallicio 19:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to create an article about this group - www.thecommune.wordpress.com - who emerged from a split in the Alliance for Workers' Liberty. The AWL article references them and has a red link to the group.
So I wanted to create a piece here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Commune
But after repeated deletions it is not possible. The group, also called the International Communist Group, has been referenced in other left-wing media, e.g the Weekly Worker (www.cpgb.org.uk) and has produced its own newspaper and held several meetings.
So I wondered how to unblock this 19:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I've added a response to your question on journalist notability here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Journalism#Notability_guidelines 19:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
19:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
This user has 2 edits in December 2007 prior to the contributions on the evidence page of the Fringe science ArbCom case. The wording ("pro-science" right wing) and style is very similar ot that of MaxPont on the evidence and workshop page ("pro-industrial" right wing); it looks like the evidence of User:Durga's Trident at the cold fusion case. I wonder whether you or one of the two clerks assigned to the case could check whether the two users are connected in any way (sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry). (I am asking you because you came to my talk page to request a change in my evidence, which I made although you don't seem to have noticed.) Mathsci ( talk) 14:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
This is PhysicsEng, and I can assure you that I only use one account, this one, when posting anything on Wikipedia. It is the only acct I have ever created on Wikipedia. I have no idea who Durga is, or any of the other users mentioned above...
And yes, I probably did make some edits way back in Dec.07... since ScienceApologist was clearly in the wrong and violating numerous standards, and yet, he seemed to get away with it just because he was an editor, and even threatened that he 'had friends in high places', and would get you banned if he wanted... meaning that he knew some sysadmins or something. Why do you think its been so long (Dec'07) since I've taken valuable time to contribute anything??? Because I was so frustrated with the havoc caused by SA, and the fact that the CF page was reverted back to the 2004(?) version. What a friggin' travesty. I AM one of the uninvolved, but SELF-INFORMED, persons who HAS read many of the papers on CF, and how a miscreant like SA can push his editorial weight around when he hasn't even read any of the latest papers is beyond me. So much has taken place since 2004, that the CF page has still got a long way to go to be current... Fortunately, I see that there is now an Arbitration case against SA, and I hope this guy is banned forever. The damage he has done by driving good people away from Wikipedia, far outweighs what editorial contributions he's made. It's about time that some one of higher authority seriously investigate this guy... PhysicsEng ( talk) 03:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I have nothing to do with this. —— Martinphi Ψ~ Φ—— 06:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Tznkai - regarding ban of Pcarbonn notice posted by you: "Tznkai (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC) on behalf of the Arbitration Committee."
I am writing a news story on the ban of Pcarbonn. Can you please explain/show me the reason for the ban? StevenBKrivit ( talk) 00:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
ArbCom clerks vandalising? What next? Sceptre ( talk) 06:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for this. I apologize for my part in it. -- InkSplotch ( talk) 13:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Would you mind if I de-indent your comment? It pretty much cuts to the heart of the matter. If it was in continuation of the thread and so directed at me, then I must confess that I have not assessed the RfC, my comments merely reflect implementation in case of a consensus for usage. ˉˉ anetode ╦╩ 17:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if you can help. As someone involved in the topic bans on User:Vintagekits I was wondering if you could shed some interpretations on something. User:Vintagekits has recently opened this Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_7#Category:Northern_Irish_people to change it to People from Northern Ireland under the grounds of Northern Irish not being a valid demonyn. Now I'm not interested in a debate on the right or wrong of the claims, but I'm just unsure as to the interpretation of the topic bans and whether this would constitute something that falls within the prohibited topics for this user. I'm uncertain about the geo-political dispute bit, as it could be interpreted by some that it may come under that is, by their own admission, very Irish-Republican and anti-Northern Ireland.
I'm uncertain about any interpretation, but feel the query may come up at some point in the discussion, so wanted to head any uncertainties off at the pass. So thanks for your time. Canterbury Tail talk 02:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, blocking is boring. I think I have a better idea [35]. Cheers. M0RD00R ( talk) 00:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The only reason the warnings were removed is that they are from Angelo De La Paz. If you gave me the warning, I would have never removed it, but I do not need any warnings from a person who insulted me six times [36] [37] [38] and openly expressed his Albanian extremist opinions on very delicate topics [39] [40]. When I answered on his insults one of the administrators used it as a main argument to block me. My duty was to answer you for the injustice. -- Forsena ( talk) 19:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
That looks really bad. Further division between admins and proles is not going to help the situation. DuncanHill ( talk) 22:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
The majority of the people commenting are admins, is the protection going to do any good? – xeno ( talk) 22:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how the protection will do anything. Most of the people commenting are administrators anyways, so discussion won't really stop. Secret account 22:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Ahh I see, it was a subpage you were forming. My apologizes. Secret account 22:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
"Phew"! Thank you for that! Pedro : Chat 22:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Whoops :) Thanks for fixing that. seicer | talk | contribs 05:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry you didn't like it, especially since my inspiration came from your block of Martinphi. Bishonen | talk 01:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC).
I understand why someone might feel I am a previous editor, given that I show knowledge of wikipedias inner workings. I have been 'lurking' for quite some time but have only just now felt imformed enough to comment. I would never call myself an editor simply because I do not edit. I understand the benifits to having a log in name and have contemplated it. I'm just someone who watches... and sometimes questions if I feel there is something that should be said. 198.161.173.180 ( talk) 19:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
In agreeing with Shoemaker's Holiday (I doubt he expected my name to go so early there - so much for factionalism), I said "The fraction of the community that is upset about Giano's behavior is also a significant cause of the behavior that is complained about, and this mess will only go away if both sides change their behavior." You agreed with Shoemaker's Holiday but quibble with that comment of mine. The primary thrust of what I was mentioning was the administrative noticeboard culture. See also my endorsement of Sam Blacketer's view.
Those who are upset with Giano are largely denizens of the administrative noticeboards. (Those who don't read them are largely unaware of Giano.) Unfortunately, I keep seeing more and more evidence that to get anything done using the noticeboard, one must create drama there. (At least one Wikipedia Review commentator has described our goverment structure as a Drama-cracy (though I think they spelled it differently).
If things on the noticeboards were attended to and dealt with before drama, then editors wouldn't feel a need to cause drama in order to accomplish something. The only way for that to happen is for there to be a lot more diligence in attending to things where no drama exists. I don't know where the need for drama came from; it far predates my regular reading of the administrative noticeboards. But the readers of those noticeboards need to change their behavior so that causing drama is not a method that is advantageous. Recent history has been reinforcing a belief that causing drama is the best path to getting a situation attended to. GRBerry 20:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Any chance you could move this from an artical to a user page? Bihco ( talk) 09:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi. User:Pcarbonn has posted a considerable amount of information on cold fusion on his user page, including a link to a supposedly "better" version of the article. I don't know if this is a violation of the letter or only the spirit of his ban, but I think someone official should look at it. I'd prefer to avoid getting in the middle of this so please just reply here either way. Thanks. -- 72.70.28.2 ( talk) 16:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I didn't entirely understand your comment. Is there something I can help with? -- ROGER DAVIES talk 16:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia's coverage of journalists sucks.
nice job explaining my somewhat obscure ref. I was a little dismayed this plot element isn't in the article. thoughts? (or is my memory failing me; did these personalities not emerge until the shadow books?) – xeno ( talk) 21:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
could you give me your opinion on something?
If I were to edit an article slightly related to Korea right now, would that be a real dumb idea considering what is currently going on in ANI?
I was not considering anything controversial just a few edits to this article [ [41]] as the way things are going I am not going to be able contribute on that article for a while.
カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! ( talk) 15:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Should I have something displayed on my user/talk pages stating that I am subject to a topic ban? カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! ( talk) 03:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up on the delinking injunction. TJRC ( talk) 21:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
This was just beautiful. Have you ever read any Richard Holloway? I read his On Forgiveness recently and I am so glad to see you take a similar stance to the one I believe in. Good wishes to you, -- John ( talk) 08:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Well as long as the topic ban is not modified or another silly ANI report is not made against me, all I wish to say is:
1. "Sennen goroshi has been using "sock IPs" to evade to get him block sanction, so if I suspect that some IP users/accounts linked to him, why I can't report him by myself?" No, Caspian I did not use sock IPs to evade anything, I edited a few times with an IP, and never tried to hide the fact that it was me, stop trying to make more drama.
2. I am not going to respond any more as the topic ban was put in place because of the continual drama on ANI, I consider taking the drama to an Admin's talk page instead of ANI not to be an acceptable alternative - make a sandbox page dedicated to all the editors that you dislike and outline every single detail there instead. The topic ban was supposed to be an end to the drama, not just a reason to take it from ANI and move it somewhere else or involve anyone else. I consider this to be very very finished. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! ( talk) 04:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
if anyone is interested, I will respond on my talk page. I refuse to fill this talk page with more drama. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! ( talk) 05:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology ( C)( T) 08:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC) |
I'm going to address this to both of you for the sake of convenience.
In my view, a crucial concept needs to be introduced into this " tipping point" moment; and more importantly, this constructive notion needs to be incorporated in whatever process ensues.
George Santayana wrote: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Wikiquote expands on this theme by explaining that the well-known observation has produced many paraphrases and variants, e.g.,
I've posted Santayana's image so that the reiterated caption may provide deliberately redundant emphasis. As you may know, receptive learning skills are sometimes enhanced by engaging more than one of the cognitive processing modalities. Studies of learning
English as a Second Language (
ESL) have shown that enhanced comprehension and retention are reported when language comprehension centers in the brain are engaged in a context of simultaneous visual stimulus. It is my intent that Santayana's salutatory saying is underscored in an exceedingly plain and non-controversial manner. --
Tenmei (
talk) 19:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Tznkai, I need your clarification as you promised in order to concentrate on editing articles. I believe if Sennen goroshi would apologize for his outrageous personal attacks and not harass Korean editors, the drama did not even start "again" at ANI.
Thanks.-- Caspian blue
1. Caspian is not allowed to discuss my actions on the talkpage of any admin. 2. I am not allowed to discuss Caspian's actions on the talkpage of any admin. 3. Caspian is not allowed to edit ANI/any similar board, unless invited by an admin, who is aware of the topicban. 4. I am not allowed to edit ANI/any similar board, unless invited by an admin, who is aware of the topicban. 5. Neither of us are allowed to solicit other editors into making a report against eachother.
I consider this to be necessary as I don't want the drama transferred from ANI to Admin talk pages - when I am accused of something, I have the natural desire to defend myself - and the point of the topicban was to remove the drama, rather than move it elsewhere - neither will it be productive if we concentrate our attentions on other editors.
There are enough editors/admins on wikipedia to report socks/vandalism/etc without Caspian and myself getting involved - in the event of something not being noticed by others a quick E-mail to an admin would be far less dramatic, and unless action was taken, far less likely to invite a response from other parties.
Perhaps the ability to contribute on the BLP board etc would be useful as this is more content related, than editor related.
カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! ( talk) 05:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I notice that you were the blocking admin here. I have left a comment and diffs on Elonka's talk you might find interesting. -- Fyslee ( talk) 05:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, re your note, I have no problem abiding by these guidlines, although I have had difficulties with certain editors. Would it be possible to get some neutral arbitration on some articles to avoid the need for edit wars? In particular the Dunmanway Massacre, which is still a work in progress.
Thanks.
Jdorney ( talk) 15:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I already did ask for a Third Opinion but got accused of 'canvassing'. [46]. Without wanting to get into something that might be contstrued as a personal attack, I just haven't been able to find any common ground with one editor in particular. However I think this article should work itself out over the next few days. And if not I'll ask for mediation. Cheers Jdorney ( talk) 15:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Anyone ever read Zhuangzi Speaks: The music of nature, by this guy?: [47]-- Tznkai ( talk) 16:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
There's an ANI thread ( [48] ) on the blocks of BigDunc ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I'm notifying both Deacon and Tznkai ...
In my opinion, the reblocking for longer time period violated existing policy that we let blockees vent on their user talk page. I agree that what he posted in the talk page and edit summary was indefensibly rude and uncivil. However, the duration and degree was short and moderate, not extended and extreme. If he'd kept it up for days or made more vicious or more personal attacks on individual admins then the situation would be different, but what happened so far does not to me justify the extended block.
I am all for making Wikipedia more polite, and I deplore BigDunc's conduct here. But we have to be realistic - people object to being blocked, and vent about that. Reblocking people who vent leads to a vicious circle where a single minor incident spirals out of control into destroying someone's relationship with Wikipedia. That violates the intent and policy behind blocking.
Administrators need to be sensitive to not abusing people in the process of enforcing policy, particularly blocks. I believe that, well intentioned as the reblocks may have been from a civility standpoint, they were ultimately a mistake and counterproductive.
I propose to reduce BigDunc's block to the original 48-hr duration later tonight, after discussion on ANI. I am notifying both of the admins who reblocked him (Deacon and Tznkai) to allow discussion and get your input prior to any action being taken.
Please contribute your comments to the ANI thread to keep things centralized...
Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 01:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I think I will take you up on your idea to write an essay about punishment with regard to blocks on Wikipedia. The proposal I created is going to fail, and the reasons people keep giving for opposition continue to state the same fallacies I've had to repeatedly explain. I think a detailed essay covering all of the issues might be better. Thanks for the advice. Chicken Wing ( talk) 20:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I have raised comments you made in a past discussion here. To insure that I did not misrepresent you and your opinions, could you please look them over, and if you consider them inappropriate please let me know and I’ll strike them from my post. Thanks -- Domer48 'fenian' 19:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm just messaging you because you offered some support in a rough patch not too long ago. I just wanted to bring to your attention my own talk page, and the talk of Dunmanway Massacre. It seems the actual edit itself is no longer important, certain users haven't read the post, but one users determination to silence my very legitimate point and paint me as a troll is simple a blast from the past. Can you take a look? Its really pissing me off. Thanks. NewIreland2009 ( talk) 07:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I really appreciated this. Thanks, and keep up the good work. -- John ( talk) 01:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
You may recall that we butted heads quite a lot several months ago over troubles related AE threads and I now see that that was all mostly my fault. Since I abandoned the area, I have been watching your contributions to noticeboards and the like and have been more and more impressed with the value of your input and your worthwhile practical commonsense approach, so I just wanted to say sorry for being a dick and thank you for being so sensible. Spartaz Humbug! 10:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
For high quality and practical contributions to resolving disputes that always puts building the encyclopaedia first. Spartaz Humbug! 10:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC) |
I've noticed that you have reverted a change I have made to my personal Arbcom section. If I understand the Arbcom discourse structure properly, it is not allowed for editors to interfere in each other's sections and leave long comments, let along, provocative insults on it. Is this correct? Jaakobou Chalk Talk 08:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
User:Tznkai/Archive 3 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
As the person overseeing Caspian Blue, could you please have a look here, and inform him that bringing his antipathy towards me into unrelated discussions is completely unacceptable? Thanks. // roux 18:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
(out)Indeed I did begin to suggest similar things at ANI. Because it works. Any editor on Wikipedia may propose solutions on ANI, so there's that dealt with. Also, can you please show me where in that thread I said I hadn't investigated the matter? I'll be waiting. I have not been incivil; the 'grow up' comment was a short form for 'Grow up and take your antipathy towards me somwehere else, because it doesn't belong here. You may be upset that you are currently restricted by sanctions which I proposed, but it's worth noting that those sanctions were pretty much unanimously supported by everyone else who commented at the time. It's further worth noting that the reason those sanctions were imposed by Tznkai--the straw that broke the camel's back--was because instead of actually defending yourself, you did exactly what you are doing here: you began attacking me for absolutely no reason. So grow up, suck it up, recognise that your behaviour is totally inappropriate and you were lucky to get away with only a topicban. Your renewed antagonistic behaviour towards me is only likely to add more restrictions to your editing, and isn't going to do you any favours.'
I didn't say all that at the time because it wasn't necessary and would have only created the drama you seem to think I enjoy creating. I don't. I look for quick and effective solutions to problems. You don't; you would rather argue, as evidenced by the fact that you started attacking me here and at your topicban discussion, and indeed at the MedCab case I attempted to mediate between you and Bukubku (I think it was Bukubku; I can't be bothered to dig it up). You have absolutely no interest in looking at your own behaviour or even trying to understand how there is a problem with your behaviour--even when (if memory serves) everyone who commented on the topicban proposal agreed with it.
And as for your statement "Your visit here to report me for the unrelated matter with my banned area is a retaliation". No, you're quite wrong. I am well aware--as I said above--that this isn't part of your restrictions. I should know; I wrote them. What I did say is that because Tznkai is already overseeing you, s/he is the best person to talk to about this. I'm sorry that you misunderstand; it's probably because English is not your first language. And no, that is not an attack; I certainly wouldn't understand anything you said in Korean or Japanese or Urdu for that matter.
The reason I propose such solutions is that they are both fast and effective. Dealing with problem users often drags on for a ridiculous amount of time, wasting everyone's energy and sucking up volunteer resources. Quick and effective--but thought-out--solutions are best for the people involved because they can move away from their dispute, best for the other editors who have gotten sucked in because the dispute ends, best for the project because less of our finite volunteer time is eaten up by dealing with twits who have nothing better to do than snipe at each other.
So. I have done nothing wrong here, but you have. I really strongly suggest that you re-examine your behaviour before admins get involved, because I have the feeling it will not end well for you, given what Tznkai said at your topicban discussion about why s/he imposed the restrictions. I tried requesting that you remove your off-topic and personal comments, and you have chosen not to do so. I have tried explaining to you what is actually going on, and you refuse to listen. Instead, you follow your usual pattern of attacks and accusations. That's your choice to behave that way, and you will eventually have to face the consequences of continuing such behaviour. If you would actually like to enter into a dialogue of constructive criticism with me, you are more than welcome to. If, however, you would rather persist in attacking me and making ridiculous accusations, then please consider this your final and only warning before I seek to have a prohibition on interactions with me added to your general editing restrictions. I don't need the stress you cause. // roux 20:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Tznkai, this thread had grown quite a bit while I worked quietly on the following: A. In the archived Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive510#Sennen goroshi Caspian Blue, please allow me to refresh your recollection, not so much about what you wrote, but why did you write it? What you were thinking at the time? -- see here:
B. You probably overlooked the final diff in this WP:AN/I-thread before archiving. As I construed Caspian blue's words, what struck me was the absence of any sense that Caspian blue could have or should have handled anything differently -- no remorse, no regret, no reason to abate a campaign to denegrate Roux, albeit in the coded language which Wikipedia policy defines as civility. -- see here:
C. In a context inspired by "A" and "B," you may recall that I posted a cautiously neutral comment on an iteration of this talk page (which has since been archived). My muted message was so cautiously inoffensive that you wondered what was the point; and Caspian blue responded to my intolerable temerity with serial, escalating, exaggerated comments while I sought to avoid exacerbating any incipient conflict -- see here:
D. In the context now created in this newest thread, please allow me to remind you of a tidbit of conventional wisdom that roux and others misunderstand -- and Wikipedia is ill-served by this continuing misconception. The fact-of-the-matter is this: It is demonstrable that it does not take two when Caspian blue is involved -- see here:
In the rhetorical sense roux used above, I too have been Caspian blue's "dance partner." The ordeal engendered a string of bitter lessons learned the hard way. As an over-bearing dance partner with me and others, Caspian blue has learned that derogatory, provocative tactics work very well indeed, usually causing ill-informed observers to presume that " it take's two to tango." While, I still refuse to say very much, I'm mindful of Wikipedia:Silence and consensus. As I tried to explain earlier, my continuing restraint should not be taken to imply qui tacet consentire videtur ("He who remains silent is understood to consent"). To whatever extent I can affect what develops from this newest incident, I would oppose ascribing any kind of "benefit of the doubt" in whatever process unfolds. I am offended by the heedless harassment of roux by Caspian blue, but it represents only the tiniest part of the parade of harms which are documented in Caspian blue's edit history. Bluntly, Caspian blue is a "toxic long-term warrior" who poisons the collaborative editing which makes Wikipedia possible. What bothers me most is the likelihood nothing will happen which encourages Caspian blue to reconsider strategies and tactics which ultimately profit no one. -- Tenmei ( talk) 21:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC) |
So Tenmei you can't stop hounding me and making such attacks rooted on your deep grudge. Now let go of the report on your extreme incivility right after an admin accused you for your incivility. At that time, another you-know-who admin who has watched you for a long time suggested me to take your unwarranted attacks to ANI, so I did. You have gotten frequently lectured how you offend people, so this attacks Bluntly, Caspian blue is a "toxic long-term warrior" who poisons the collaborative editing that makes Wikipedia possible. is just mirroring yourself; "Toxic long-term warrior" who poisons the collaborative editing that makes Wikipedia possible.". That is you, Tenmei. Oh, you also attack "Roux as a heedless harasser". Well, Tenemi, I believe when you say such thing much out of line, you're all responsible for your action.-- Caspian blue 22:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Tznkai, per this edit by Caspian, I would appreciate it if you would restrict him from interacting with me in the future. I have no problem not interacting with him, seeing as I don't interact with him anyway. // roux 22:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Despite the length of the discussion, I actually did in fact, read it a few times, and I want my talk page back. Between the three of you you've written some 3,579 words, and I cannot imagine this is remotely important to justify the time expended or the rancor. Its bad enough that you can't remain civil to each other (bickering, however restrained in vocabulary, is still uncivil or at least unproductive on all sides), but do you really have to drag a non participating party's talk page into it? I didn't get a word edgewise, but that didn't prevent this free for all. So, put yourself in my shoes, and ask at what point do you all start looking like idiots? I will not answer any questions raised, because they are not important. What is important is you all stop bickering.
Request for intervention Declined. Get off of my talk page.-- Tznkai ( talk) 14:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Please would you check out this article for WP:UNDUE etc. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
To answer your question, no I don't want to be a test case and doubt I would enjoy re-running RFA. But I think it is important to be accountable, and if that means every now and then a frivolous recall request and the process works like it should, just to ensure that if I did ever mess up, I'd hear about it loud and clear, I'm willing to accept that. Thanks for the sentiments though. MBisanz talk 23:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Re the banner at the top of Talk:Cold fusion about a ban, that you posted on behalf of the Arbitration Committee: As far as I remember I've never had any interaction with the editor mentioned; I started editing Cold fusion after the editor was banned; but every time I come to the talk page, I feel embarrassed to see that sort of prominent notice about a specific individual. It seems undignified to me. I would prefer to have the banner removed: I think it's unnecessary and that enough people know about the ban. Note that a brief, low-key mention of another editor's ban was recently removed from the same talk page as a personal attack: [50]. If it's not possible to remove the banner, would it be OK with you if I move the name of the editor into the hidden part, and/or move the banner to the bottom of the collection of banners on the talk page? Thanks in advance for considering my request. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 22:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
This particular canon says : “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.” [51] [52] This is what this story is about, in the article José Cardoso Sobrinho. In truth, the vast majority of excommunications are automatic ( latae sententiae), and they don't even need to have the opinion of a bishop. All abortionists and their friends are de facto excommunicated, this is a taboo that the media do not really understand because they are not specialists in the laws of the Church. Also, many abortionists were originally Jews because it was forbidden for Christians to practice in that field. I also think that Canon 1398 would deserve an article unto itself (or at least a stub), along with other controversial or misunderstood canons. ADM ( talk) 07:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Heyo Tznkai,
Best I can see,
this 'timeline' section is evidence presented by MeteorMaker and should be marked as such. If you agree with my perception here, I'd like to request that you fix it.
Warm regards,
Jaakobou
Chalk Talk 09:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I reverted your closure of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dicklyon 2. The last comment (mine) was only a few days ago. The dispute is ongoing and unresolved. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
This section has become unreadable (at least in Safari 3.2.1/OSX 10.5.6). All I can see when I uncollapse it is "{{2}}" (disregard quotes and nowiki tags). The discussion may have stopped but the section is still referenced from several other sections, due to the Google search arguments there. Could you look into that? MeteorMaker ( talk) 18:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
The Komondor article is usually edited wery seldomly indeed, but lately I had a lot of trouble and discussion and also asked for third oppinions on its size and appearence. This breed being fairly unknown, not many people check that article, or try to defend it from bias. I think it is strange that suddenly four newly created accounts which do not edit anything else but Komondor related topics, all of the sudden appear one after the other, and start working in the same direction, trying to modify the impresion of the breed size, supporting each other in all ways.
All this started because of one picture taken of an (appearently small) Komondor at Westminster Dog Show and used at the lead of the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show article.
And all of them are referring to this certain Komondor dog, called Quincy, (which is said to be the one in that picture). All accounts try to adjust the Komondor dog article to make it sound like the breed is smaller which means, to look more like that dog in that picture.
A dog the accounts and IP might be related to (thoug they deny this), or like this dog, which the accounts all call Ouincy, could be this dog here, http://clubs.akc.org/kca/theshow.htm a Komondor dog with a longer body than the international standards calls for (body lenght should be max 104% of the heigt at the dog at the whiters).
User(s) repeatedly removed relevant and sourced facts about size and body type..
Combined IP adress :70.121.204.57 and red link User:Meoconne assisted by User:Lynovella, repeatedly reverted edits at Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show and Komondor dog breed articles, and removed facts from the Komondor article, such as: the dog breeds average height (30 inch), the fact that no upper height limit is given. [1] leaving only minimum height and even other relevant and sourced breed caracteristics like square body (a dog term for a dog with short back) too.
Both average height (sourced) has been removed, (several times),
[53]
[54]
[55],
[56]
[57]
[58] upper limit height (sourced)
[59],
[60] mentioning other similar Hugarian sheepdogs
[61], which all of them are relevant information for this encyclopaedia article on this dog breed, and when I (and even ClueBot)
[62]
[63]
[64]
[65] put them back he keeps removing them again
[66], and makes quite a few unhelpful edits instead
[67], removing reference title,
[68] without any consensus.
This is both
Wikipedia:Edit war, and disruptive editing
[69],
[70].
This edit was also copright violation, an exact copy from the FCI Komondor Standards [71], poorly formulated edit added upper case The above mentioned newly created new red link user accounts are all editing the same articles, Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show Komondor and nothing else.
They are all concentrated on the same issue at Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show and Komondor dog breed, trying to adjust the article to show that Quincy is a perfect dog according to the breeds standards.
User(s) were editing the
Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show and the
Komondor dog article as an IP adress, IP adress 70.121.204.57, than under one username,
User:Meoconne
[72] He or she probably also edits the Komondor article and talk page as
User:Lynovella and continues in the same time as IP adress 70.121.204.57.
First they were trying to ignore breed standard, other sources and pictures presented in argumentation on the talk page .
It is also possible that the account
User:Goldie102 has been created to support this issue around this Quincy dog, now, after a heated debate, claiming that the dog has perfect appearance, size, proportion and weight all according to the debated and well sourced International Komondor standards see edit
[73].
I know sockpuppets are not allowed on Wikipedia.
I strongly suspect these are socks, can you check them, please?
Warrington (
talk) 12:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
WHAT?! I am ineligible to vote simply because I haven't made 150 edits?! This is crazy! Aren't my opinions as valuable as everyone else's? Does the fact that I'm new here determine that I have less ability to choose the right CheckUser? This is absolutely ridiculous and ludicrous. I refer you to WP:DONTBITE. E. Novachek ( talk) 23:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Imagine that the United States had refused to allow people to vote unless that they had improved the nation 150 times. Wait, that would be a good thing, because then Barack Obama wouldn't be President. This is unthinkably ridiculous. My opinions and I are just as important as the Wikipedians who have been here "forever." Let's stand up and change this discriminatory, unbelievable rule. Huck2012 E. Novachek ( talk) 00:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Are you going to reply or just ignore me? I would call you a coward if I hadn't been brought up to be polite and respectful to my fellowman. E. Novachek ( talk) 15:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Tznkai,
Could it be that you forgot to notify NoCal100 ( talk · contribs) of the opening of the case?
Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 06.03.2009 08:37
Re
this edit: Since I've borne the brunt of the allegations on the evidence page, I'm naturally a little worried that essential rebuttals may go unnoticed, and that's why I feel that direct links are helpful. I agree the location in my own evidence section might imply ownership. Could the links perhaps simply be given their own section?
MeteorMaker (
talk) 10:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Tznkai -- I notice in the Judea/Samaria arbitration that you moved a comment of mine from the evidence talk page to the evidence page, but then later flagged my evidence section as surpassing the word limit. I didn't mind it being moved, but I'm hoping now I don't have to delete it since it takes me over 1000 words. I added the section in talk because it was an issue raised in several evidence sections, and it seemed to me that discussion was appropriate. Please let me know if I need to do something in any case. Thanks, Mackan79 ( talk) 07:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry! I thought it had been by refactored by your cutting it off at ~1000 words. I didn't realize you wanted me to rewrite the whole thing. I'll do it today – thanks for your note.-- G-Dett ( talk) 18:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry to bother you, but since you've been doing clerk actions on the page I wanted to let you know, in case you were wondering, that I would like the diff provided by Nishidani to remain in my evidence section. [74] Thanks. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 12:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm thinking another review on the size limitations of evidence sections is in order so that editors will have the opportunity to correct this rather than having their notes chopped up arbitrarily. Cheers, Jaakobou Chalk Talk 14:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Martinphi has requested an unblock. As you were the blocking admin (a million thanks, BTW), you should be aware that it is being discussed at WP:ANI. Skinwalker ( talk) 13:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
To anyone who's asked for my help or otherwise had an inquiry, I've been uncontrollably busy with outside concerns. Please leave a brief message here or by e-mail reminding me what you needed and I will try to get to it tomorrow.-- Tznkai ( talk) 00:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm thinking another review on the size limitations of evidence sections is in order so that editors will have the opportunity to correct this rather than having their notes chopped up arbitrarily. Cheers, Jaakobou Chalk Talk 14:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
WP:ANI#WP:OUTING. Perhaps I overstepped my bounds, but this needed to be quelled, in my opinion, as soon as possible. OVERSIGHT was informed, so the arbs know about it. -- Avi ( talk) 19:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Aeons ago (in our wiki-time frame), you seemed to solicit an explanation for what I'd hoped would become a constructive contribution:
Doubtless, you will not recall my oblique comment in the now-archived "Note on the topic bans (Caspain Blue and Sennen goroshi)" -- here, nor are you likely to have remembered the responsive sub-thread. In that context, my mild voice was drowned out:
I invite your attention to the topic again, this time in a new context -- here. My purpose in contacting you now is two-fold. Initially, I want to ask questions about how to use diffs more effectively than I manage to demonstrate in this message; and secondarily, if you are willing, I would hope to amplify what I could not in January.
If this is perceived as an unwelcome intrusion on your talk page -- as you seemed to construe this -- I will simply stop with an apology for having knocked on the wrong door. -- Tenmei ( talk) 16:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I would like to help, but I'm concerned you've put me in something of a bind. In your explanation here, you say that over-length evidence will be collapsed and moved to the talk page. But here my evidence wasn't too long, until you did the opposite and moved my talk page comment to the evidence page. I would move my comment back to the talk page, but of course that would be to undo your action. Besides that, the section you moved is now cited in response to Roger Davies' inquiry. here. If we need to stick to the original limit, my only suggestion is to move my comment back to the talk page. Otherwise I would certainly appreciate any suggestion you have. Thanks, Mackan79 ( talk) 08:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Am I correct in thinking that you are the administrator who removed my discussion from this [75] thread?
I have explained here [76] why I think my block was a mistake, and my reasons apply equally to the removal of discussion involving an important issue in the arbcom case. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 13:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I worked on it at one point and forgotten about it. You've reminded me to get back on it though. Chicken Wing ( talk) 16:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Way to deny recognition to opportunism [77]! Chillum 16:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Sure... Malleus, you are not a duck, you just just quack and walk like a duck(This is of course a metaphor referring to the Duck test). Chillum 16:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Tznkai, thanks for your note. I'm sorry for the delay; I started at it, then found it onerous and began to procrastinate, then forgot. How's that for an excuse.
I'll do it tonight when I get home from work. Promise. All best, -- G-Dett ( talk) 18:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Tznkai, I'm leaving you a note of this edit (which I reverted). I don't think it's unreasonable to expect experienced admin users not to make edits like that. Thanks. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 05:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Tznkai. I would appreciate it if you would give me some advice and/or assistance about how to move forward with the draft guidelines here (note that the section linked to is a first draft, and there is an updated version lower down).
I've been thinking it may be a good idea to notify all the parties to the case who have not commented on the guidelines, to make sure they're aware of them. For example, MeteorMaker has not edited much in the past few days and may not be aware of the draft guidelines (but is editing about now). If you also think it would be a good idea to notify the parties about the draft guidelines, I would appreciate it if you would be willing to do the notifications.
Involved parties: Have they commented on the draft guidelines?
I think we also need to do an RfC ( Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment on policy and conventions). I'm not sure whether to do that now, or to wait a few days to allow more discussion and development of the guidelines first.
I put a link at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Israel–Palestine, but now I'm thinking maybe that wasn't appropriate, since the naming conventions page is (primarily) about titles of articles, while these guidelines are about use of placenames within articles. However, there may not be a better place, so maybe the link is OK there. (I also put links at WP:ISRAEL, WP:PALESTINE and the workshop talk page.) I'm also wondering what to name the page if the guidelines are put on a separate page, e.g. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Israel–Palestine) or Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Use of placenames or something. And when to move them to a separate page, e.g. just before the RfC, with a {{ Proposed}} template. If you would be willing to take the lead in getting some of these details worked out I would appreciate it. Thanks for all the stuff you've been doing on the case: well done. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 21:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
On the talk page for Abortion, I've just received personal attacks from KillerChihuahua and Jim62sch. Am I not allowed to object to this? Their response was knee-jerk, applying a blanket assumption of bad faith to anyone wanting to include a relevant image. I see from Jim's talk page that he has a habit of being uncivil, but KillerChihuahua is an admin, and so I might expect better of her. Sorry to drag you into this, but well established editors shouldn't behave like this. Fences and windows ( talk) 13:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, do I just copy-edit it (with strike throughs and ... added words in italics)? Or is one meant to repeat a whole section, fixed, in the footnoes? I have comments, too, but a whole bunch of changes that won't change the intended meaning. Tony (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I enjoyed reading this comment, and without looking into the details too much, I think I very probably agree with it, and your next comment in that thread, and the similar comment on CENSEI's talk page. Nevertheless,
Whack!
You have been trouted for: blastiferous drama-mongering at AN/I. Blustering comments from third parties achieve nothing. Keep cool, dude. Nothing personal. -- Noroton ( talk) 19:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 22:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about this, (which you fixed); I was trying to address the redlink and grammatical issues in this series. I guess I must have not only clicked "undo" instead of "edit", but had a large range selected, or edited from the wrong tab; I'm not sure. Thanks for catching the error. Whatever404 ( talk) 00:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Please refrain from moving my response.
The arbitration committee made an announcement on the main discussion page for arbitration issues. I responded to it there. You initially attempted to move it out of context; you then attempted to remove it to another page, not usually used for discussion, which merely repeated the announcement.
I posted my response in the right and proper place, and I think it is very poor form for a clerk to try and use their role to suppress critical commentary of committee decisions. Rebecca ( talk) 01:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Now I know everyone hates a grass, but this guy's behaviour is just getting silly now. You collapsed this long thread - which had descended into some fairly wild and unsubstantiated smears about anti-Semitism, directed against "90-100% of the users who initiated this arbcom case, and who support it" - and warned editors that you would "likely interpret any attempt to continue the conversation to be disruptive to the Arbitration proceeding". Well funily enough, he's just done that with this edit, where he simply more or less repeats the comments and accusations he made earlier, as well as repeating the claim that User:Pedrito - who "initiated" the case, and hence was clearly a target for the accusations - was "whining". Not only is this, as you suggest, disruptive to a page which is probably confused and over-populated as it is, but he has been blocked twice now in recent days for banging on about this and making these repeated personal attacks against editors, who unsurprisingly do respond to rebut the stuff he throws around like this. -- Nickhh ( talk) 16:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, will do. If you get a chance, could you ping on the parties and ask them to take a look at my question on the workshop? Thanks! Kirill [pf] 18:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Re this edit of mine: since someone questioned me about this on my talk page, I thought I would just explain to you my reasons for being repetitive.
On the evidence talk page, MeteorMaker has (if I counted right) eight times misquoted paraphrased Jayjg as saying "distasteful ethnic discrimination" or "ethnic discrimination". Since some people might read only part of the page, I feel it's important to put a note immediately after each of these misquotations, to inform readers that they are inaccurate(12:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)). I included a request not to move the notes, because a similar comment I had made earlier was
moved by MeteorMaker such that it ended up somewhat separated from the comment it's correcting. I tried to keep the notes short. I'm sorry if I overdid them. I defer to your judgement as to what, if anything, needs to be done with them. ☺
Coppertwig (
talk) 23:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)