This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
All cleaned, feels nice. :) -- Wgfinley ( talk) 01:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Please point me to the discussion that led to you softening User:TVFAN24's indefinite block. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 04:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello, nice to see you. (Also left a note on my own talk page). Also, I did some talking at wikimania, which I'll provide more data on as soon as they post the videos et al. -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 09:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry Guy. I made the soap edits early this morning and forgot to tell you ahead of time. Please forgive me. Thanks :) Also, just added end date for departing Early Show co-host Julie Chen and added reference to it and added new Nightline co-host Bill Weir to the template. TVFAN24 ( talk) 23:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Just updated McPherrin's page. TVFAN24 ( talk) 01:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Also, updated the second sentence in Novarro's page, meant to do that yesterday. TVFAN24 ( talk) 01:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Updated the WFLD's Jeffcoat by changing morning to afternoon anchor TVFAN24 ( talk) 22:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Please see my talk page in section "Chicago Stations Former Staff Lists w/ Reference Tag Added" for a new missive from this editor and my reply. cheers Deconstructhis ( talk) 22:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello Wgfinley. JRHammond ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, Sandstein 14:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Wgfinley,
Thanks so much for the barnstar! Plus I totally agree with putting "Pending Changes" on Six Day War. Thanks again• Ling.Nut 08:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
File:Detective barnstar.png | The Detective Barnstar | |
I award you the Detective Barnstar for the exceptional work you did in investigating matters of interest to Wikipedia while doing research for Six-Day War. Thank you! -- Mbz1 ( talk) 03:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC) |
It is for this. Bravo.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 03:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Could you please comment about a user's complaint about you here? Thanks, Sandstein 13:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Not that I'm aware of, but mine is if you look at the top of this page or my user page. Yes, he's been warned and given some of his comments is on a short leash. -- WGFinley ( talk) 03:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey Wgfinley, could you please notify user Chesdovi of ARBPIA and then log it?
His behavior at the Golan heights article is far from acceptable. He first repeatedly removed a quote when there was no consensus at the talkpage to remove it. His "summary" did not follow the source and twisted what the source said: [1] He also added that "which according to independent historians were of doubtful historical accuracy" when the source clearly did not say that: [2]
You can clearly see from the entire Dayan quote interview that its about that Moshe Dayan saying that Israel provoked Syria. After having repeatedly removed this he then cherry picks that 1% of the quote he personally likes and puts it in large quotations: [3] clearly out of context, really twists the entire meaning of that interview.
Another admin has reacted to this, but he is involved [4]
A uninvolved admin need to notify him and log it here: [5] -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 16:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
You don't log user warnings, you log actions taken on articles and on users. I agree a warning was in order but these actions were several days ago so I thought a warning was best. -- WGFinley ( talk) 15:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
It is good to see an administrator who is able to make tough calls in such a controversial topic area that has had edit warriors running rampant but I am confused by your edit summaries here. That editor did not make more than 1 revert. If anything you are in violation from what I can tell. Would you mind clarifying? Cptnono ( talk) 05:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Disregard. I did not realize that you had altered the meaning and explained it on the talk page. It might help editor's understanding if you linked that in your reverts. Cptnono ( talk) 05:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
reverted yet again, violating 1RR, even after your warning to him on the talk page that he doesn't have consensus. Can you please do something to stop this continuous edit warring? Obviously he doesn't get it. 174.112.83.21 ( talk) 15:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I have left a comment about your administrator action at WP:AN and would like to ask you, are you open to recall of your tools? Off2riorob ( talk) 13:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
You clearly did not do anything right either, please as you are not a regular user, state that you will not block any accounts yourself. Or, as simply take an administrator break and drop the tools yourself, your edit history does not assert you have the experience or authority required to use them Off2riorob ( talk) 16:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
It is your repeated inability to see that your actions were wrong that is the biggest problem, please do not use the tools as you have not the acquired authority to use them , you are almost imo a newbie and should not touch the tools at all, if you assert that you would have the community's support to use them for blocking people and such like then please remove the bit and apply for RFA. Off2riorob ( talk) 16:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
You can decline as much as you want, but I will state to you now, you are not a regular contributor at all at wikipedia and you have no assumed authority here and you should not claim or assert that you have, please do not use tools previously acquired in a different time zone without reconfirmed authority and community support. Thanks. Off2riorob ( talk) 16:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Take it from me, I have it. It is not so much as I have it, but that you don't have it. Off2riorob ( talk) 16:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Pardon, but Arab refusal to recognize Israel was the primary cause of the war and remains a primary cause of conflict to this day. So what's wrong with saying "the status of the territories as well as continued Arab refusal to accept Israel remains," etc... In truth, I'd rather the whole para be knocked out entirely from lede since it is synth. It is summary opinion that doesn't even belong and is not encyclopedic. However, since it was already there and mindful of certain restrictions on the page, I just added another sourced reason. Actually 5 sources and it's hardly a minority opinion. So now you ban me?-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 05:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I think this was a bit harsh. Jiujitsuguy, as you can see from the comment above, did not seem to understand why his edit was inappropriate, please see Talk:Six-Day_War#Cause_versus_consequence. Fred Talk 18:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I just wanted to notify you that I removed the pending-changes protection from Six-Day War. I noticed you added it several days ago, and, partially out of laziness, didn't say or do anything it about it then. And, as I expected, it had little effect on the article. First, as you yourself noted, most of the editors involved in the article are reviewers. Secondly, reviewers are supposed to reject edits only if they're obviously inappropriate (e.g. vandalism). So, they should, from what I understand, approve nearly all of the edits involved in the edit-war there, even if they're POV, the third revert in a day, etc. The result was that the pending protection did nothing to stop the edit-warring. -- tariqabjotu 16:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate that the intent of 1rr is to try to ensure that editors turn to discussion rather than editwarring, but it would be nice if you could go the final step and uphold that silence ( of actual arguments ) is consent. Otherwise we are simply facing filibustering and stonewalling. Unomi ( talk) 14:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
As an uninvolved editor, what, if any, issues do you see with the level of engagement on the talk page? Unomi ( talk) 01:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Could you offer a recommendation of which venue to take dispute resolution to? There seems to be distinct lack of engagement by those who seemed to object to Harlans edit. u n☯ mi 10:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I've left a comment on the user's talk page. I'm happy for you to make your own judgement on the unblock request. Ronhjones (Talk) 18:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Next time remember to put the {{ collapsebottom}} template after you put {{ collapsetop}}. When you closed the Mbz1 proposal you inadvertently collapsed three-quarters of WP:ANI. Cheers, bibliomaniac 1 5 21:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
In your message, you refer to Six-Day War instead of Golan Heights. You might want to fix that. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 05:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)]
But could you explain this please? Is the user indefinitely blocked? Is there anything in that template that says that only the blocking admin may add that template? And where exactly did the user request that you fully protect the user page or are you just making up reasons for the protection log? nableezy - 21:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
There's no reason to put them in a category that isn't used for anything. They are listed using special pages. As I said, if you think it is so crucial for this to be on his user page you should bring it to the blocking admin. I'm merely following the user's wishes and maintaining the status quo on his user page. -- WGFinley ( talk) 23:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
i think you should reword your close summary. [8] Jiujitsuguy's block was overturned. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I think you inadvertently closed three discussions in one go, or at least that's what it looked like confusing me and probably others, so I've fixed it to I think what you intended.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 02:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, WGFinley, but I agree the summary is inaccurate. For starters, and I'm sure you'll agree on this, User:No More Mr Nice Guy has never been blocked regarding this. Second, the reversal of the block against Jiujitsuguy was intended to make it as if it never happened -- zero sum. The original block also wasn't related to the charges made against him in the AE thread. So I don't think it's clear or fair to him to even mention the block in the closing reason. The rest of the closing summary -- "admonished to abide by WP:CANVASS or risk further discretionary sanctions" is your perogative, but they don't represent what I did (I'm not saying I disagree with you doing that; I'm just making no further comment on the case). And it's fine that that doesn't represent what I did; you're the one closing the case.
In summary, I think you should nix the mentions of any blocks, but, beyond that, say whatever you want. -- tariqabjotu 08:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey, you put the Golan Heights article on a 1rr and that all: required to discuss any content reversions on the article talk page (i.e. not just in the reversion notes). If you violate the terms of this sanction, you will be blocked."
In this edit [9] IP 79.181.9.231 reverts several things without discussing them at the talkpage. For example he re ads "until 1967 " "( Hebrew: הרמה הסורית (Ha-Rama Ha-Surit)," he re removes "Israeli settlements" you can see that its a revert by his earlier edit [10] and I don't think he has discussed these reverts at the talkpage before.
Also note that he performed this edit changing "occupied" while 4 editors objected to it at the talkpage.
In this edit
[11] IP 174.112.83.21 reverts several things without discussing them at the talkpage. He changes the position of the names in the infobox, he removes the Baruch Kimmerling source, and he removes the "Who" tag. You can see that its a revert in these edits:
[12]
[13] --
Supreme Deliciousness (
talk) 09:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
And IP 79 just violated the 1rr again.
[14] --
Supreme Deliciousness (
talk) 17:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, can you please advise on a proper course of action regarding this edit in the face of the current discussion on that articles talkpage? Thanks, u n☯ mi 08:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
What? When did I defend 208? And when did I jump on 79?, have a look on my talkpage where I try to explain what I assumed to be Nableezys rationale, all but apologizing for his manner. Have a look through the start of that Golan Heights discussion, where I try to get the edits that I believed we could quickly agree on into the text and defuse the tension. Also have look thru the previous discussions on this very topic notably here and see that the very same arguments have been done to death. Notice, if you will, that Stellarkid ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)(who apparently was a sockpuppet of a long banned user) forwards nearly verbatim many of the same points, but I don't see any reason to accuse 79 of being a sockpuppet, because it simply doesn't matter, the arguments fall flat in the face of overwhelming majority of sources that use exactly these terms. I understand that you don't want to become embroiled in a content dispute, but in order to effectually judge behavior it is imperative that you understand the context. u n☯ mi 14:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm confused. The protection template says that it does not mean the admin endorses the current version. However, before you protected it you self-reverted yourself after 208 violated 1RR. Why would you self-revert? It's perfectly reasonable of you to have reverted his 1RR violation, just like was done every time anyone else violated 1RR on the article. 174.112.83.21 ( talk) 03:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Please notify me if you submit anything to the Arbitration Committee regarding this matter, or off-wiki canvassing in general. Meanwhile I'll try to pay a little more attention to what is going on from day to day in this area. Fred Talk 12:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Please read my remark there and lift the ban you imposed on the article. If you think the task of introducing the necessary edits is too delicate for me to handle, please introduce them yourself. 79.181.9.231 ( talk) 09:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello. You had some interaction with IP 208.54.7.139 ( talk · contribs) in connection with the Golan Heights [16] so accordingly, I am notifying you and Stifle of a matter that is of serious concern.
I have reason to believe that this IP user is Nableezy trying to circumvent a topic ban imposed on him by Stifle. The ban forbids him from editing or commenting on the Golan Heights and all areas of Israel and its environs including cities, settlements and regions. [17]
The IP in question geolocates to Chicago [18] and the edit in question is consistent with Nableezy’s POV. Prior to the instant edits, the IP never made any edits to the topic area and the first edit that he makes in the topic area is to The Golan Heights. [19]
Nableezy is also from Chicago as evidenced from his early Trait Page
But there is more. The subject IP also made edits to a hockey article involving players in the NHL. [20] Nableezy has expressed more than a passing interest for this subject as evidenced by this
But the similarities between the IP user and nableezy do not end there. The subject IP made this edit on a very technical subject involving circuitry and electronics.
Nableezy attended Illinois Institute of Technology, a school that emphasizes engineering and IT evidenced by his early Trait List
So now we have an IP who, like Nableezy, comes from Chicago with interests in the Golan Heights, Hockey and IT. The coincidences are too great to ignore per WP:DUCK. The evidence suggests that The IP is Nableezy's sock puppet used to circumvent Stifle's topic ban.-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 02:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
My talk page is not a good place for sockpuppet investigations, they need to go over to SPI. -- WGFinley ( talk) 14:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Replied on my talk page. On another note, personally I think the article should be indef full protected in the event edit warring resumes in a couple of weeks. I've seen precedent for this; The Indian Institute of Planning and Management (which is now a redirect) is one example. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 19:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm appealing your ban. [23] You've been notified. JRHammond ( talk) 06:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I redid the mention of his book The Company merely noting it was adapated as a miniseries and including a citation to IMDB verifying that fact. Hope that meets NPOV criteria. Dgabbard ( talk) 01:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Wgfinley, I made an embaressing mistake here where I put your name instead of an editor's. Sorry. PhilKnight ( talk) 17:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear Wgfinley, although the issue seems to be resolved [24], I feel I have to comment on this your decision. It is not clear for me why did you issue a warning to Petri Krohn, because no violation of a spirit of 1RR (if not of a letter) occurred. I believe I persuasively demonstrated that by his revert Petri Krohn just restored the edits that were accidentally removed by Collect: Collect himself acknowledged that he just restored a "stable version", thus reverting several edits without any attempt to analyse them. Petri Krohn did not re-revert the edits which caused Collect's objections (judging by Collect's edit summary), he just fixed Collect's technical mistake. We have here a classical case of wikilawyering from MarkNutley/Colect side, so I conclude that neither a warning nor any sanctions are justified in this concrete case. -- Paul Siebert ( talk) 19:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
When I say "I have no idea of WP:DIGWUREN" I mean that I still do not fully understand why I was involved in it. I withdrew from all related conflict long before the case started. I never participated in the case proceedings in any way or even read any of the pages – except for posting a request for extended time to prepare a response a few day before the case closed.
I have followed a voluntary topic ban on anything that might be of interest to Digwuren ( talk · contribs) or his supporters from June 2007. I am thus quite inexperienced of the workings of the DIGWUREN processes in practice, at least from the editors point-of-view. As you see, I have never been given a Digwuren warning have not been involved in any conflict before in the DIGWUREN/EE topic area. I am especially offend by the idea, that because my name is mentioned in Digwuren editors and administrators are allowed to treat me like scum.
I am however fully aware of the WP:DIGWUREN amendments, Meaning everything on the case page bellow Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Enforcement. I am especially aware of section Log of article-level discretionary sanctions and the articles listed there. Believe me, I *HAVE* read all the fine print. I would avoid any article listed there as I would the plague.
I did not see Mass killings under Communist regimes listed there. I had absolutely no knowledge that the article was under these levels of sanctions. What I understood from the edit template was that the article was somehow in the general scope of the DIRWUREN disputes, meaning Eastern Europe, and that it had some special restriction listed somewhere. I do not think I ever even read the template, as it only appeared when I was about to press the save button and vanished afterwards. Neither have I followed the talk pages, as I do not think I have ever edited the article before.
Note As of this summer the list contained exactly one article: London victory parade of 1946. It is not hard to memorize.
Now the technical point: The Mass killings under Communist regimes was only added to the section today in this edit by user User:NuclearWarfare. The DIRWUREN process follows very strict procedural rules. In this case they were not followed. I therefore ask you to remove me from the list of List of editors placed on notice.
As to me retuning to "old habits". I have learned my lesson. I believe my good name is far too valuable to be risked in petty ethnic disputes. I cannot however change history, the DIGWUREN disputes started in 2007 with the Bronze nights. I was the one who asked my friend to risk her life to take these pictures. I was however "involved" already in 2006, when I took this famous set of pictures for Commons. I had no idea at the time, that WP:DIGWUREN would come and walk over me. -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 02:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
This need not be complex:
That is why I did what I did and why I don't intend to remove it. Now, if there is really some angst over it being a "warning" then I will agree to remove it if Petri posts he acknowledges disretionary sanctions apply to Eastern Europe articles where the warning currently is. However I will not remove the log entry that he has been notified. That is not negotiable. -- WGFinley ( talk) 04:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
All cleaned, feels nice. :) -- Wgfinley ( talk) 01:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Please point me to the discussion that led to you softening User:TVFAN24's indefinite block. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 04:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello, nice to see you. (Also left a note on my own talk page). Also, I did some talking at wikimania, which I'll provide more data on as soon as they post the videos et al. -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 09:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry Guy. I made the soap edits early this morning and forgot to tell you ahead of time. Please forgive me. Thanks :) Also, just added end date for departing Early Show co-host Julie Chen and added reference to it and added new Nightline co-host Bill Weir to the template. TVFAN24 ( talk) 23:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Just updated McPherrin's page. TVFAN24 ( talk) 01:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Also, updated the second sentence in Novarro's page, meant to do that yesterday. TVFAN24 ( talk) 01:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Updated the WFLD's Jeffcoat by changing morning to afternoon anchor TVFAN24 ( talk) 22:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Please see my talk page in section "Chicago Stations Former Staff Lists w/ Reference Tag Added" for a new missive from this editor and my reply. cheers Deconstructhis ( talk) 22:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello Wgfinley. JRHammond ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, Sandstein 14:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Wgfinley,
Thanks so much for the barnstar! Plus I totally agree with putting "Pending Changes" on Six Day War. Thanks again• Ling.Nut 08:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
File:Detective barnstar.png | The Detective Barnstar | |
I award you the Detective Barnstar for the exceptional work you did in investigating matters of interest to Wikipedia while doing research for Six-Day War. Thank you! -- Mbz1 ( talk) 03:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC) |
It is for this. Bravo.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 03:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Could you please comment about a user's complaint about you here? Thanks, Sandstein 13:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Not that I'm aware of, but mine is if you look at the top of this page or my user page. Yes, he's been warned and given some of his comments is on a short leash. -- WGFinley ( talk) 03:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey Wgfinley, could you please notify user Chesdovi of ARBPIA and then log it?
His behavior at the Golan heights article is far from acceptable. He first repeatedly removed a quote when there was no consensus at the talkpage to remove it. His "summary" did not follow the source and twisted what the source said: [1] He also added that "which according to independent historians were of doubtful historical accuracy" when the source clearly did not say that: [2]
You can clearly see from the entire Dayan quote interview that its about that Moshe Dayan saying that Israel provoked Syria. After having repeatedly removed this he then cherry picks that 1% of the quote he personally likes and puts it in large quotations: [3] clearly out of context, really twists the entire meaning of that interview.
Another admin has reacted to this, but he is involved [4]
A uninvolved admin need to notify him and log it here: [5] -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 16:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
You don't log user warnings, you log actions taken on articles and on users. I agree a warning was in order but these actions were several days ago so I thought a warning was best. -- WGFinley ( talk) 15:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
It is good to see an administrator who is able to make tough calls in such a controversial topic area that has had edit warriors running rampant but I am confused by your edit summaries here. That editor did not make more than 1 revert. If anything you are in violation from what I can tell. Would you mind clarifying? Cptnono ( talk) 05:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Disregard. I did not realize that you had altered the meaning and explained it on the talk page. It might help editor's understanding if you linked that in your reverts. Cptnono ( talk) 05:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
reverted yet again, violating 1RR, even after your warning to him on the talk page that he doesn't have consensus. Can you please do something to stop this continuous edit warring? Obviously he doesn't get it. 174.112.83.21 ( talk) 15:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I have left a comment about your administrator action at WP:AN and would like to ask you, are you open to recall of your tools? Off2riorob ( talk) 13:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
You clearly did not do anything right either, please as you are not a regular user, state that you will not block any accounts yourself. Or, as simply take an administrator break and drop the tools yourself, your edit history does not assert you have the experience or authority required to use them Off2riorob ( talk) 16:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
It is your repeated inability to see that your actions were wrong that is the biggest problem, please do not use the tools as you have not the acquired authority to use them , you are almost imo a newbie and should not touch the tools at all, if you assert that you would have the community's support to use them for blocking people and such like then please remove the bit and apply for RFA. Off2riorob ( talk) 16:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
You can decline as much as you want, but I will state to you now, you are not a regular contributor at all at wikipedia and you have no assumed authority here and you should not claim or assert that you have, please do not use tools previously acquired in a different time zone without reconfirmed authority and community support. Thanks. Off2riorob ( talk) 16:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Take it from me, I have it. It is not so much as I have it, but that you don't have it. Off2riorob ( talk) 16:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Pardon, but Arab refusal to recognize Israel was the primary cause of the war and remains a primary cause of conflict to this day. So what's wrong with saying "the status of the territories as well as continued Arab refusal to accept Israel remains," etc... In truth, I'd rather the whole para be knocked out entirely from lede since it is synth. It is summary opinion that doesn't even belong and is not encyclopedic. However, since it was already there and mindful of certain restrictions on the page, I just added another sourced reason. Actually 5 sources and it's hardly a minority opinion. So now you ban me?-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 05:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I think this was a bit harsh. Jiujitsuguy, as you can see from the comment above, did not seem to understand why his edit was inappropriate, please see Talk:Six-Day_War#Cause_versus_consequence. Fred Talk 18:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I just wanted to notify you that I removed the pending-changes protection from Six-Day War. I noticed you added it several days ago, and, partially out of laziness, didn't say or do anything it about it then. And, as I expected, it had little effect on the article. First, as you yourself noted, most of the editors involved in the article are reviewers. Secondly, reviewers are supposed to reject edits only if they're obviously inappropriate (e.g. vandalism). So, they should, from what I understand, approve nearly all of the edits involved in the edit-war there, even if they're POV, the third revert in a day, etc. The result was that the pending protection did nothing to stop the edit-warring. -- tariqabjotu 16:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate that the intent of 1rr is to try to ensure that editors turn to discussion rather than editwarring, but it would be nice if you could go the final step and uphold that silence ( of actual arguments ) is consent. Otherwise we are simply facing filibustering and stonewalling. Unomi ( talk) 14:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
As an uninvolved editor, what, if any, issues do you see with the level of engagement on the talk page? Unomi ( talk) 01:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Could you offer a recommendation of which venue to take dispute resolution to? There seems to be distinct lack of engagement by those who seemed to object to Harlans edit. u n☯ mi 10:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I've left a comment on the user's talk page. I'm happy for you to make your own judgement on the unblock request. Ronhjones (Talk) 18:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Next time remember to put the {{ collapsebottom}} template after you put {{ collapsetop}}. When you closed the Mbz1 proposal you inadvertently collapsed three-quarters of WP:ANI. Cheers, bibliomaniac 1 5 21:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
In your message, you refer to Six-Day War instead of Golan Heights. You might want to fix that. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 05:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)]
But could you explain this please? Is the user indefinitely blocked? Is there anything in that template that says that only the blocking admin may add that template? And where exactly did the user request that you fully protect the user page or are you just making up reasons for the protection log? nableezy - 21:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
There's no reason to put them in a category that isn't used for anything. They are listed using special pages. As I said, if you think it is so crucial for this to be on his user page you should bring it to the blocking admin. I'm merely following the user's wishes and maintaining the status quo on his user page. -- WGFinley ( talk) 23:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
i think you should reword your close summary. [8] Jiujitsuguy's block was overturned. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I think you inadvertently closed three discussions in one go, or at least that's what it looked like confusing me and probably others, so I've fixed it to I think what you intended.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 02:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, WGFinley, but I agree the summary is inaccurate. For starters, and I'm sure you'll agree on this, User:No More Mr Nice Guy has never been blocked regarding this. Second, the reversal of the block against Jiujitsuguy was intended to make it as if it never happened -- zero sum. The original block also wasn't related to the charges made against him in the AE thread. So I don't think it's clear or fair to him to even mention the block in the closing reason. The rest of the closing summary -- "admonished to abide by WP:CANVASS or risk further discretionary sanctions" is your perogative, but they don't represent what I did (I'm not saying I disagree with you doing that; I'm just making no further comment on the case). And it's fine that that doesn't represent what I did; you're the one closing the case.
In summary, I think you should nix the mentions of any blocks, but, beyond that, say whatever you want. -- tariqabjotu 08:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey, you put the Golan Heights article on a 1rr and that all: required to discuss any content reversions on the article talk page (i.e. not just in the reversion notes). If you violate the terms of this sanction, you will be blocked."
In this edit [9] IP 79.181.9.231 reverts several things without discussing them at the talkpage. For example he re ads "until 1967 " "( Hebrew: הרמה הסורית (Ha-Rama Ha-Surit)," he re removes "Israeli settlements" you can see that its a revert by his earlier edit [10] and I don't think he has discussed these reverts at the talkpage before.
Also note that he performed this edit changing "occupied" while 4 editors objected to it at the talkpage.
In this edit
[11] IP 174.112.83.21 reverts several things without discussing them at the talkpage. He changes the position of the names in the infobox, he removes the Baruch Kimmerling source, and he removes the "Who" tag. You can see that its a revert in these edits:
[12]
[13] --
Supreme Deliciousness (
talk) 09:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
And IP 79 just violated the 1rr again.
[14] --
Supreme Deliciousness (
talk) 17:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, can you please advise on a proper course of action regarding this edit in the face of the current discussion on that articles talkpage? Thanks, u n☯ mi 08:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
What? When did I defend 208? And when did I jump on 79?, have a look on my talkpage where I try to explain what I assumed to be Nableezys rationale, all but apologizing for his manner. Have a look through the start of that Golan Heights discussion, where I try to get the edits that I believed we could quickly agree on into the text and defuse the tension. Also have look thru the previous discussions on this very topic notably here and see that the very same arguments have been done to death. Notice, if you will, that Stellarkid ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)(who apparently was a sockpuppet of a long banned user) forwards nearly verbatim many of the same points, but I don't see any reason to accuse 79 of being a sockpuppet, because it simply doesn't matter, the arguments fall flat in the face of overwhelming majority of sources that use exactly these terms. I understand that you don't want to become embroiled in a content dispute, but in order to effectually judge behavior it is imperative that you understand the context. u n☯ mi 14:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm confused. The protection template says that it does not mean the admin endorses the current version. However, before you protected it you self-reverted yourself after 208 violated 1RR. Why would you self-revert? It's perfectly reasonable of you to have reverted his 1RR violation, just like was done every time anyone else violated 1RR on the article. 174.112.83.21 ( talk) 03:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Please notify me if you submit anything to the Arbitration Committee regarding this matter, or off-wiki canvassing in general. Meanwhile I'll try to pay a little more attention to what is going on from day to day in this area. Fred Talk 12:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Please read my remark there and lift the ban you imposed on the article. If you think the task of introducing the necessary edits is too delicate for me to handle, please introduce them yourself. 79.181.9.231 ( talk) 09:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello. You had some interaction with IP 208.54.7.139 ( talk · contribs) in connection with the Golan Heights [16] so accordingly, I am notifying you and Stifle of a matter that is of serious concern.
I have reason to believe that this IP user is Nableezy trying to circumvent a topic ban imposed on him by Stifle. The ban forbids him from editing or commenting on the Golan Heights and all areas of Israel and its environs including cities, settlements and regions. [17]
The IP in question geolocates to Chicago [18] and the edit in question is consistent with Nableezy’s POV. Prior to the instant edits, the IP never made any edits to the topic area and the first edit that he makes in the topic area is to The Golan Heights. [19]
Nableezy is also from Chicago as evidenced from his early Trait Page
But there is more. The subject IP also made edits to a hockey article involving players in the NHL. [20] Nableezy has expressed more than a passing interest for this subject as evidenced by this
But the similarities between the IP user and nableezy do not end there. The subject IP made this edit on a very technical subject involving circuitry and electronics.
Nableezy attended Illinois Institute of Technology, a school that emphasizes engineering and IT evidenced by his early Trait List
So now we have an IP who, like Nableezy, comes from Chicago with interests in the Golan Heights, Hockey and IT. The coincidences are too great to ignore per WP:DUCK. The evidence suggests that The IP is Nableezy's sock puppet used to circumvent Stifle's topic ban.-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 02:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
My talk page is not a good place for sockpuppet investigations, they need to go over to SPI. -- WGFinley ( talk) 14:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Replied on my talk page. On another note, personally I think the article should be indef full protected in the event edit warring resumes in a couple of weeks. I've seen precedent for this; The Indian Institute of Planning and Management (which is now a redirect) is one example. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 19:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm appealing your ban. [23] You've been notified. JRHammond ( talk) 06:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I redid the mention of his book The Company merely noting it was adapated as a miniseries and including a citation to IMDB verifying that fact. Hope that meets NPOV criteria. Dgabbard ( talk) 01:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Wgfinley, I made an embaressing mistake here where I put your name instead of an editor's. Sorry. PhilKnight ( talk) 17:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear Wgfinley, although the issue seems to be resolved [24], I feel I have to comment on this your decision. It is not clear for me why did you issue a warning to Petri Krohn, because no violation of a spirit of 1RR (if not of a letter) occurred. I believe I persuasively demonstrated that by his revert Petri Krohn just restored the edits that were accidentally removed by Collect: Collect himself acknowledged that he just restored a "stable version", thus reverting several edits without any attempt to analyse them. Petri Krohn did not re-revert the edits which caused Collect's objections (judging by Collect's edit summary), he just fixed Collect's technical mistake. We have here a classical case of wikilawyering from MarkNutley/Colect side, so I conclude that neither a warning nor any sanctions are justified in this concrete case. -- Paul Siebert ( talk) 19:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
When I say "I have no idea of WP:DIGWUREN" I mean that I still do not fully understand why I was involved in it. I withdrew from all related conflict long before the case started. I never participated in the case proceedings in any way or even read any of the pages – except for posting a request for extended time to prepare a response a few day before the case closed.
I have followed a voluntary topic ban on anything that might be of interest to Digwuren ( talk · contribs) or his supporters from June 2007. I am thus quite inexperienced of the workings of the DIGWUREN processes in practice, at least from the editors point-of-view. As you see, I have never been given a Digwuren warning have not been involved in any conflict before in the DIGWUREN/EE topic area. I am especially offend by the idea, that because my name is mentioned in Digwuren editors and administrators are allowed to treat me like scum.
I am however fully aware of the WP:DIGWUREN amendments, Meaning everything on the case page bellow Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Enforcement. I am especially aware of section Log of article-level discretionary sanctions and the articles listed there. Believe me, I *HAVE* read all the fine print. I would avoid any article listed there as I would the plague.
I did not see Mass killings under Communist regimes listed there. I had absolutely no knowledge that the article was under these levels of sanctions. What I understood from the edit template was that the article was somehow in the general scope of the DIRWUREN disputes, meaning Eastern Europe, and that it had some special restriction listed somewhere. I do not think I ever even read the template, as it only appeared when I was about to press the save button and vanished afterwards. Neither have I followed the talk pages, as I do not think I have ever edited the article before.
Note As of this summer the list contained exactly one article: London victory parade of 1946. It is not hard to memorize.
Now the technical point: The Mass killings under Communist regimes was only added to the section today in this edit by user User:NuclearWarfare. The DIRWUREN process follows very strict procedural rules. In this case they were not followed. I therefore ask you to remove me from the list of List of editors placed on notice.
As to me retuning to "old habits". I have learned my lesson. I believe my good name is far too valuable to be risked in petty ethnic disputes. I cannot however change history, the DIGWUREN disputes started in 2007 with the Bronze nights. I was the one who asked my friend to risk her life to take these pictures. I was however "involved" already in 2006, when I took this famous set of pictures for Commons. I had no idea at the time, that WP:DIGWUREN would come and walk over me. -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 02:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
This need not be complex:
That is why I did what I did and why I don't intend to remove it. Now, if there is really some angst over it being a "warning" then I will agree to remove it if Petri posts he acknowledges disretionary sanctions apply to Eastern Europe articles where the warning currently is. However I will not remove the log entry that he has been notified. That is not negotiable. -- WGFinley ( talk) 04:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)