Could someone block my bot for 12 hours? There was an enhancement suggestion I want to implement and I've currently no access to the computer where bot runs.--Cactus26 (talk)14:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
ResolvedHi, I have a problem with the articleWhite Argentine. In the article I mentioned many people who are Argentine by birth and by option (they immigrated when they were children and stayed in Argetnina until their death, or they are now living there). All those people mentioned in the article are perfectlyCaucasian by phenotype, and all have European/Middle Eastern ancestry. To see the names, checkthis older version of the article, for they are now removed. This is because some users appeared criticizing the article and alleging that mentioning all those persons without a source that explicitly define them as "White Argentine/Argentinian" was a breach to Wikipedia's BLP policy. Is that true? Because I read the article of WP policy oncategorization by ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, and the topic "Race" is still under dispute. Besides, one of the users that criticizes the article is also involved in the proposal/discussion/RfC of the policy itself. If the matter isn't still resolved, can they apply a rule that it is not fully valid yet? If I provide sources that every living Argentine mentioned in the article is of predominantly European ancestry, isn't that enough to define him/her asWhite? Please, help me clarify this doubt.--Pablozeta (talk)12:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
It would appear thatFti74Bot (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) is an unregistered bot.WuhWuzDat18:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Resolved. |
|---|
can someone monitor this article, the IP is edit warring with Mercy and calling him/her nasty names, they just called Mercy a retard which is offensive, I think this IP needs a block to get their attention--Lerdthenerd (talk)12:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC) I provided a source which proves that clemency was offered on August 11, 1999. Not September 11, 1999. The source also proves that Oscar refused clemency. Despite this, Mercy11 keeps reverting the source and claiming that Oscar was not offered clemency. This is false. What's the problem? I'm just trying to add correct information. Read the source if you don't believe me. http://www.tlahui.com/politic/politi99/politi8/pr8-30.htm --70.127.202.197 (talk)12:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
The history of violations by this annonymous user (who may quite well be a sockpuppet of a real registered user as well) goes like this: 72.186.98.71 at "White Eagle (robbery)": "You're a moron" ---HERE "You're an idiot" ---HERE "You're an idiot", again ---HERE
"I already did[,] you moronic radical twit" ---HHERE "Here's your sources, you radical nutcase" ---HHERE "Not gonna happen, retard." ---HHERE "You are a major retard." ---HHERE The anonymous user continued the offensive, personal attacks even after I contacted user at the anonymous page in questionHERE. The user changed IP addresses immediately after this to the 70.127.202.197 address and has not abandoned that IP address since. If we check the dates and times of the above edits, the offenses and personal attacks had no other intention than to disrupt the harmonious building of the encyclopedia. The attacks were deliberate, premeditated, repeated and, to this moment, unremorseful. They harmed the building of the encyclopedia by being disruptive as they were also intended to garnish moments of glory and delight for the offending user at the expense of the intention of producing personal harm. This anonymous user should not be allowed such significant levels of disruption to the encyclopedia. The user should not only be blocked at the 2 IP addresses, but the 2 articles in question should be locked until such time ascivil editors can look into the validity of the anonymous user's alleged corrections of fact. A 30-day lock should be granted given the current and upcoming holidays. Again, the anonyoums user is trying to play fool with the rest of us here: This is not a matter of the article having an error of fact on the date of the presidential clemency; this is about uncivility by the anonymous user, and we should not lket the user fool us into thinking this is about anything else but that. An encyclopedia cannot be built if anonymous users are holding a gun to your head while arguing about an alleged matter of fact. The actions of the anonymous user are a violation of policy, and it should be dealt with accordingly: and prevent further changes to the article by anyone who is not a registered user. My name isMercy11 (talk)02:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.
This is ridiculous. The article makes it clear that Clinton made the clemency offer in AUGUST 1999, NOT September 1999. It also makes it clear that Oscar refused the clemency offer. Despite this, Mercy11 ignores the source and continues to insist that the offer was made in September 1999 and that Oscar was not even offered clemency. My behavior is not polite but that doesn't give Mercy11 the right to ignore the fact that the article proves that clemency was offered in August, NOT September and that Oscar WAS offered clemency. --70.127.202.197 (talk)14:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
http://www.tlahui.com/politic/politi99/politi8/pr8-30.htm
|
In short, I'm after a bit of input from administrators here. ShouldLOIC include a link to the tool at the bottom? Technically it's not an illegal tool, but... is it appropriate? A few people have come up to me via email and IRC and voiced their concerns, so I thought I'd bring them up here.Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk)18:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
...a 16-year-old boy was arrested in The Hague, Netherlands, in connection with the distributed denial-of-service attacks against MasterCard and PayPal.
Count Iblis (talk)19:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
TheUser:Ibn.Kathir has been using quite aggressive language; baiting and insulting users. Such language can be categorized as attacks based on race, religion, /creed, etc. The user is continuously refusing to have a constructive dialogue over disputed content onTalk:Aisha despite being urged to do so by various users. Other users have tried to point out during discussion that they are uncomfortable with her/his words but s/he relies on same language. S/He during discussions at various times have used sectarian words discrediting all attempts for abusive in nature. He is too busy in pushing her/his agenda (of discrediting all Western and Shia Muslim sources & is even selective regarding Sunni sources & selection of matter from them, I quote her/him ,"...most published works in the west are either shia sourced or heavily rely on on your perspective since anything positive would obviously be sourced from Sunni primary sources and the west at this point in time is not Islam friendly, their are no other third party perspectives or sources on this issue since it is entirely Islamic...") to respect anyone's opinion &/or Wikipedia policies. It seems s/he has set her/his own guidelines and policy regarding acceptable references. Few of his comments are as follows:
S/He has consistently shown his hate/dislike towards Shia, Ahmadiya, and western community in general & scholarship in specific. S/He has shown similar behavior on pagesTalk:Criticism of Muhammad,Talk:Abu Bakr, etc.
Also, it seemsUser:Ibn.Kathir is employingsockpupputs to advance her/his cause, e.g.User:Ewpfpod,User:Howard.Thomas,User:Zaza8675,User:Jparrott1908,User:UmHasan,User:Markajalanraya,User:Allah1100,User:Rehan45n,User:Markanegara,User:MazzyJazzy, etc
--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs17:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
simply a content dispute?Tarc (talk)17:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)More idiotic shia misquotes of sunni sources, why dont you just quote from your own books and stop trying to put words in our mouths you seriously have an inferiority complex if you constantly seek our approval like this. Only an idiot would think our scholars havent been over every single hadith with a fine tooth comb in the last 1400 years and suddenly you have discovered something no one else has.
Those comments where not aimed at him and meant in the general sense which is different from saying someone is specifically an idiot, further more anyone who can check ip addresses will see i have only one account so i think the person reporting this is doing their utmost to silence any opposition to his views.Ibn kathir (talk)07:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
if you read the entire section you may come to think the other persons actions [quotations] where deliberate considering what i said earlier, hence my outburst, but yes you are right and i will tone it down. Just to clarify something Shia are not a race so their is no racist undertones.Ibn kathir (talk)08:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
no less hurtful or harmfull than calling Aisha a wretched women, read the comments and you will clearly see that being said prior to anything from myself. She is considered a saint among my people.Ibn kathir (talk)08:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
a western person cant be anti western, the best muslims i have met in terms of hospitality and respect are the shia of iraq so im not anti shia, labeling something as inherently shia [such as thier hatred among other thing for the prophets wife's and companions which is exclusively their belief hence the label] is not anti a community its just stating a fact, and none of what you have said is relevant on this admin board so i dont know what else you are trying to prove. I will concede that the incident played out different in my mind but the time stamps say something else, but as i clearly stated earlier i was reacting to the other users quotes and accusations in which he essentially said Aisha the prophets wife hated her husband and lied about him and then their is this blatant lie in which he claimed the prophet called his own wife "The spearhead of disbelief and the horn of Satan” i know the full context of the hadith and its explanation by experts in exegesis and it has nothing to do with Aisha, but again this has nothing to do with the admin board.
Ibn kathir (talk)07:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I just wanted to add prior to the quotes i had advised the other editor that primary research would not be accepted and pointed him to the relevant wiki policy of primary research after which he thanked me for the advise and said i had made matters easier for him and not long after he quotes what i stated and said the above, i thought it was a deliberate attack against her.Ibn kathir (talk)07:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Recent comment ofIbn kathir at talk page ofAisha reveals user's stand, I quote user's comment on discusion page hereunder:
lets make things clear i wont agree to shia interpretations of sunni primary sources, i think that can be used as a baseline.
— Ibn kathir (talk) 07:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC),Talk:Aisha
Preceedings discussion can be reffered to see that user is dicrediting WP policies/guidelines/conventions and general consensus and suggestions given to User on various paltforms including thisand user is persistent in not having a constructive work or allowing it (if not involved atleast) to counter user is consistently threatning to block any further activity (thiks gor some sort of veto power & that everybody is obliged to consider and act accordingly). In my precceding comment I specifically said that,"I didn't requested for blocking", but now, imo a corrective action is needed. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs08:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
i give up, ill make things easier for the admin's, can you please ban me because, i don't see Faizhaider making a case against me in any of our life times.
Ibn kathir (talk)07:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
| User has been blocked, talk page access removed, and user refered toWP:BASC for further review. This discussion has long passed the point of being useful. | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it. | ||||||||||||||
Can we indef block this guy? Perthis, he's been indef blocked twice already with other accounts, one being the super-trollUser:Bad edits r dumb. All of Fat Man's edits are trolling, and he has been calling other users "dumb" constantly as of late.(C)20:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Re-open discussion, The Fat Man indefI see a whole lot wrong with this block, and it needs to be undone. First, several of the diffs above are old and have nothing to do with current activity. Second, Eagles jumped into a matter that was already settled. Third, the allegation that TFM has made no productive edits is simply wrong. Is no one paying attention here? You don't get to re-block someone based on an old, already visited block without new problems. This is a bad block, looking like someone just wanted to block The Fat Man based on a months old post to WR.SandyGeorgia (Talk)22:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I am missing something really obvious here. But if he has been indeffed under other accounts, and those indef blocks still stand, is he/she not evading a block with this new account? Sorry this question seems so obvious I think I must be missing something.--Mkativerata (talk)23:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Seriously? We block troll accounts all the time. Why is this one an exception?AD23:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
My guess is that he's "mates" with certain 'respected' and 'influencial' editors. This would not otherwise normally be tolerated. Wikipedia is (meant to be) a serious project. Jokers are for the schoolyard.AD23:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Eagles, the next time you bring thoughts of a block to ANI, wait a little longer for the consensus you seek. As for Pedro, I think he's a bright shining, helium-spewing star of wiki-love :DGwen Gale (talk)00:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Pedro blocked and unblocked
Motion to closeThis discussion is done, people have said what they wanted to say, fights broke out and were resolved; It's time to close this.Signed by Barts1aSuggestions/compliments?Complaints and constructive criticism?04:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
No. There was no consensus to block to begin with, and therefore there does not need to be consensus to unblock. And despite what one editor says above, The Fat Man has made valuable contributions to Wikipedia in the past month, including work on BLPs. He should be unblocked immediately.Kablammo (talk)04:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I closed the section about Pedro. Ban discussions run at least 24 hours. So will this discussion.--Chaser (talk)04:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
No. The discussion should continue. -Burpelson AFB✈13:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
General observationAs a general matter (not at all limited to this block and in fact I've raised it before, but very relevant here), there is a lack of clarity to some basic issues concerning blocking and unblocking policy that is surprising, given that the issues have arisen many times in the now 10 years of the project. One of these may be very relevant here: Suppose Administrator A blocks User:X, and there is about an even split of opinion on ANI about whether X should be unblocked (so, no consensus either way). Does this mean that X should remain blocked (because there is no consensus to overturn A's block) or that X should be unblocked (because unblocked is the default and there is no consensus to keep the block in place)?Newyorkbrad (talk)12:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not like some contributors to one of the previous headings; I will not insult people's understanding, or their intelligence, however cleverly fashioned. The people who have just posted their views are all intelligent, thoughtful, experienced editors. And yet they profoundly disagree. Regardless of who is right, shouldn't this be resolved? I will add that NYB is in a much better position (hint, hint) to aid in the resolution than I.--Wehwalt (talk)13:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
In response to Newyorkbrad's question: a sufficiently substantive "no consensus" discussion should override any individual admin decision. This is acommunity-edited encyclopedia, and if an admin can't persuade the community about what they did/wish to do, then it shouldn't be done. Private information which cannot/should not be discussed onwiki may complicate things, but that's what Arbcom's for.Rd232talk14:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Floquenbeam: The second move advantage is something which we haven't been able to solve. I'll grant your "no block" proposal, if by the same token, my refusal to unblock then becomes an admin decision that it's wheel warring to reverse.--Wehwalt (talk)16:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I had some bad news today. I came home and stared at the wall for a couple of hours feeling like shit. Then I picked up the laptop and stumbled into this, and have spent the last couple of hours chuckling and laughing out loud at his insight and wit. Some people have trouble with irony, so don't get what's going on here. There is no consensus. Unblock him.Anthony (talk)18:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
There is clearly no consensus for or against this block. Newyorkbrad's question needs answering: in this situation do we default to block or unblock? Defaulting to block smells a bit off to me.Anthony (talk)19:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Breakdown of opinionsBased just on the comments made in the introduction and "
This is mainly because of the claims that there is a very clear case of no consensus, which I don't believe there is necessarily. Of course, strength of arguments should also be considered. Personally I feel the arguments presented for blocking are stronger, but since I myself support a block, I may be bias. -Kingpin13 (talk)23:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Based on all of the above discussion, this is my breakdown of the declared positions. Please feel free to correct this summary. There seems to be no consensus. If that is the case, the above discussion leans strongly towards default to unblock.Anthony (talk)08:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I have removed Timotheus Canens and Aiken drum from the "block" column because I couldn't find their comments, and Secret, because their last position seems to be: "I'll wait and see what Fat Man's reaction on this block in his talk page before voting whether to support blocking or unblock."Anthony (talk)08:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Based on our discussions atUser talk:Kingpin13#The fat man, Kingpin 13 will be posting our agreed summary of declared positions from this discussion shortly. If we've misrepresented your view, please just correct it.Anthony (talk)04:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC) Here's what appears to be the tally (a combination of the two posted above): -Kingpin13 (talk)08:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
updateOwing to his ongoing behaviour in the latest thread on his talk page, I've declined his unblock request, after whichUser:Jayron32 locked him out of the talk page. My earlier worries about the block had to do with the short time given to review here. Lots of time has gone by now and I believe the block is sound.Gwen Gale (talk)10:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC) nb: 113kb, 25% of an/i. Are we there, yet? Srsly,Jack Merridew11:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
|
Should it be blanked because of the trolling?—DædαlusContribs07:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Could I get an admin to look atUser:Kailashgupta180. Since joining Wikipedia in July, user has done one useful thing: creating an article on aKhiddirpur, a village in India. This is a great addition to the encyclopedia. Unfortunately, at the same time, the editor has been highly disruptive, essentially trying a large variety of methods to create an article about himself and his website under a variety of names (Kailash gupta,Www.kailashgupta182.wikia.com, andKailashgupta182). Furthermore, the editor has added personal information to theKhiddirpur article numerous times--either a link to his user page, ashere, or an email address, ashere. This additions were done both with his accoutn and with an IP address (e.g.,[21]). The rest of the user's time has been spent polishing his user page, which is somewhere between myspacey and resume-like. I have tried numerous times to inform the user of policies, but I've never gotten a response. The user was given a final warning byUser:Eeekster on creating pages about himself back on 23 July ([22]), and that held, until today when he created the two newest ones (both tagged for speedy deletion). I don't see how spending any more time trying to teach or channel this user is going to help, because we're not getting any indication that the user understands, is listening, or is willing to follow our policies. I invite an admin to consider a block of some type; given the lack of useful edits after the initial article creation, I'm tempted to recommend an indefinite block, to last until such time as the user is demonstrates that xe understands our policies and purpose.I'm off to notify subject and Eeekster nowQwyrxian (talk)06:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Recently I got an email saying that I had requested a new password from Wikipedia. I hadn't. Possiblyphishing? --( •)18:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
LemonMonday (talk ·contribs ·count ·logs ·page moves ·block log)
LemonMonday is currently blocked for editwarring withUser:Fmph atBelgium. This is very interesting because he had just reverted Fmph onClimate of Ireland to an unsourced position in the last 2 days.
Both of these editors have worked the British Isles naming dispute area. LemonMonday has been a single purpose account whose main space edits from 2008 - Winter 2010 were made up of reverts ofUser:HighKing at articles they (LM) have never edited before.[23][24][25][26][27][28][29]He was also recently blocked for violating WP:BATTLE twice (October 30th and October 8th by Jehochman)[30]. Jehochman was convinced to unblock following thispromise by LemonMonday. Subsequently LemonMonday raised two malformed article RFCs[31][32] - he was advised, by me, on how to fix the RFC atWP:BISE[33] but do date he has not. These RFCs discussed the subject of British Isles rather thanhow to improve the articles. The RFC onTalk:British Isles borders on falling under WP:NOT as it asks a question beyond the remit of Wikipedia to consider at all.
The above issues with this account fall underdisruptive editing generally, but more specifically,WP:POINT,WP:HOUND andWP:BATTLE. LemonMonday was warned only a week ago thatsingle purpose accounts are “expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda” (per the ArbCom ruling at the Race and Intelligence RfAr[34]).This recent spurt of reverts is alarming because LemonMonday has never edited either of these articles before. LemonMonday is now following another editor around reverting them.[35][36][37][38][39][40]LemonMonday has been the subject of a series of ANI threads in 2010[41][42][43], there are also issues with this account going all the way back to 2008[44]. Each one coming to the conclusion that LemonMonday was making pointy edits incompatible with Wikipedia.
I’ve been enforcingthe British Isles probation for the last few months, but I now believe that LM’s issues with Wikipedia policy are beyond the scope of just that probation. It is time that this editor learned either to abide by policy or is simply prevented from disrupting others. Hence I put forward to the community that LemonMonday should be either:
--Caililtalk15:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Just looking at your first diff there in your list Calil - if you look at the12 diffs from 3rd October to 8th October - there is a budding little edit war (8 edits) there about tags involving several recognisable names from BISE. On your second diff, HighKing reverts a different editor, TharkunColl, twice, on anarticle he has never edited before, in order to exclude the word british isles. LemonMonday then reverts him once. I haven't yet looked through all the diffs but I remember noting in the previous ANI thread on this subject that certain editors were being pilloried for reverting edits on articles they'd never edited before when in fact the editors making the original change or original revert had never edited them before either. I shall look through the other diffs too.Fainitesbarleyscribs22:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Just to remind anybody who's eyes haven't glazed over at the mention of the word BISE, the terms of the probation areAny editor who systematically adds or removes the term "British Isles" from multiple articles without clear sourcing and justification, or who edit-wars over such addition or removal, may be added to the list of topic-banned editors. By that definition, HighKing and TharkunColl's behaviour should be looked at as well. British Islands appears in some translated stubs. TharkunColl changes British Islands to British Isles. HK reverts. TharkunColl reverts it back and HighKing reverts again. Then LemonMonday reverts HighKing. Just looking at number3, none of them could have looked at the reference which clearly gives a map ofEurope.Fainitesbarleyscribs10:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Fainites while as I said above I see your point about the edits in 2008 by HK but the reason I bring up LMs edits from 2008 isbecause his pattern of main space edits is the same as it was then and becuase LM has a very limited number of article contribs - most of them reverts of HighKing and now a new more serious pattern of hounding is starting.
This thread is about a pattern of abuse by LemonMonday from 2008 to present. The reformed BISE should deal with any further 'first mover issues'. LM has a pattern of about 60 hounding reverts from his last 100 cntribsregardless of the topic probation that stretch from September 2008 to present, that is the issue here not whether HK and TharkinColl were sanctioned (btw TharkinColl was sanctioned by BlackKite in the period you discuss). As I have stated many times if HK was continuing in the vein he had been in 2008 his edits would be an issue for me. But he's not. This thread is going back on topic - to deal with the issue of LemonMonday's behaviour at present and his choice to ignore 1 and half years worth of advice and warnings to change--Caililtalk14:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Here is the bottomline. I am not accusing anyone but am stating clearly for non-involved editors the context and what has been going on in this area.
This is the third time Cailil has initiated a banning discussion against someone who was blocked from defending themselves in the British Isles area; myself, Triton Rocker and now LemonMonday. More than "annoying" doing so seem plainly unethical to me. In all three cases, despite the same group of editors being involved in similar behaviour, the proposed sanctions have always been one-sided. "The Community" applying such sanctions rarely goes outside of the same involved characters.
It takes two or three to tango. At the very least, to appear fair, the ban/sanction should be two way. This issue has been raised before by others[45] and myself recently on his talk page. Fmph is a British Isles renaming dispute regular, not estranged from and edit wars in this area. SarekOfVulcan has also involved himself in editing warring in this area. LemonMonday just fell for a simple "gotcha". I have not looked closely at the timestamps but if he is editing from the UK, he may well have done so overnight and thought himself to be clear of any possible 3RR. He did the responsible thing but reporting an edit-war first. [{WP:AGF]]
Looking at the edit it would seem an exceptionally petty issue of no great importance or damage to the Wikipedia. Never before has Belgium been so exciting. Reading the source Fmph gave, there is no mention of Belgium in it nor specific geographic definition of it and so surely it was correct to remove it?
Reading what Fainites writes about the validity of all the references, once we remove their apparently impressive barrage and all the policy talk, do we really have anything of substance here? Are there really any terrible abuses going on? No, not at all. HighKing is again dragged back into the discussion as progenitor of the problems. Bjmullan comes in again to support on one side.[46] Snowded will soon appear to propose a case by case approach. It is the same old British Isles renaming dispute, business as usual.
If there is something to be done regarding the British Isles renaming dispute, it should be done fairly and en masse rather than the same admins taking sniper shots at individual editors in order to take them out of the game. It goes without saying that doing so changes the balance of the discussion on British Isles related issues. Coincidentally it is always to advantage one side's while other abuses are ignored.
I have recently suggested that what is really needed is to take the British Isles renaming dispute issue to Arbcom and was accused sorely for doing so by Cailil but, for everyone's sake, we need somewhere where the events will be looked at fairly by uninvolved third parties and moderated. This attempted sanction is just part of a bigger play and should not be allowed on its own. --LevenBoy (talk)09:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
What is being proposed is that LemonMonday is eithersite banned ortopic banned from all Britain and Ireland topicsand banned from interacting with all editors involved at the British Isles naming dispute anywhere on wikipedia. The reasons are given in full in the first post along with diffs, but in short LemonMonday has a pattern of hounding reverts of editors from the British Isles topic. That is now extending beyond the topic into other areas thus creating abattleground and revert warring thusdisrupting the project to make a point--Caililtalk14:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
User:Anyuse200/User:Anyuse110, who had Anyuse200 blocked for socking (seeWP:Sockpuppet investigations/Anyuse110/Archive), is continuing the edit war onCousin marriage to make changes without consensus (eg repeatedly moving the image away from the head of the article). It's not strictly a 3RR, so I've brought it here instead. --Boing! said Zebedee (talk)11:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
This issue involves a dispute with userLagoo Sab. It was about style as well as content of the official language section of above lemma. I have asked for a 3O on 06-12-2010 which was given by user Ironholds. Lagoo Sab had nevertheless re-edited saying both of us are biased resulting in a dispute as well as what I consider personal attacks as well as hypothesizing about my identity. I have encorporated suggested changes into the section, restructured it to account the undue weight notice entered by Lagoo Sab. And am simply frustrated as of now. I will provide diff links in the process but would appreciate assistance.Chartinael (talk)22:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
The response that you missed out on was noticing the possible conflation of official language with language with the largest number of L1 speakers. It's not necessary to take a census to determine the former.Uncle G (talk)01:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
This is regarding the conflict I have with user Lagoo Sab since the lemma first came to my attention in October 2010.
The lemma came to my attention in October of 2010 when user: timbaland madechanges on the -de version regarding size of native speakers from 33 mio to 50 mio referencing the -en lemma. After looking into the speaker population issue I referenced the numbers according to safe, but agreed on academic estimates and introduced anofficial language section.Another attempt to up numbers without reference was made by an IP a few days later. The German lemma stayed at that.
At the same time I looked into the -en lemma, trying to figure out how the high numbers were sourced. The source was the ethnologue differentiating between speaker population and ethnic population. Since the Pashto lemma is about the language, the speaker size should be the figure stuck to and in the lemma on ethnicity the higher number ought to be found. However, there seems to have been an ongoing dispute as the higher numbers replacing lower although unreferenced numbers as well were entered by Lagoo Sab[50] This issue caused Lagoo Sab to call me a POV-Warrior as he found the ethnic population and corrected outrageously wrong numbers entered by another editor[51] which I replaced with speaker population referenced by several academic sources[52] as the ethnologue gives an estimate on ethnic population suggesting speaker population is higher than given. Backing figures up withEncyclopaedia Iranica, UCLA Language Project and Ethnolgue
Lagoo Sab has been keeping an eye on the official language section, reverting edits[64] that were unwarranted (32%) with other good edits (comparison of pashto and persion on socio-economic level) or regarding Persian being the lingua franca[65]
After an edit by Bejnar in the official language section[66] replacing unsourced stuff with more unsourced although slightly more correct stuff, I rewrote part of that parallel in[67] and-en when Lagoo Sab made changes removing and replacing sources[68] especially adding a rather full quote from a public domain paper not published by an academic publisher which I contested[69] and Lagoo Sab reverted[70]. After reverting back and forth with no sign of Lagoo Sab understanding the difference between speaker and ethnic population, he took the issue to the talk page although he even quotes his source correctly[71]. He backs his POV claim against me with UCLA, which has an evenlower estimate ofspeaker population cherry picking the percentages and doing OR applying them to figures from other sources while realizing that the speaker population isonly an estimate. User Ketabtoon supports Lagoo Sab, while mixing and mingeling with sources, applying percentages taken from source a at year x to raw figures of source b from year y sayingprimary census data is to be used instead of secondary academic data - which I contest but was willing to use the higher numberbacked by an academic paper as well. At no avail,WP:OR continues withKetabtoon which Icontest again pointing out again that speaker and ethnic population arenot identical while Lagoo Sab says estimates are fine if they aregenerally accepted and my safe and academically backed numbers are OR[72] I leave it at that. Especially after the 3RR rule has been called on me by userKaddoo who alsohypothesizes about my identity but thinksbetter of it.
I checked back about a month later starting right of with revertingnonsense edit by Kaki joe andrestructuring section which was inconsistent.Revert from Lagoo Sab without comment. On December 1st, I checked back and saw that he had gone back to the official language version which I consider bad in style and consistency. So I restructured once more asking him forexplanation through the comment which Lagoo Sab rvv on the 6th calling me ananti-Pashtun POV-pusher anda Tajik ethnocentric without discussing it as requestedon the talk page on December 1st. Instead he called me aPOV-Warrior writing persian ethnocentric bullshit beingobsessed with hate. At that time I explain to him again that I have no pro- nor anti-Pashto POV and that I realize that discussion is futileas I am dealing with a fanatic. Lagoo Sabdiffers and says I am user:Sommerkom or user: Phoenix2 with whom it seems he has issues. He disregards reputable academic sources as an unverifiableTajik biased demonstrating my low?level of intelligence continuing on to comparingimplicitely me to Hitler because I am German. Which again leads to wildhypothesizing regarding my identityhere as well.
I then refute to asking for a 3O regarding the disagreement regarding Phrasing / Structuring of Official Status Section in Pashto Language articlehere and informing lemma-editors in talk-section after restructuring to make both versions easilycomparable. User Ironholdsresponds to the 3O request and user ReporterManremoves 3O thereafter.
Lagoo Sab dismisses sources asTajik and Shi'a thus on the basis of ethnicity and religion of author while theCAL source is claimed to be neutral despite the fact the the authors Farid Younos and Mariam Mehdi may or may not be biased thus dismissing academic publishers like Routledge, Ashgate and others. He has issues withRizwan Hussain a source and dismisses his research methods although Hussain used in several other lemmata as statedby me in response.
Lagoo Sab enters a new source into the discussion (Tariq Rahman) which he also entered into the lemma as anexternal link. After reviewing article, which btw is published in the academic journal which gave excellent reviews to the Hussain source Lagoo Sab dismisses, I make a statement to the effect, that not allethnic pasthun speak pashto - which was backed bythis new source and contested by Sab himself[73], saying that I have issues[74]. Ironhold, however, finds this notion"ludicrous".
At that time I had taken the issue to the administrative notice board asking for intervention while at the same time Lagoo Sab took the fact I reverted his adding a royal title to the rulers as a way to call a 3RR on me. And this is where we stand. I would like to be able to edit without being assaulted immediately as a non-intelligent tajik shia ethnocentric with a bunch of sockpuppets and would like somebody to explain to Lagoo Sab that academic publications are preferable to tertiary internet sources. Basically, I would just like to not be in the focus of his persian-pashto tunnel view.Chartinael (talk)12:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
This relisted AfD is degenerating into a battleground between the (mostly IP) supporters and detractors of the article subject, which generatesWP:BLP problems. I recommend that it be closed and courtesy-blanked, or at least semiprotected. I can't do this because I'm the nominator. Sandstein 22:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
NW(Talk)15:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Or can this be made into a templated button, for interested user to transclude on their pages?Jclemens (talk)20:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm ... could you change the title of the button to "Read a piece of unmonitored potential slander"? Works just as well for either description.—Kww(talk)21:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Random idea; could we have this as a watchlist notice for maybe a week? Nothing heavy, just a short intro with a link to this tool --Errant [tmorton166](chat!)23:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Template created at{{uBLP refbutton}}.Access Denied03:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Facepalm on behalf of us all.10:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Flobot222 (talk ·contribs ·count ·logs ·page moves ·block log)
This editor seems to rack up warnings on an almost daily basis. They are only editing India/Pakistan/Persia related articles, specifically concerning ethnicity, and obviously making lot of contentious edits, seemingly based on the manifest that the user insists on having on his/hers talk page. Yet the user has never used an article talk page, but has instead preferred edit warring, both the quick and the slow version.
I am not terribly familiar with the subject matter at hand, but it seems to me we have an SPI that are unable to keeptheir neutrality as well as unwilling to engage in discussion about their edits either on article talk pages or their own. As such I have my doubts that this editor is an asset to the project, although with some friendly but stern advice they might become one. --Saddhiyama (talk)09:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello both of you, Can you present diff links to contested edits? So far I haven't seen much that I'd feel too much out of place. I consider the Jemima Khan edits fine. There is no reason to emphasize on religion or converting to another in the lead.Reviewing some edits:
I would like to understand which POV you are referring to, especially what race-related POV he is pushing? Again, please provide diff links. I found a few crappy edits, like the one Saddhiyama complained about[83].Chartinael (talk)12:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
This user is basically using Wikipedia as a blog and apparently nothing else. As they're Spanish, I'm not sure warnings would accomplish much. Could someone fluent inform him/her that we're not here so they can talk about their day?HalfShadow22:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Over the past year, IP user 81.168.20.115 has been continuously adding unsourced details to theBonnie Tyler article, despite several warnings by other editors not to do so (both in the article's edit summaries and three warnings on theIP user's talk page). The issue, concerning worldwide sales, has been discussed at great length on the article's talk page in the past and consensus is that such a detail should not be added to the article without definitive sources. User 81.168.20.115 (obviously an overzealous fan) has refused to enter into any discussion and has failed to respond to any warnings given, adding unsourced details back to the article regardless. I think perhaps a block would be beneficial.Diffs:-
Kookoo Star (talk)00:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
ResolvedHow do I stop a malfunctioning bot that has no "emergency shutoff" button in its user or user talk pages? --Redrose64 (talk)21:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, yes: that is indeed the bot. It's replacing certain special characters with other special characters - that diff is a good example, but see also my recent contributions in User talk: namespace to see the reverts I've done.
Should I serve a{{subst:ANI-notice}}? --Redrose64 (talk)21:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
{{subst:ANI-notice}} required or not? --Redrose64 (talk)22:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)DrPhosphorus (talk ·contribs ·checkuser ·block user ·block log ·edit count)AfterMani Nouri (AfD discussion) was nominated for deletion with the rationale"Fails WP:ENT", DrPhosphorus, an account seemingly created toargue for keeping in that AFD discussion, has been going around nominating other Iran-related biographies for deletion as "Fails WP:ENT". These are all incomplete nominations, and I spotted them first as such. I was going to roll the nominations forward, adding the missing step, until I noticed the pattern. This seems like simple tit-for-tat disruption.Uncle G (talk)00:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
This is the most stupid comment that I have read recently. Sometimes, I get the feeling that the only reason people like you talk, is bad digestion. Cirt taught me how to sign my comments (you can see that on my discussion page), and learning how to use templates is not a matter of years. You can always learn from how others do that. Maybe you (Daedalus969) are too dumb for it, however, this is no reason for generalizations. However, the funniest thing is that you apparently have no idea what disruption means. Then if my nominations are correct, how am I disrupting????DrPhosphorus (talk)13:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I have just read the page ondisrupting wikipedia to make a point and actually my behavior doesn't show any of the mentioned cornerstones. In contrary, I did exactly what is said to do "Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass" (in case of Mani Nouri as well as bahram Soroush). I don't know whether there exists an instance in wiki to burden because of these libels against me, but if there is one, please let me know so that I can do so.DrPhosphorus (talk)13:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Dear Daedalus969, I didn't meant to insult you and take back my remark. However, it is not right to accuse me with something without doing extensive research before. This is exactly my point the whole time. In this discussion, everybody accuses me of unprofessional behavior, however I haven't heard of any substantial proof.DrPhosphorus (talk)09:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
ResolvedHi,
A visually impaired user with Asperger's symdrom has sort assistance via a form on the wrongplannet.net website:http://www.wrongplanet.net/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=3234813#3234813
As he feels he has been a victim of cyberbullying and has suffered a meltdown.
He says he has been unable to resolve the dispute, or identify how to as he has great difficulty navigating the wikipedia site, undoubtedly due to his visual imparement, but Asperger's is a type of none veral learning disability, which affects people differently, but can mean that some people have near insurmountable difficulty in none verbal communication or forms of social communication.
People with the Syndrom can also have quite extreams of emotion or sensory perception, resulting in what's called a meltdown, which can be quite traumatic, even though to a more typical person the event may seem quite minor. (for instance, some people can have a melt down when it's raining because of their sensitivity to touch)
Due to this rather odd circumstance I felt it better to raise the issue of the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents as the person may well need quite significant assistance and guidance beyond a more normal or more draw out approach.
he says the pages involved are:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2PR_FM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2PR_FM#2PR_FM
and that his user-name/login has been blocked as he's undone the changes a number of times.
I realise that the normal approach would probably be page protection, asking for a ban on the other use [possibly] and getting his account re-instanted, but he couldn't even find out how to reach the admin sections and asked on wrongplannet if anyone was a wikipedia admin.
I'm passing a link to this onto him, I've put a link to the discussion on wrong planet above and below.
http://www.wrongplanet.net/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=3234813#3234813—Precedingunsigned comment added by94.197.127.230 (talk)23:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
But to return to our sheep, it is possible that someone atWP:WPACCESS may be able to offer assistance or advice.DuncanHill (talk)23:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Both about the alternate accounts and editing the article, as that is what the alternate accounts did.—DædαlusContribs02:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
All that said, I can see nothing that could be construed as a personal attack on you. Critical evaluation of articles is a core part of the way things work around here. It can be annoying, it can feel personal at times (and at times it's probably meant that way), but it's the nature of the beast. If you're planning to stick around, better get used to it, or develop strategies for dealing with it (sometimes easier said than done), 'cause it's not likely to go away any time soon.Beyond My Ken (talk)09:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Do you feel that it is beneficial to you, for you to use Wikipedia, even though ordinary talk page notices as widely used by most editors are constantly intimidating to you and cause you significant upset? And when regular content disputes have a similar effect?
Do you plan to edit Wikipedia in any topic areas unrelated to promotion of your radio station business?
--Demiurge1000 (talk)11:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Whitewater111, I think that you need some more time around Wikipedia to really understand what may be confusing, or what you don't understand. Which briefly is as follows: IT'S ALL ABOUT THE ARTICLES. For example the questions that seem to bother you are not questioning you, or your internet radio station, or whether or not it is real work, they are questioning whether or not the ARTICLE meets the Wikipedia criteria for existence. So, don't take any of this personally. Second, I don't think that you would want us to patronize you because you have a disability. Folks are treating you like the rest of us, like one of us. Stick around here like the rest of us, take a little heat (on occasion) like the rest of us, learn how Wikipedia works like the rest of us, move on like the rest of us, and have some fun here like the rest of us. I hope you have a good time here. Sincerely,North8000 01:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
after reverting twice an edit ofDrjdemornay (talk ·contribs) on the articleRebecca de Mornay, the user threatened me of legal actions:[103]. As perWP:NLT, I report these here.Badzil (talk)01:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Four points and three questions:
Quite why we're not thinking "sockpuppetting BLP vandal" at this point is a mystery.
Oh and the article is in need of some serious correction after all of this back and forth, too. There are some sources. Have at it.Uncle G (talk)03:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
There has been a little bit of drama atVancouver Southsiders. This report is primarily due to edit warring but since we were both uncivil and reverting too much it belongs here. To make it worse, I am also requesting thatUser:Walter Görlitz no longer be allowed to use Twinkle since he twice removed edits as vandalism when it was a content dispute.
Edit warring:
I did call him a "fuck" in response to being called a "dolt" and also reverted so I am also in the wrong.Cptnono (talk)07:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
NotifiedCptnono (talk)07:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
The latter two were vandalism since you refused to discuss and you were not reading what was written on talk page. You are attempting to bring another debate into this article. Not realizing why the articles were not the same is why you and the other editor were being dolts. --Walter Görlitz (talk)08:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
User:660gd4qo has been trying to edit the articleSamsung Group in a way that could be seen as being biased towards Samsung.
What they've said is that the section regarding the alleged price fixing by Samsung should be removed because it was already mentioned in another articlehere is the diff.
However what the editor also wants to remove in it's entirety is the section of the article regarding the lawsuit Samsung initiated against Michael Breendiff here. I've attempted to explain on the talk page that a section of this does belong on Samsung's page becausethe reference points out that the article was poking fun at Samsung's alleged corruption and bribery issues and it was Samsung that issued lawsuits against the newspaper, the editor and Michael Breen the journalist. However the editor has posted on the talk page saying that this does not belong in Samsung's article because it is irrelevant to Samsung. As it is it was only a few sentences so it wasn't giving the article any undue weight and removing it in it's entirety I think would show bias towards Samsung.
I attempted to re-word the section to correct grammar, remove duplications and also to clarify as per the references provided in the article that Samsung only dropped the lawsuit against the newspaper and it's editor once an apology was issued but they still continued with the lawsuit against the journalist, that too gotreverted.
I posted messages on about 3 or 4 users talk pages to tell them that there is a discussion at the Samsung talk page and to ask for their opinion but the user complained on my talk that I was canvassing, though funnily they didn't do that until another editor posted and agreed with me!
Can we please have admin intervention here?--5 albert square (talk)15:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
The usersBokpasa andموريسكو started (again) editing consensual articles[110][111], without discussion and without looking for a new consensus[112][113].
Before that,Bokpasa was involved in major PoV/vandalism on some articles (History of Morocco,Western Sahara,Gibraltar,Perejil Island,Almohads,Almoravids...) andموريسكو was blocked a few weeks ago for the reasons and for the same articles[114].
Thanks to do something to prevent a degradation of the articles.
Omar-Toons (talk)15:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi community. I just wanted to let you know I've blocked two very longstandingg editors as part of my trolling onWP:AN3. There's also a tiny bit of discussion on my talk page andUser talk:DragonflySixtyseven. I want to let everyoe know I stand by this decision (as stated on my talk page, I think one block was probably toolenient, if anything). However, the users are requesting unblock and I want to give them a chance for a hearing, so I'm notifying the community.
I recommend the discussion take place atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Ryulong reported by User:Jpatokal (Result: both blocked). Thanks guys.Magog the Ogre (talk)03:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Basically, the current situation there are two editors who think that two specific album singles should be removed from the infobox on the article for theTeargarden by Kaleidyscope. One of them,Fezmar9 seems to actually be trying toimprove the article, whereas the other,Sergecross73, in my own opinion, seems more enthusiastic about edit-warring than discussing things civilly. This obviously gets very annoying when I'm trying to simply keep the dispute to the talk page. I have had this exact same problem before, but eventually decided it was pointless arguing with people who are simply going to respond with edit-warring and personal accusations ofownership. In this case, the discussion on whether to remove the content was opened on the talk page and the content was at some point removed, even though I repeatedly made a case for its continued inclusion. No consensus of any kind has been reached. The editor seems to want mainstream sources to warrant the inclusion of something that is typically obscure in all its forms. I have given them sources (as obscure as these sources supposedly are), and have immediately been told that these sources are not notable enough, and that because they are not, that my entire argument in invalid and further. I've suggested bringing this sort of unhelpful interaction to a noticeboard in the past, but decided not to when one of the editors refused to discuss things in such a way, right before trying to get another edit-war going over something else trivial. I'm sick of trying to improve the article when it feels like I'm dealing with passive-aggressive children at times. So any help would be appreciated.Friginator (talk)06:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
ResolvedUser:GregoryPolskyJr has made a number of edits to the front page image[116] forThe Globe and Mail substituting a false image for the original. (an anonymous user has also been making spurious edits to the Globe page itself recently). He has also made a number of spurious edits to the user pages[117] for people who have reverted his edits (For instance changing their political affiliation.) Comments? -Dhodges (talk)15:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
ResolvedWhose Your Guy (talk)03:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Got a bit of a backlog on RPP. Could an admin or two take a look? -Neutralhomer •Talk •19:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
ResolvedFor the past couple of days, I've been constantly harassed byGodisme2 (talk ·contribs) and his/her IP150.212.72.23 (talk) for the past few days over moving a discussion that started on anarticle's talk page, they attempted to move the discussion to my talk page,[118] and I subsequently moved it back to the original talk page.[119] Godisme2 keeps saying that I have no right to move their comments, nor link to their comments which I responded to on the article's talk page and finally issued a legal threat on my talk page if I did not remove the link.[120] —Farix (t | c)03:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC) Yes, I have every right to threaten legal actions when you have altered the intent of my words. It is called libel and is illegal.--God(Pray)03:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
|
I'm not sure if I'm supposed to call additional attention to such things, so I'll be cryptic for now. There's a talk page which currently contains discussion from 2007 expressing doubt about the accuracy of assertions as to the origin of the term in the article title. It's since been removed from the article itself, but is available in the history from about that time. The nature of the claim is that the term was inspired by a series of child molestations in 2007 carried out by a named individual who was in turn inspired by a similar crime spree by another named individual. Both names appear to be of non-notable people with no significant criminal history.76.253.139.7 (talk)04:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Based on comments left atUser talk:Newyorkbrad, at least one editor is requesting a review of my actions regarding the removal of talk page access ofUser:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back. I should note that yes, I did use an incivil edit summary during the process. That was wrong, and I should not have. Regarding the issue of whether or not TFM should be allowed talk-page access, there was an unblock request on his talk page which I attempted to respond to. In responding to his unblock request, I made no less than three attempts to discuss conditions for an unblock with him. All I was trying to ascertain was the sort of restrictions that he would accept if unblocked. He never once responded to my inquiries, except for some attempts to make light of my attempts. I renewed my efforts several times to get him unblocked, but he made no indication that he wished to participate in his own defense. After it became clear he wasn't directly interested in further improving Wikipedia, I went to Newyorkbrad to consult with him; he had recently restored TFM's talk page access, after a previous admin had removed it. With NYB's advice and consent, I re-removed TFM's talk page access. If there is consensus to restore it yet again, that is if consensus among other users is that TFM should continue to have access to his talk page, I will restore it myself. --Jayron3217:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think you should block someone's talk page access just because they are joking around and playfully mocking you there. Jokes are a good thing. Jokes do not equal disruption.Anthony (talk)20:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
It was very, very obvious that he was just joking, as he usually does. You know when he is being serious, as can be seen in his unblock request, which was serious and to the point. I do not believe that he said anything in the discussion on his talk page that warrented removal of his access to it.SilverserenC20:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Disruptive user apparently no longer here to contribute to the project. Sarcasm and "jokes" on a talk page is hardly a worthy contribution when you are blocked, and demonstrates the user no longer wants to be part of the project. Let the unblock mailing list handle this so editors can move onto more useful things. --Errant(chat!)16:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I know the discussion above isn't finished, but I don't see any real reason to keep the content(aside from the declined unblock requests) per the trolling, perWP:DENY. Earlier today IP socks were trying to restore the user's userpage.—DædαlusContribs10:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
You know what gets me? He won't even behave himself long enough to get unblocked, in order to continue whatever he thinks he's doing. In the circumstances, it's beyond me why others feel the need to agitate on his behalf. It's not like he can't speak for himself: he just chose not to. Even now, he still has email as an option available. In the mean time, let's just give him the chance to live up to his username.Rd232talk12:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
TFMs friends have reverted his userpage to his preferred version and then protected it. The account is blocked indefinitely and is an acknowledged sockpuppeteer and everyone should be treated the same here, no special rules for special people. Please place the templates back in where they belong and apply policy and administrative process in a consistent manner. If the templates are not to be used anymore, then send them to MfD. Nepotism is not a legitimate reason to treat someone differently than others. -Burpelson AFB✈16:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Unrelated to TFM, or anyone else, from what I can see. Chill, everyone -Alison❤00:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)Userpage and talkpage templates exist for purposes. Extended argumentation about what templates should go on what pages is generally not helpful. In this instance, the user's current status is obvious enough from the talkpage that it is not useful to push for additional templates to be added, certainly not at the present time.Newyorkbrad (talk)23:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
From my reading of TFM's talk page, he has begun to understand that his opinion of what is appropriate and what is funny is not shared by many other editors. He agreed with Jayron's request to exhibit proper decorum; he agreed with Gimmetoo on staying away from AN/I; he agreed with Gimmetoo on not using "bad words" anymore. What he had a problem with was Jayron's proposed condition of editing only articles - which condition I think is rather unreasonable, if he wants to have fun with his matesand his mates are agreeable, so what? Sandy seems to think he is a worthwhile article writer and her word is good enough for me. He has been making article edits, so it's not pure trolling. I would extend the restrictions a little:
Most of those conditions are already agreed and the remainder won't seriously impair TFM's enjoyment of contributing to an encyclopedia project. Why can't we just propose these as a condition of unblocking? If TFM can't abide by them, it will show soon enough.Franamax (talk)19:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
![[116]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fen.wikipedia.org%2fw%2findex.php%3ftitle%3dFile%3aThe_Globe_and_Mail_frontpage_new.jpg%26amp%3boldid%3d401753658){kind=link}
