Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:54, 7 November 2010

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Misplaced Pages:How to archive a talk page.

Trouted

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: using twinkle is pure evil as such, thus you are trouted hard and firm

Bogus warning

I made a single revert. That's in no way edit warring. Yworo (talk) 02:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

This disagrees. It shows multiple reverts, as well as multiple edits that were revert-like. I guess sometimes it's hard to keep track of, especially in the middle of a content dispute that should have been taken to the talk page. I suspect that's easy to fix though by going back to the talk page to discuss or by involving some uninvolved editors to help work on consensus. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI /_CNTRB 03:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Uh, in case you were unaware, a series of unbroken edits are counted as one edit for the purposes of 3RR. I make individual edits so other editors can individually revert an edit they disagree with. Yworo (talk) 03:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe you may be mistaking edit warring with 3RR. They can be quite different in various scenarios. But again, more importantly is what is really happening is adding info, removing info, adding info, removing info... numerous times. Of course, I know it wasnt your intent to bypass 3RR by using incremental edits, but with the article in such a contentious state, and an unresolved conversation on the talk page, how do you think such actions would be perceived by outsiders? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI /_CNTRB 03:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The warning is specifically for 3RR, intended to be given after the third revert. Also, an "unresolved conversation" doesn't trump WP:V. When one editor removes tagged uncited material, WP:V explicitly requires the editor restoring it to provide the needed citations. Also, the conversation on the talk page didn't start until after the series of edits. Yworo (talk) 03:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I think the confusion comes from you reading it differently?. No worries there. But it seems to be the standard edit warring (with mention of 3RR) message. Like all the templated messages, some parts may not specifically apply. But let's not split hairs on it. :-) Let's assume it entirely is for edit warring? ROBERTMFROMLI /_CNTRB 03:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm counting the edit war as starting October 23. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry, reverting the insertion of personal opinion without citation and warning the editor to provide citations is not edit warring. Yworo (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Factocop and Brandywell Stadium

Could you inform Factocop not to say that an edit is vandalism when it is clearly a content dispute when using edit summary. Good idea that the page is now protected.VirtualRevolution (talk) 11:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Also the page is not protected you didn't do it correctly. VirtualRevolution (talk) 12:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sarek, I think VirtualRevolution is snatching at straws here. A small error in my terminology. nothing more. seriously...its a bit petty. He/she is very welcome to join the discussion. Anyway...I know I asked you this before but following your block of NorthernCounties for edit-warring on said page, as he did not seek consensus for change, you failed to 'undo' his revision. Why not? I ask this because I thought it was standard for the blocking admin to do so and because you agreed to the change yourself. I am suggesting that a pp be put on the page but only after you revert back to the version prior to NorthernCounties revision.Factocop (talk) 12:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Calling an edit vandalism is not a small error in terminology. VirtualRevolution (talk) 12:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

How can you tell if it was a content dispute given that the blocked user only joined the discussion to say that they would not discuss the issue? Either way its no big deal. I am sure you have been guilty of greater sins and got away with it in the past...feel free to discuss the topic at hand.Factocop (talk) 12:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sarek, I notice that you have protected the Brandywell WP. Why did you not revert back to original content before doing so? You couldnt find the time to reply to my comments from 12:23 yet you found the time to protect the page. This means that the issue will drag on for another month.Factocop (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Lerdthenerd (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Sarek, I am not sure why you didnt respond to any of the questions posted on this page nor the the questions posted on the admins page. Probably something to do with not having a leg to stand on but I have encountered you on a number of discussions, you have been petty in your warnings and blocking and yet it seems that admins are above the law in this case. Absolute joke. Stay away from any discussions I am involved in as you are a poor admin. complete hypocracy.Factocop (talk) 09:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Doncram RFC/U

I have endorsed. Not sure if I should add any additional comments. Blueboar (talk) 18:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

God... where do I begin?... the problem is that this something that spans multiple pages over the course of several months. It is difficult to provide diffs. Blueboar (talk) 19:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

You know... given the history between Doncram and myself, if I get overly involve in this, Doncram is going to try to twist it so it focuses on my behavior instead of his. I am sorry to put the work load on you, but other than endorsing your comments, I think I should take a back seat. If the evidence and comments comes from someone other than me, he might begin to understand that it is his behavior that is the issue, not mine. Blueboar (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the articles you mention at the RFC/U already, you can probably find more than enough evidence of his tendency towards WP:OWN, and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT at List of Masonic buildings, and at Canton Viaduct, where he is consistently reluctant to accept that any viewpoint but his own has merit, and is quick to revert any change to "his" work, and engages in edit waring to keep his version of the article in place (as I know well).

You might want to look back through the archives of the list article... there was a dispute last summer between Doncram and myself over the best citation for the fact that the buildigns were listed on the NRHP and MSJapan tried to informally mediate it. As long as he thought MSJ might support his view of things Doncram was willing to participate ... but when MSJ began to seem more inclined towards my viewpoint, Doncram turned somewhat hostile and refused to listen further. Blueboar (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)But really, experience suggests that it'll get twisted either way. If the RFC fails to be certified, he could use that as "well, there's not really a problem". Considering that he's already claiming that the mediation is all about your behavior, not his, I don't think you can make things any worse. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Just curious, Sarek, are you endorsing? And, just out of curiosity, do you by any chance know User:Spock of Vulcan, who I've seen show up on my watch list a few times? John Carter (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

If I can find a set of diffs that go directly toward resolving an issue, instead of just stating my side, I'll use them to endorse. And no, I haven't run into Spock lately, somehow. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Navah Perlman

Hello Sarek, nice meeting you. I noticed you reverted my wikilinking edits.

Since you are an advanced clarinetist, (not clarinetist,) I am a bit puzzled. Do you mind enlightening me about the pianist thing, why should it be wikilinked as concert pianist, instead of we have concert pianist here in Misplaced Pages? As you know, we also have pianist too, which you didn't use.:-) You used pianist instead.

Equal wise, why should violonists be wikilinked as violonists instead of we have violonists?

What is your rationale behind this revert Sarek, I would like to know.:-) Because I felt really sad; I thought I did a good edit.

Also, when you say:

• Perlman performed as a soloist...

People might want to know what the soloist is. Please remember, there are millions of readers out there which might not be familiar with some of the musical terms including some of the musical instruments.

And art for instance.

• When she ...switched her major from music to art, to me, it is highly relevant to wikilink it; don't you think so? Because, it is not just a common word and it's connected to the subject.

I could make the same argument with the Symphony Orchestra.:-) Cheers. Fusion is the future (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello Sarek, I noticed you undid your edits. I am very impressed and delighted with your common sense and sincere honesty. I sure know, that I can trust an administrator who has these prominent qualities whose judgments are based on. Thank you and thank you. Cheers Fusion is the future (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Irving et al

Thank you. It certainly was not my intent, and I have tried to be careful about that to the point of raising concerns in private emails. But it is very difficult to discuss the COI pattern outside the co-workers-not-socks claims. It is hard to convey that this individual lists himself as a officer of an organization on the internet, with a publicly available email that is "very similar" to the signon that has been editing an autobiography and a number of other articles closely related to his job function. Many thanks, Racepacket (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Sarek, I am trying to deescalate this situation. Have learned by example some COI practices better learned by study, but have been diligent in keeping voice neutral, relying on published sources. With respect to Racepacket need some advice. Sense he is moving on, but I now getting a little scared. He has accused the Irving editors of being co-workers (they are not; same IP, it's been checked) and indicates above he is now going out by private e-mails on the issue. He has gone to the Board of Trustees at Cornell; the students are getting agitated by his actions, etc. By the way, several people use "Cmagha" in a variety of settings. Reference to the Tain Bo Cuilagne. The Seven Sons of Magha, who marched with Maev and Aillil on their trek to retrieve the Brown Bull of Cooley. The cairn, as in Cairn Magha, was thought to be Clontygora cairn, north of Newry.Cmagha (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Claims of vandalism

Is Factocop going to continue to call peoples edits vandalism when they are not and are you going to say anything about it as you seem to be quick to come to my page to tell me incorrectly that I could face a block. Mo ainm~Talk 18:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Mo, you considered my edits labelled 'test' as vandalism. 3 words, Pot, Kettle and Black spring to mind.

Sarek, also here is NorthernCounties describing my edits as vandalism when they are quite clearly not. I think this warrants a blocking now...dont you? http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ANorthernCounties&action=historysubmit&diff=394414364&oldid=394413781.Factocop (talk) 09:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It was WP:POINTy, but your tests to a live article were, indeed, vandalism. Cut it out, both of you or you both will get a block. Seriously. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for clarifying my edits on the template of Freemasonry2 ..

I am very grateful to you ....

Regards

Badr _{my talk !} 18:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you aswell. Can you suggest what form of WP:DR I should pursue. I wjust want some sunjective and neutral to come and look at the argument.Factocop (talk) 15:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Factocop

Given the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/The Maiden City/Archive, how did Factocop manage to get unblocked the previous time? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

He was apparently confirmed as not being TMC. I'm not privy to the evidence he presented. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I was accused by countless parties of sock puppetry and as Sarek will confirm, I fought the accusations vigorously. I was blocked for the best part of a month, while other users made snide comments and cheap digs. Thankfully after an investigation, I was released. Although I am still awaiting quite a few apologies. Dont think ill get them though.Factocop (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

If the checkuser said no, then I reckon that's the way it is. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

CU confirmed that Factocop was Pilgrimsquest and also Blue is better, that is known and a fact they might not have been Maiden City but they certainly were the other 2 and possibly the IP's also. Mo ainm~Talk 20:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Pilgrimsquest and User talk:Dame edna uk, you are probably thinking of Mo, both abusive sockpuppets used by Factocop by his own admission. O Fenian (talk) 20:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Well acording to the report "Factocop and Blue is better are Confirmed with regards to each other." So thats 3 that are confirmed bu CU Mo ainm~Talk 20:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

What he doesn't mention is that by "I fought the accusations vigorously" he means he evaded the block multiple times and continued edit warring using sockpuppets, even evading the block hours before it was lifted. Factocop is a proven abusive sockpuppeteer by his own admission. O Fenian (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

So why is he still being allowed to edit? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

That is a great question that I would love to know the answer to also. Mo ainm~Talk 21:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

This is all the answer I have for you, so please go argue somewhere else. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Presumably the admins will judge Factocop on his own merit at this point and in future. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I vigorously denied being either 'The Maiden City' or 'Blue is better', right from the very start, from the very first comment of sock puppetry, and I deny it now still. O'Fenian, you would do well to remember that tHe CU is not the only part of a sock puppet investigation. I felt very harshly done by when I was blocked for sockpuppetry, without even been able to fight the accusations as the investigation was open and closed over a wkd. That is the last I will say on the matter.Factocop (talk) 09:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain please

What do you mean here? Mo ainm~Talk 18:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I blocked NC for 24 hours because I confused them with you. Then I left it because I had warned him about messing with talkpage blanking before, and it didn't seem fair to have Factocop under one set of rules and NC under another. If another admin wants to reverse it, I have no objection.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what do you mean you confused them with me? Mo ainm~Talk 18:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought at first that NC had been the other party warned by Bwilkins. By the time I left the block notification, I was aware of that mistake, but felt it was still proper given the past day or two's history on Factocop's talk page. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I am completly lost who did Bwilkins warn? And what has it got to do with me. I have looked on his page and don't see my name. Mo ainm~Talk 18:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

See this diff. (Oh, and sorry for repeatedly miscapitalizing your username, I'll try to get it right going forward.) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I see says the blind man, thanks, now I have to ask him what the hell he is on about also because I haven't a clue. Mo ainm~Talk 18:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Just so you are aware I haven't recieved an official warning as I have not and I quote Bwilkins "you have not violated, just fricking be careful around those 2 people is all I'm saying - don't get sucked in". Mo ainm~Talk 09:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh no - it's still official. It says do not do any of those things - I merely say that you have not yet done them, and don't. Please read - that's all I've asked for you to do. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

So it is an official general warning to all editors who have not violated any policy, is this a new way of doing things here? Mo ainm~Talk 09:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the standard welcome greetings also tell people what not to do. FFS, don't fricking do any of the things, you're already not, but just don't - is this that much of a challenge for you? This is not an attack on you, it's that you're knee-fricking-deep in the shyte, you don't want to slip. God, is this that tough to read? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes it effin is when you have a trigger happy admin that was out to block me yesterday for nothing but blocked the wrong person. Mo ainm~Talk 09:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Can we drop the histrionics all round please. MA was incorrectly singled out. That could easily be acknowledged and we can all move on. Whats the big deal? RashersTierney (talk) 09:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree Rashers, appears admins don't like to admit they made an error. Mo ainm~Talk 10:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Did I block you? Noooooo. Are you actions on my talkpage getting you close? Yeeesss. Do I want to? Nooooo. Do I consider you one of the good editors? Yesssss. Do you want me to change my perspective? (insert your answer rhetorically here) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Right i'll take a chill pill and log out for a while, but this all stemed from a comment when Sarek blocked NC thinking they were me, leading on from the warning you gave me which I though was another mistake, can you not see were I am coming from? If offened by my colorful language then I'll apologise but as I was echoing the "type" of comments you were making using F word and claiming English not a strong point then I doubt you were/are offended. *Offers hands to shake and move on* Mo ainm~Talk 10:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

3RR report note

Thanks for the friendly advice. However, I've no idea how I did it as I didn't go anywhere near the edited bit. To save me doing it again, can you tell me what I did? Many thanks Monstrelet (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I see what I did now - thought I was on the current page but must remember in future to refresh to ensure it is the current one. Feel a bit of an idiot. Thanks again Monstrelet (talk) 07:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...

Not sure you're actually correct about that, Twinkle makes the nomination process extremely rapid... ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 17:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Unregistered user

Thank you Sarek --NorthernCounties (talk) 21:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request of LemonMonday

Hello SarekOfVulcan. LemonMonday (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  22:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

moors

Hello,

For months now User:ITSENJOYABLEhis/her alliasUser_talk:SISPCM have been disrupting many pages together for many months now including the moors and the pattern and behavior of these "2 users" have been noticed and question many times. Still after several warnings from admins. This disruption and removal of content is still going on just like yesterday when SISPCM revert my edit of another vandal on the moors page about black Africans. I don't know what to do with him at this point. This has been going on for way too long and he has been warned too many timesBotsystem (talk) 04:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Triton and others

I see that you have declined Triton's unblock review and have locked Triton's talk page. Where was the discussion authorizing you to remove Triton's access to the user talk page? Considering your prior involvement in this area, I would recommend that you return Triton's access to the talk page.

You have made a number of blocks recently (LemonBoy, GiacomoReturned, Malleus) that were questionable and overturned quickly. Factocop possibly fits in there, too. You also have some questionable involvement with other blocks (TreasuryTag comes to mind), and Triton). Every admin makes a questionable decision once in a while, but you have quite a few in a short time. What's going on? Gimmetoo (talk) 13:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

His prior unblock appeal was taken to the community, and after two days worth of discussion, was determined by an uninvolved admin with experience in ethnic conflicts to have failed. He then filed another unblock request that boiled down to "THE IRISH ARE OUT TO GET ME!" You're goddamned right I locked his talk page. He had been clearly told that it was a community decision, and that consensus would allow him to appeal in 3 months, but he nevertheless decided to continue posting huge walls of text claiming that it was everyone else's fault. For this reason, I felt that he was abusing the unblock process, and removed his talkpage access. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

And I disagree with your removal of Triton's talk page access. What about the other controversial administrative actions you have performed recently? Gimmetoo (talk) 13:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. What about them? That's far too general a question. If you have specific issues on each action you'd like me to address, I'd be happy to. It might be better to do that at WP:AN or a similar venue, to get a wider variety of opinion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

LemonMonday

LM has raised an RFC that needs an eye kept on it. I'm going to be away and have notify yourself, TFOWR and Jehochman of this. I have also notified LM of the issues with the RFC and agree that he has the right to raise one properly. However the manner in which this one is raised contravenes LMs unblocks. If he doesn't fix the obvious issues with the RFC per WP:POINT and WP:AGF within a reasonable period of time I'm looking fora review of that unblock--Cailil 15:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)