Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vintagekits (talk | contribs) at 15:58, 19 August 2007 (→Guidance please: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Rockpocket (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been an administrator since 10 November 2006.

To leave a message or request admin action, you may click here.

I'll sometimes reply on your talk, but will frequently (increasingly often) reply here.

Archives

2006 1) 3 January 2006 – 17 March 2006 2) 18 March 2006 – 20 May 2006 3) 21 May 2006 – 8 June 2006 4) 10 June 2006 – 29 July 2006 5) 1 August 2006 – 31 October 2006 6) 1 November 2006 – 30 November 2006 7) 1 December 2006 – 31 December 2006 2007 8) 1 January 2007 – 28 January 2007 9) 29 January 2007 – 25 February 2007 10) 1 March 2007 – 31 March 2007 11) 1 April 2007 – 28 April 2007 12) 1 May 2007 – 22 May 2007 13) 23 May 2007 – 4 June 2007 14) 5 June 2007 – 5 July 2007 15) 7 July 2007 – 5 August 2007

One Product, not yet available

I came across RevoPower and am confused. It seems to have been written solely by one contributor, which is not a problem in itself, I suppose. There is lots of text, and even diagrams, so L has done a lot of research, or has insider knowledge. However, all the references are to the product's website and the product does not yet exist, except within the confines of the company. There is one reference in the web site to a Popular Science article. Isn't this using Misplaced Pages as a publicity site? Bielle 03:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Lets see how it goes eh!?--Vintagekits 21:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure. just keep cool and, if you see a problem developing and Fozzie or Alison aren't about, feel free to come to me before it gets out of hand. I'll do what I can to help you. Rockpocket 21:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Will do.--Vintagekits 21:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Great, and this made me laugh. Rockpocket 21:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Just doffing my chap to some detractors. Also I wasnt too impressed by CR's description of my as being "This chap is so stoopid".--Vintagekits 23:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

VK, I'm here if ya need me - Alison ☺ 23:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

User talk:84.13.156.208‎

Other editors have been referred to as "terrorists" and "retired insurgents" on this page. Brixton Busters 22:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not familiar with punitive procedures on Misplaced Pages (other than my own 28 day block), but I assume that appropriate action will be taken in regard to these personal attacks on me by User:Brixton Busters  ? W. Frank ✉  21:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Brixton Busters. Regarding the above comments, I notice that a few editors now have asserted their belief that that anonymous editor is W. Frank. I don't know why editors are making that assumption, but I have not seen any evidence presented to justify it. If you believe this editor is a involved in disruptive or abusive sockpuppetry, I suggest you make a check-user request. If there is not sufficient evidence to merit that, then there is not sufficient evidence to justify making accusations against another editor. From Frank's comment above, it is safe to assume he is stating that he is not this editor, as a matter of good faith, we should respect that, or else provide evidence to the contrary.

Considering the prior unfounded allegations made regarding your identity, I am surprised you feel it is appropriate to do the same to others. As you may, or may not, be aware - this is a difficult time for W. Frank, so please stop making such allegations against him unless you can substantiate them. Thank you. Rockpocket 01:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I am of the opinion you would have been better served at least making a cursory investigation of this incident before making your rather hasty comments on my talk page (copied above for ease of reference, see below for reasoning), as your comments ignore what happened. Had you taken a few minutes to check my contributions, you would have seen that I did indeed request a checkuser with the evidence I had. This was "declined" on the rather bizarre grounds that "We will not 'out' IP addresses save in exceptional cases". This seems to me to give a green light for people to log out of their account (by their own admission) and harass and abuse other editors by describing them as "terrorists" and "retired insurgents", with little possibility of being caught. I tried to discuss this with Mackensen ( ) and he suggested I try the "Incidents" noticeboard, where I made a report which was strictly on the conduct of the IPs edits and had no mention of the person I believed to be responsible, due to the checkuser being "declined". Since then I have made absolutely no comments regarding this, nor did I have any intention of doing so. That said, due to the evidence I fully stand by everything I said. Due to the incorrect and accusatory nature of the thread title (from an editor with a documented history of abusive sockpuppetry and attacks on other editors) I will be removing it from my talk page. Thank you. Brixton Busters 08:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll reply here since you have removed the comment from your page (as you are permitted to do, of course). You are right, it was remiss of me not to scan the checkuser logs prior to my commenting on your page. I'm sorry about that, my only excuse is that I was rather busy with some other delicate issues at the time. I see your point, and indeed it can be frustrating when a checkuser is declined. However, that is outwith the control of (most) administrators and there is good privacy reasons why it happens. If it is declined, there is little one can do, since blocking an established user on the basis of co-incidental evidence will not stand. What we can do (and we did pretty rapidly) is block the offending IP account, which solves the immediate problem. If such abusive behaviour pattern continues from other IPs then the "special circumstances" may be invoked, but there is little to be gained by publically accusing the individual you think it is in the meantime. Its not going to reverse or influence the check-user decision, and if you are wrong (and believe me, from experience I've found that sometimes the most apparently obvious case turns out to be wrong) then you have contributed to the bad faith generated by the IP by fingering an innocent editor. Thanks, anyway, for your clear response. Rockpocket 08:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I agree in full that there is little to be gained by any accusations at present. The comments that W. Frank complained about were made before the abortive checkuser. Since then I have made no further similar comments (and as stated, have no intention of doing so), not even in the "Incidents" report. Brixton Busters 09:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand. However, I would propose that the best course of action, should it be required in future, would be to request a checkuser prior to accusing an editor publically. If it is rejected than you could make your evidence available to an admin and see if they are willing to take action in the absence of checkuser data. If they are not, wait till the next sock appears and go through the process again. Eventually someone will bite or the sock will slip up. Its tedious, I know, but thats how the game is played i'm afraid. I'm sorry about my initial hasty comments, apart from the initial accusations you did exactly as I would have asked. Rockpocket 09:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. In the unfortunate event a similar circumstance arises in the future, I will bear your advice in mind. Brixton Busters 15:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to have a look at this. The IP spells "biased" the unusual way of "biassed" ( ), as does W. Frank (). Given the IPs edits (M62 coach bombing, subsequently targeted by W. Frank in the exact same way, and edits which matched similar edits to different articles by W. Frank earlier the same day), interaction with Vintagekits and the same ISP, I believe this is strong, albeit circumstantial, evidence they are one and the same. Brixton Busters 23:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Any reply to this please? Thank you. Brixton Busters 15:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Evidently you'll not get help here about people who are actually up to no good, but plenty of time for others though.--Vintagekits 15:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Arsuf

Rockpocket, could you have a look at the above? I expanded the far from adequate original as a result of an RD question. I would be grateful for your 'wikifying' support. I thought I would put the page forward for DYK (the hook about Saracens and tarantulas is quite good!), though I'm not really sure how to go about this. Again I would be pleased to have your assistance. Regards. Clio the Muse 05:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Vicious slurs

It may surprise some to realise that Gaimhreadhan was a life long atheist. I used to rib him about it, since G was also a regular church-goer and ribbed me in turn by adopting my signoff of "God bless" at a time when we both found the "sockpuppet allegation" frivolous rather than deadly serious and defamatory. That was, perhaps, typical of the man's sense of humour.

However, his much younger wife remains a staunch and traditional Roman Catholic and, if she came to know about it, would take great offence at the despicable machinations exhibited here. (It is fortunate that she is not a computer user and that they have no internet access at home).

He did not "attempt suicide". He has been in great pain the last few weeks and, while he was depressed by this response , I never once saw him despair. To the contrary, he always said "Be an optimist in your heart, Frank, but a pessimist in your planning." Our duties as executors have been made easier by the meticulous planning evidenced in his last edits on Misplaced Pages. Nevertheless, I do not believe that the edit summaries of "final preparations" were an indication of a planned suicide and, despite the animus that I still bear against Tyrenius, I would like to thank her for her timely intervention here: .

I firmly and resolutely believe that the quantity of painkillers that G took on Wednesday evening was simply to try and deaden his pain and achieve a good night's rest and not an attempt to end his life.

Although he had battled on well past the original prognosis of 3-12 months, G was a "fighter" (in the best sense of that word) all his life.

God bless and keep you, G!

Talk:Beagle

That's a scary goldfish! -- Hongooi 10:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Housekeeping

Without anyone's permission, I have moved (verbatim and complete) the following section from my talk page and re-titled it to "Housekeeping". Since I know you are both sensitive and punctilious in being quoted out of context, Rockpocket, I would be grateful if you would immediately do the following if you disagree

if, however and as I hope, you agree with my move. then please would you immediately instead simply tell me that this was not an inappropriate move I made:

Hello W. Frank. Regarding you recent comments about your friend, Gaimhreadhan's terminal illness. I wonder if you would consider, either privately or publically, informing an administrator on the sad event of his passing. There are a few (administrative) things we typically do in on the death of a Wikipedian. Thank you for your consideration, and my sympathies at this most difficult of times. Rockpocket 17:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I understand.

Please would you ask a senior administrator or bureaucrat to e-mail me.

(He or she needs to be a real person with a physical address. I need a promise of confidentiality before I send the relevant documents.)

Since I have spoken with Fred Bauder before, he would seem the obvious choice.

I shall also comment on some housekeeping matters on your user page, since I think it inappropriate to comment here at this time.  W. Frank ✉ 08:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. There is no need for you to send official documents; considering your relationship with him, your word is sufficient. As per tradition, I will presently protect his user-page with a brief notice of his passing. Gaimhreadhan's contributions to our project, and the impression he made on others, were certainly significant enough to merit a brief notice at Misplaced Pages:Deceased Wikipedians. However, I'm aware some people may rather not be remembered in this fashion. Perhaps you could offer you thoughts, Frank. If you think it is something he would have been comfortable with, it would perhaps be more appropriate if it was written by someone who was more familiar with him than I. However, I'm happy to do so if there are no other volunteers. It used to be policy to block the account of those Wikipedians who have passed away, though I'm not sure it currently is. I'll inquire.

Finally, with regards to your comments on my page: I will look into that and comment there. Rockpocket 00:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Frank, got your email. Responding now ... - Alison ☺ 05:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Frank, Alison informed me of some delicate issues I was not previously aware of. My apologies for that, I hope my actions have not caused additional problems. I'll leave this in Alison's capable hands now but, as always, if there is something I can help you with please feel free to let me know. Rockpocket 07:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I have always had the highest respect for both your diplomacy and editing skills, Rockpocket and I do understand that - with the exception of one major and continuing running sore common to all administrators I have encountered - you have always been scrupulously fair in your dealings as an administrator. No apology is necessary at all from you since you have always acted (and, I believe, will continue to act) from the purest of motives.

There are a number of intertwined issues here and I will deal with only a minority now.

I still expect an official e-mail from the administration concerning identities and appropriate documentation.

If Alison is content to continue to deal with any issues arising with regards to G's user page then I believe that, save the difficulties caused by different time zones, no further difficulties are likely to arise there.

As regards G's talk page, I now require your explicit permission (or objection) to my completing, on G's behalf, the plan he outlined here: User_talk:Gaimhreadhan#Controversial_Cupboard and, if I am given that explicit permission, your prompt and radical assistance as an administrator in dealing with any continuing breaches of WP policy on G's Talk page that I bring to your attention. In other words, communications there need to conform to both WP policy and G's clearly expressed wishes.

In a nutshell, any naughty comments will be moved by me to a "naughty cupboard". Frank.

 W. Frank ✉  14:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Frank. My only concern is moving text out of context, whole conversations moved to an appropriate forum I have no issue with. I thought perhaps Alison may have taken reciept of the appropriate documentation. Fred Bauder (talk · contribs), your suggestion, is currently on vacation. I'm happy to ask him to act in this regard, but it will likely be next week before he could so so. Alternatively, I could ask another member of the Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee or a Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrat, or if you would prefer, I am more than happy to deal with it myself (I can email you from my business address and verify my identity). Just let me know your preference.

Regarding Gaimhreadhan's talk page, I think Gaimhreadhan made his wishes quite clear and we should all respect those and use common sense and sensitivity in doing so. I have no problem with giving you my permission to go ahead with his archiving plan. Please just note, in the edit summary, that you are acting as per his stated wishes. As I see it, there isn't really any reason anyone should be posting anything on his talkpage now (though, of course, editors not familiar with the situation may continue to comment of prior edits). I am happy to deal with anything inappropriate that you bring to my attention. Rockpocket 18:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

thanks

thanks rockpocket, as for editing at ungodly hours, i'm far too busy changing nappies, for someone so little, it is a inverse amount of shit they produce! Perry-mankster 12:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Arsuf

Did you know? was updated. On 13 August, 2007, a fact from the article Battle of Arsuf, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 17:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't that quick! Clio the Muse 23:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

On August 14, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Minnie D. Craig, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Good to see you again.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Quick Questions (Misc. Ref Desk)

Nice answers! Bielle 01:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Its not like we haven't heard that asked before. Rockpocket 01:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

World fame

Er, according to the diffs on Talk:Gerry Adams the Vatican deletion of referenced material was reverted within minutes, but then returned to the Vatican-deleted version by Vk!

I hope you don't mind, but I've quoted you in an RfA post because I thought the point you made was important and very well put. I've also added it to my user page. Tyrenius 00:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, that makes more sense! The wrong diff was quoted in the Adams talk page, which led to the confusion. I should have checked it more carefully, thanks for letting me know. You are welcome to use that quote, I'm glad to have helped. Rockpocket 06:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Guidance please

Is it acceptable to say "You have hated me since I joined wiki and have tried at every turn to get me banned"? Seems like a breach of WP:AGF to me. - Kittybrewster (talk) 09:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and there are plenty more. I pointed out to Vk that these sorts of comments are breaking the terms of his unblocking, he deleted the post and went on wikibreak. I'm not going to reblock before the promised ANI thread appears and the community can have its say. Rockpocket 19:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you look at the type of articles he is editing on as well please see this. I thought he was banned from these? It's not the only one.. Kernel Saunters 14:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not think removing a request for a citation for something that is already cited is time for witch burning. Brixton Busters 15:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Weggie, it is nice to see you following my edits so closely and gagging for the moment I put a foot wrong. However, I think you need to check the terms of my return, I was agreed that formating without adding content is fine. I am sure you will get an opportunity to get me banned soon - and you'll have the support of your local admin also. If you really had an issue with the revert why didnt you just come and talk to me about it.--Vintagekits 15:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

User:S.dedalus/temporary, also RD post

Hi Rockpocket, I’m done with User:S.dedalus/temporary if you want to delete it. Thanks for resurrecting it for me. Also, SteveBaker has pointed out a comment of mine he feels was medical advice. I agree with him in part, but I would appreciate your judgment as to whether my actions were inappropriate in this case. Thanks! --S.dedalus 04:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

A copy of an email which I sent to unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org requesting that the duration of the 6 month block which "Georgewilliamherbert" imposed on my accont be reduced:

I am User:24.168.46.238 who was recently blocked from Misplaced Pages for six months by a Misplaced Pages administrator named "Georgewilliamherbert".

Since my user talk page was protected by "Mr.Z-man" only 4 minutes after the block was issued by "Georgewilliamherbert", I was denied the opportunity to post an unblock request. I'd like to request that I be give the opportunity to do so now:

I know that I was wrong for threatening legal action against "CyberGhostface", but I had asked him to stop bothering me by posting repeated warnings on my user talk page for minor violations of Misplaced Pages's rules, and he refused. I believe that he had a vendetta against me, as he seemed to be tracking my every edit, just waiting for me to do something in violation of Misplaced Pages' s rules so he could post another warning on my user talk page, which he knew would aggravate me and cause me to lose my temper. "CyberGhostface" had previously gotten me blocked for personal attacks, and I was stupid enough to fall for his ploy to get me blocked again. I lost my cool, and posted things on my user talk page that I shouldn't have. I know that there was no excuse for my behavior, and for that, I am very sorry.

I'd like to respectfully ask that you shorten the duration of by block, as I feel that six months is far too harsh of a punishment. I was initially issued a 48 hour block by one administrator, but 7 hours later (without me making any additional offensive edits or postings on Misplaced Pages), it was arbitrarily extended to 6 months by another administrator.

I promise that once my editing priviliges are reinstated, I will no longer engage in the kind of conduct (personal attacks, threats of legal action) that got me blocked. After reinstatement, I intend on creating an account on Misplaced Pages, and I will make constructive additions to the project. I invite you to check up on me periodically to see that I am keeping my word to you!

I also promise to you that will have no further contact with "CyberGhostface", and since I have no intention of violation Misplaced Pages's rules in the future, he has no valid reason whatsoever to contact me or to post warnings on my user talk page.

I feel that a reduction in the duration of my block is warranted, considering the questionable circumstances of how my block was arbitrarily increased from 48 hours to 4320 hours.

Again, please accept my sincere apology for my past behavior on Misplaced Pages, and thank you for your consideration!

Note: I am using a friend's computer (IP Address: 64.38.198.61) simply to post this notice on the user talk page of the administrator who increased my block from 48 hours to 6 months. I am not a "sockpuppet", and I have no intention of using my friend's computer again.

64.38.198.61 14:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to note, the statements made by 24.168.46.238 are false. Specifically, the claim 'I was initially issued a 48 hour block by one administrator, but 7 hours later (without me making any additional offensive edits or postings on Misplaced Pages), it was arbitrarily extended to 6 months by another administrator.'

24.168.46.238 got the 24 hour block at 16:01, 16 August 2007 . At 16:41, 16 August 2007, he threatened 'I will, however, be in contact with a private investigator in order to find the true identity and location of CyberGhostface' . Edward321 14:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)