User talk:Rockpocket: Difference between revisions

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 16) 9 August 2007 – 10 September 2007

Rockpocket, can I ask you to look at Treschkow's talk page. There is a really ugly remark against him posted by a banned user, now operating as an anonymous IP. Can this be expunged from the record? Tresckow is German and only comes to English Wikipedia occasionaly. It seems a shame that this should be allowed to hang around. Clio the Muse 04:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

we are from Copitas team, from thelmadatters class project, just want to say thanks, and we are learning how to use wikipedia. 189.139.157.246 04:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)DanielaB[reply]

Hi, my name is Oscar, I am a member of the group ZYANYA06, first of all I would like to apologize because we couldn't answer. By the way, thanks for the interest of helping us with our project...we really appreciate your help, read you later... ciao. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yacopop (talk • contribs) 19:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comments here: I did write to User:Rockpocket who did not reply.

I have a stored copy of an email I sent you on this matter on 22 July, 2007, later the same day you sent an email to me. I never received a reply. I take it from your statement you never received this email? I can send you a copy of this as proof, if you like, however I would prefer it if you would reword your statement here, as I have stated elsewhere that I discussed the issue with you. Rockpocket 07:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please would you email me your email and mine so I can check which is missing. Then I well reply direct and reword my statement. The way you put it, you wrote to me, I wrote to you and you did not reply to me. - Kittybrewster (talk) 10:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am on this, Kb, but my email server is playing sillybuggers at the moment, and I'm having problems retrieving old mail from the webserver. I'm working on it. There does appear to be some confusion. However, as far as I can tell at the moment. I sent you an email about the use of sockpuppets and you sent a reply declining to reveal them to me. Is that your understanding also? Rockpocket 17:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Matrixism re-direct and section on Matrixism in The Matrix (series) were summarily deleted by User:Philwelch. They have been restored (temporarily?) by User:Neil but I imagine this is not the end and you might want to chime in on the subject. Philwelch's administrator status is apparently under arbitration for various violations. You might want to have a say there also. 4.242.15.104 15:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How very sweet: an award for being endlessly confused! You are too, too kind. Bielle 17:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall you ever using a pronoun (in any of its form) about me, so don't be concerned. I am past being fussed by such things in environments where they do not matter. One of the Bureaucrats, whose user name ends in "a" had, for a brief period of time, a very large notice on his user page, in words and in symbols, declaring his masculine gender. My thought was, if he cared that much, why adopt a potentially ambiguous user name? Sometimes I think people are just looking for things to get upset about. What an awful waste of time and energy! Bielle 17:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder who that was? :) In fairness, it's not polite really to leave people foundering on the whole gender issue. People like to be able to say 'he' or 'she' when speaking about someone else, rather than descend into the nightmare that is gender-neutral pronouns - Alison ^❤ 19:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree about it not being poilte to leave the matter of gender either specifically avoided or left ambiguous. Why cyberspace communication requires such information, I don't know, and keeping it unstated may be a significant part of internet safety or privacy. Even when disclosed, all you know about it is what the other party tells you, which may or may not be the truth. However, if someone is going to be either deliberately unidentified or ambiguous, then that same person would be rude to complain at either choice being selected by others. I will stand appropriately chastised should I ever offend on that account. :-) Bielle 20:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The "elle" ending of "Bielle" is usually a good clue of what Bielle intends the reader to believe, but it is not an absolute, especially if you have no exposure to French. As for the gender neutral pronouns, I don't mind them (and even use them, quel horreur!), though I would hate to have to read aloud a passage containing them. Bielle 20:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, re. the privacy and safety. There's enough stalkery and weirdness going on around here (as many a female admin will attest, including this one). Gender, in the business of creating an encyclopedia, should be irrelevant anyway. And yes, if someone is being intentionally vague, they shouldn't take umbrage when people make the incorrect assumption :) - Alison ^❤ 20:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being a pragmatist, my policy is to avoid personal pronouns as much as possible. If the need arisies I'll go with "he" unless I have reason to believe otherwise (my reasoning being males are likely to outnumber females on Wikipedia, therefore probability of getting it right is higher). I figure of anyone cares enough about being referred to by the wrong gender, they/he/she will make it clear on their user page. Occasionally, though, I'll occasionally thow in a cheeky "she" in references to editors of unknown sex... but only because I'm a feminist, mind, and absolutely not because it tend to irk those editors that could do with a bit of a testosterone reduction. ;) Rockpocket 20:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But, of course, who would ever have thought otherwise? :-) Bielle 22:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you rocketpocket, I hope you could helps us because we are new wikipedians and in the near future we are going to write an article so we will need some help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Echg07 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VK would probably never speak to me again if I proposed that as a finding of fact, just in case you were feeling left out. And really? I thought it was just par for the course to turn up and point fingers these days..... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha, thats ok. The admin accusations of bias are merely a distraction here anyway, I really don't see ArbCom accepting any of those arguments because there is no evidence to back it up. I think the evidence Vk is drafting about BHG's potential conflict of interest is about as interesting as that angle is going to get. As for the ridiculous proposals. I think many folks don't quite get how this is supposed to work. There is way too much opinion and not enough facts being used for these proposals. Rockpocket 01:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having kept a passing eye on more than one ArbCom case during my time here for one reason or another, I know that the likely outcome of anything more than serious and frequent breaches of policy by an admin only end up in "....is cautioned over future use of the admin tools", so it's generally better to try and keep the focus on the areas that can be hopefully resolved rather than get distracted over minor issues. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Rockpocket - I just wanted to make sure you got my email and above messages.--danielfolsom 17:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did, Daniel. I'm kind of snowed under with this ArbCom at the moment. I'll try to get back to you in the next few days. Rockpocket 20:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inspired by.. well.. what you, me, Ty, Alison, and others have gone through with this ArbCom case and what led up to it User:SirFozzie/Nationalism. Be interesting to see if you guys read it the same way I do. Thanks! SirFozzie 17:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rockpocket, you have commented on this editors attitude all ready, [1] and they are still continuing to just cause offence. The policies have been pointed out, but they seem more intrested in making a point,[2], could you have a look. Thanks --Domer48 08:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have offered my opinion on the matter which sums up, I think, pretty much what has been discussed previously. He appears to have stopped rever-warring for the moment and, while I think his comments are some what inflammatory, it may simply be clumsy wording rather than a concerted attempt to rile others. I'll keep and eye on things and if he continues down this line I'll have another word with him. In the meantime is think "... member (volunteer)" is an justifiable compromise, though I (personally) don't have an issue with it as it stands. Rockpocket 17:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rockpocket, that business over Alison has really upset me, so much so that I have left a lengthy personal statement on her talk page, copied to my own. Thank you so very much for letting me know about this. Clio the Muse 08:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you may have a certain empathy with her. I have been working quite closely with Alison recently and she is a sterling editor, I'm sure she will appreciate your warm support. Rockpocket 17:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah that's pretty tight - but for some reason when I tried to edit a page (I was going to see how that worked ...) I was blocked ... hmmmm ... well hey, at least i'm not currently blocked. Although, I do have to say it's about 2,000 edits behind ... lol, well hey - I'll survive (somehow) --danielfolsom 11:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please block the anonymous poster who keeps attacking me re "anti-Britishness" on my talkpage if they continue to do so. They know I cannot reply frankly and honestly due to Wiki censorship. (Sarah777 21:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

You left a message thanking me for joinning & how your now using one of my photos the (MINOR STRIKE SEPT29.jpg) but in the same breath your set to close me down?

You mention I only contribute to my own page. Guys I know so little about the code which leaves me stunpted at times something I really wanted to master. So even to think about adding to another members pages only to then make a mess of it would horrify me especialy if a novice made a mess of my work.

The links I had on my user page that led to the now ex members & what they're all up to now seemed to be relivent. Maybe they did go here there & every where but the future is easier to chart than rewriting the past & more so if your doing it your self. plus if lots of other users have links going all over the net to the point you can be directed to porn sites & buy videos on ebay then me sending someone to my space seems relivent especialy if you get to hear what these bands are up to now.

If I'm deleted so be it and I'll be sad to go & even sadder when once again when the eyes of the world who in the past where strongly focused on the london punk scene just like now the paisley punk history scene will be ignored all over again according to wikipedia rules.

So If you delete my page competelly from every part of the wikipedia's site then that also meens.

MY PHOTO, MY POSTER & MY COPY RIGHT PROPERTY IE. THE (MINOR STRIKE SEPT29.jpg) WILL ALSO BE DELETED FROM EVERY PART OF WIKIPEDIA.

AFTER ALL FAIRS FAIR;) now that's punk! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donnalangton (talk • contribs)

I've taken the liberty of re-closing this AfD, given it was closed then re-opened by a SPA who's more than likely a sockpuppet of a banned editor. I did leave a message on Scolaire's talk page about it yesterday as well, as that period of history is more his area of expertise than mine, and it's pretty likely there's source material offline in the many books written about the period. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats fine, I didn't realise it had been closed properly then partially reverted, which was why I commented and removed the malformed closing template. Rockpocket 06:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I can understand that many articles need to be nominated for deletion (ideally speedy) within 4 minutes of creation, but I think that nomination was slightly dubious especially in the current climate. If it's not improved in a month or so I'd recommend deletion myself. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ONIH, is it I you suspect of being a sockpuppet (per above)? I know the current climate, but that doesn't change notability, I typed Dr. Quinn's name into Google and couldn't see anything, not to mention unsourced contentious claims and PoV, hence the AfD. I really don't try to cause bother and I'm sorry if this was seen as such. --Counter-revolutionary 09:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I said the AfD was re-opened by a "a SPA who's more than likely a sockpuppet of a banned editor", probably RMS as he tends to wikistalk my edits. Nothing to do with you there. As Mr Lauder is so keen on pointing out, Google isn't everything especially when it comes to people from the 1920s. I think nominating an article (created by a new editor, see WP:BITE) four minutes after it was created and saying it has "no references" is poor form, when you didn't ask for references before nominating it. If you check Special:Recentchanges you'll see plenty of articles created every day, many of them such as "John Smith is a 14 year old student at London College" get deleted straight away, and rightly so. However with articles such as Padraig Quinn there's no immediate rush to delete them. By all means tag them for improvement and sources, that's what the tags are for. And if nothing is done within a reasonable amount of time then nominate the article, but it is my honest belief that nominating that article within four minutes of its creation without first tagging it or attempting to discuss the article with the creator is not in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the Angelo Fusco DYK nom, but I think this one is much better myself. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, that one does have a better hook. Nice work on both those articles. Rockpocket 15:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And assuming you remember the guy recently causing problems on Bobby Sands, this seems like blatant trolling, or will I get my wrist slapped by someone for not assuming good faith? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 08:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Rockpocket - how close are you to finishing out the arb thing you were working on? Thanks for the update--danielfolsom 18:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out "new" User:Quis separabit - obvious sock of someone on the British/Unionist side. Ain't there a law against that?! (Sarah777 00:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Another one?

I'd like a second opinion on User:TharkunColl; I found him trolling on the Ireland article yesterday and he popped up again on my watch list just now on European Megalithic Culture; same thing on both occaisions - replacing Ireland and Britain or some variant thereof with British Isles.

Checking his recent edit history it seems he has been at it all over the place. Who is he? Any previous record of this type of thing? (Sarah777 17:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

1. (cur) (last) 18:28, October 1, 2007 TharkunColl (Talk | contribs) (11,486 bytes) (No. It was YOU who changed the article on 17 September. The sources say British Isles. Please take your political POV elsewhere) (undo)
2. (cur) (last) 18:24, October 1, 2007 Sarah777 (Talk | contribs) (11,481 bytes) (revert deliberate provocative edits) (undo)
3. (cur) (last) 18:15, October 1, 2007 TharkunColl (Talk | contribs) (11,486 bytes) (rem attempts to introduce political debate into another article) (undo)
4. (cur) (last) 17:48, October 1, 2007 Sarah777 (Talk | contribs) (11,481 bytes) (rem attempts to introduce political debate into another article) (undo)
5. (cur) (last) 17:07, October 1, 2007 TharkunColl (Talk | contribs) (11,486 bytes) (undo)

3RR - there is an automatic block I believe; at least that is what happened to me when I accidentally reverted 3 times; this editor was clearly warned and acknowledged that by trolling on my talk-page. (Sarah777 17:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

From the Ireland talkpage

The "thoughts" of Mr 3RR: "Personally speaking, I do not consider myself a European. Every single attempt, successful or otherwise, to undermine British sovereignty has come from Europe - the Romans, the Catholic Church, the Normans, Napoleon, Hitler, the Common Market - the list is endless. I find European culture completely alien, with its cafe bars, hairy armpits, frogs legs, beer kellers, its bull fighting, Jew gassing, horse eating, garlic smelling philosophies such as fascism, communism, corporate state-ism, nihilism, positivism and any-other-ism you care to mention, and its insistence on speaking a whole bunch of different yet equally incomprehensible languages such as French, German, Italian, Spanish, etc. etc. etc. Europe is a large landmass situated directly to our east that has interfered in the affairs of this island for centuries, distorting and perverting our own development. I find its comedy risible, its food disgusting, and its attempts at popular music appalling. There is nothing about Europe that I can think of right now that I like. And yet, even though the very word "Europe" conjures up all these negative feelings, I am not so insular, stupid or politically motivated as to try and claim that the UK is not, in fact, part of the European continent." TharkunColl 07:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Not getting much response here Rockpocket; but could you explain why this guy didn't get an automatic block for 3RR? Is it because the Arbcom that finds calling the British Empire just exactly what it was is offensive to the Anglo ear but that said ear is cool with this potpourri of bile, prejudice and racism. I guess this is "only" the same as calling Irishmen who struggled for freedom "terrorists" and "murderers"? (Sarah777 22:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

It's fine Rockpocket; ignore my gripes with TharkunColl - the storm passed over. (Sarah777 19:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Seems to be in Limbo once again, and the natives are seemingly getting restless (see Orange Institution for the latest kerfluffle). Obviously, we need to get folks used to the fact that it looks likely that the law of the land going forward is going to be 1 Revert per WEEK (not counting reverts of anonymous IP addresses).

As a suggestion, do you think that all of the admins involved could impose a "psuedo-probation" on these users until ArbCom's end? SirFozzie 15:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am very frustrated with what I believe is vote stacking and manipulation of consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music# Proposal on bio-infoboxes and Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers (all through the talk pages and archives). It concerns a possible guideline on the use of user boxes for people. How can I ask for a general review of these proceedings? There have been several attempts to discredit apposing points of view and also to pass the guideline without consensus. Thanks for your help. I’m really not sure what to do. --S.dedalus 20:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, someone has already asked for a WP:RFC. I guess that’s better than a Wikipedia:Third opinion? --S.dedalus 00:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am Nathaly from Copitas Team. We put some information about the "Cosmovitral" and we would like you check it and tell us if grammar structure is ok.

Thank u so much. (Please answer in our page). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/ITESM_Campus_Toluca/Copitas

132.254.140.152 18:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Hector from Mexico_Japan. We are proposing some modification about Toluca´s history. The information is in our group page. If you can take a look at it ti would be great. Thanks Hector Magaña 17:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Hector_Magaña[reply]

Rockpocket, my alarm bells are ringing on the above! Please see my response to a request for information on the Humanities RD. Clio the Muse 23:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Clio. I'm looking into this. Rockpocket 23:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested in offering an opinion... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Manifesto Rockpocket 01:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You cranky deletionists!—eric 09:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left the warning to the username about the Speedy Deletion tag, and noticed it was a prod tag immediately afterwards. I was going to remove it, but I thought (agreeing to you) that it was just a sockpuppet account and I felt no need to change it. Thanks for acknowledging my watch, reverting the deletion, and letting me know what was going on. Much appreciated. I'll keep in touch with you for sure. Have a good one. BeanoJosh 06:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 21:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Rockpocket, ______ __ __ __ /\__ _\/\ \ /\ \ /\ \ \/_/\ \/\ \ \___ __ ___\ \ \/'\ __ __ ___ __ __\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ _ `\ /'__`\ /' _ `\ \ , < /\ \/\ \ / __`\/\ \/\ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \/\ \_\.\_/\ \/\ \ \ \\`\\ \ \_\ \/\ \_\ \ \ \_\ \\ \_\ \ \_\ \ \_\ \_\ \__/.\_\ \_\ \_\ \_\ \_\/`____ \ \____/\ \____/ \/\_\ \/_/ \/_/\/_/\/__/\/_/\/_/\/_/\/_/\/_/`/___/> \/___/ \/___/ \/_/ /\___/ \/__/ For your contribution to My RfA, which passed with 8000 Supports, 2 Neutrals and no opposes. The standards and dedication of the English Wikipeidan Administrators is excellent and I am privileged to stand among them. Thankyou for putting you trust in me, I'll not see it abused. And now, I will dance naked around a fire. Party at my place! Cheers! Dfrg.msc 08:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC) Expand for picture....

On 17 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Meal Monday , 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.

--Allen3 ^talk 15:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

I was wondering, what wrong with a link to my Lucky Dube page @ reggaephotos.de ?

thanks

Julian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reggaephotos.de (talk • contribs) 18:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. We generally try to avoid links to picture galleries per WP:EL, since a featured article should have suitable pictures already. There is also the problem with copyright, as many picture galleries simply use copyright images from other pages (I note that may not be the case with your site, though). The other thing to consider is, if you have an account called Reggaephotos.de (talk · contribs), adding links to Reggaephotos.de is probably going to be considered a conflict of interest and risks being deleted as WP:SPAM. Rockpocket 18:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your informed answer and trying to balance out that discussion a bit. Have yourself a tiny little star ...

*

---Sluzzelin talk 20:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, how kind! Rockpocket 01:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a toss-up between * and *. I went for the bulky one, despite the clutter. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ack, just read your message. :-( Hope you and loved ones (and loved property) are safe. Best wishes. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure my deteriorating eyesight would have "got" the smaller one. You made the right choice ;)

As for the fires, my house is safe for the moment but we have just been told to evacuate from my place of work. I think that is more to do with rapidly deteriorating air-quality than imminent threat of fire, as I can't see any flames. However, its looking very much like we are going to be cut off to the north. So if things do get much worse, we are going to have to hope Mexico is more welcoming to our cross-border refugees then we are to theirs. Either that or I start swimming for Hawai'i! Rockpocket 19:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, we are Lirdoco. Do you remember us??

We are modifying an article about something of Mexico for this partial and We would like you to check it to give us your opinion. The article is about Pemexgate and there is a lot of information missing. Please check our discussion page to look for detailed information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:School_and_university_projects/ITESM_Campus_Toluca/Lirdoco#Article_we_are_going_to_modify_.28Please_MENTORS.2C_We_need_help.21.21.21.29. We will thank you a lot for your help. Please, remember to answer us in our discussion page because we need to have the conversation there. Again, Thank you. :----- Lirdoco —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.139.26.66 (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your remark on my talk page. Given the importance of speed here, I thought I'd better point this out. You can delete this after you've read it. (will not self-destruct :) ) DirkvdM 08:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible minor problem with the plan, see here. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New query on the talk page. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL I love it! Thanks --ffroth 22:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For giving me an exceptionally appropriate barnstar. ffroth 22:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are on tonight. I hope that is good news in respect of the wildfires. While I know you to be a dedicated Wikiedian, I can't see anybody hunkered over a laptop keyboard, wearing a Red-Cross blanket, sitting on a WW1 reclaimed cot, and drinking ersatz coffee out of a chipped mug. May you and yours be safe! Bielle 02:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your concern, Bielle. I'm relieved to report the mandatory evacuations didn't quite reach my home, though we were evacuated from my place of work for three days (though that was slightly less traumatic, funnily enough).

Call me a cynic, but I would not be at all surprised if some kind soul had donated a wireless point to the relief effort, and everyone was there in their cots, whittling away the hours day-trading online. The most notable aspect of last week that there was precious little Katrina-style desperation around. The evacuations and refugee camps were all very civilized, presumably because the many displaced people were the nouveau riche of Rancho Santa Fe, rather than the inner city dwellers of New Orleans. I guess the sting of losing your $2 million house in a fire is somewhat tempered by the knowledge you have a $3 million insurance policy in place to rebuild it again... this time with a cinema as well as a pool, library and stables. Rockpocket 05:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that the gymnasium, snooker table and tanning room were a part of the original design, then, were they? I did see a family of 5 on Larry King Live who were renters and with no insurance, so there are those in similar financial circumstances, but they don't appear to have been abandoned by all governments and all fellow citizens in the manner that seemed to describe New Orleans at the time of the disaster. I am delighted you and yours are well. Bielle 06:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, its wrong of me to be so facetious. There are many regular people who lost everything they had, and were not insured. I think the major difference between this and Katrina is that they had a practice run back during the Cedar Fire (after which the authorities took a lot of criticism.) The reverse 911 system they put in place seemed to work brilliantly this time around.

The one thing that struck me about this is how thin the facade of society we all live under in the first world. On Sunday morning I was having breakfast with my wife in a beach-side cafe over looking the pacific, exchanging pleasantries with those around us and thinking what a perfectly pleasant place this is to live. 24 hours later ash was falling from the sky and we could hardly breathe through the thick smoke. If the weather had continued in the manner it did in the first day, there would not be anything of San Diego to speak of today, one week later. It sounds inconceivable, but it could easily have happened. Instead of using my wireless laptop to type this, I would be running around the burnt out remains of downtown, using it to brain some La Jollan socialite so I could eat her pet chihuahua for dinner. I'm thinking those wacky survivalists may not be so crazy after all. Rockpocket 07:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't chastizing you; I didn't think you were being either facetious or dismissive of the real problems of some. You are right about the "thin skin" of privilege and civility on which we depend for our view of the world. While it is possible that the survivalists are right, they are not attractive. If theirs is the world we will get, I just won't be coming out to play in it. Bielle 16:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are still keeping my talk page under watch, Rockpocket? I certainly hope so. Clio the Muse 22:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on what you're worried about, your talk page is always under watch. For example, mine was vandalized twice tonight, and the damage was instantly reverted by two different editors I've never heard of -- members, I presume, of our normal, nimble-fingered vandal patrol.

Me, I don't worry about vandalism to my user pages any more. It always gets cleaned up; I rarely have to lift a finger.

(But if you're worried about something other than obvious vandalism, that's another story, of course.)

There's a beautiful passage in Bill Bryson's book Neither Here nor There which applies here:

[Copenhagen] is so safe that Queen Margrethe used to walk from Amalienborg Palace to the shops every morning to buy flowers and vegetables just like a normal citizen. I once asked a Dane who guarded her in such circumstances, and he looked at me in surprise and replied, "Why, we all do."

—Steve Summit (talk) 01:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This particular instance was a slightly more complex issue than simple vandalism and required admin assistance (hence the request), but thats a great quote, Steve. Rockpocket 05:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you're aware how Category:People who died on the 1981 Irish hunger strike this fits into the category tree now, after this edit? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 08:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My thinking was that there are a number of common categories covering all people in the category "People who died on the 1981 Irish hunger strike" and so it would be better to put it there, instead of in all 10 entries. But I am open to persuasion. PatGallacher 14:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC) (moved from my user page Rockpocket 16:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I see two issues here.

• Firstly is "People who died on the 1981 Irish hunger strike" a true sub-category of "Irish Republicans imprisoned on charges of terrorism"? In other words were all the people who died sentenced in the UK after '74 under terror legislation?
• Secondly, if that is true, is it suitable to place the individuals in the hunger strike subcat only? I'm thinking about WP:SUBCAT: "When an article is put into a subcategory based on an attribute that is not the first thing most people would think of to categorise it, it should be left in the parent category as well." It doesn't immediately follow, in my mind, that individuals who died on hunger strike were also imprisoned on terror charges per se. I feel that the information portrayed is sufficiently different that both should be added.

Similarly, this is why I have added both "Irish Republicans interned without trial" and "Republicans imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict" to some individuals despite the former being a subcat of the latter. I feel the informative difference between internment and imprisonment (after trial) is sufficiently different to justify both. Of course, alternative opinions are welcome. Rockpocket 16:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, yes. Everyone was sentenced under terror legislation. IRA and INLA members weren't sentenced under any other sort of legislation, post-1974.

Second, no real opinion either way. I can see the merits of both, so I'm not sure what the best way to go is. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You knew I would laugh, didn't you? I thanked Ten for lightening up the silliness, and now I thank you for a further amusing illumination. I wonder how many others will see the jokes? - Bielle 02:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was being deadly serious. And as such, I think that TenOfAllTrades is much too uncivil to remain an admin. Recall, anyone? Rockpocket 03:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avast! Far too rouge be I to surrender to a recall! Jimbo himself will have to defeat me in single combat and pry me admin bit from my cold, dead hands! Arrrr! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS:I brought cookies. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above named Arbitration case has closed. The Arbitration Committee decided that [a]ny user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on Wikipedia:Probation by any uninvolved administrator. This may include any user who was a party to this case, or any other user after a warning has been given. The Committee also decided to uplift Vintagekits' indefinite block at the same time.

The full decision can be viewed here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Daniel 08:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the ArbCom is out of the way (and I find it difficult to see what has been achieved), I'd like to signal my appreciation. You've come in for a lot of abuse, but I think that you have gone out of your way to be fair and I, at least, very much appreciate the work that you have done. (And, as a minor point, you come across as both an interesting and nice person in your posts!)

File:Victoria Cross Medal Ribbon & Bar.png		A modest token of appreciation
		I, Major Bonkers, award this minor token of my esteem for your excellent work as an Admin.

If it was up to me, you'd have a real one, but there you go. Not everyone thinks you're a @*%!!!--Major Bonkers (talk) 13:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And bar. - Kittybrewster ☎ 16:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind gesture, I genuinely appreciate it.

It would appear that is it. I'm withholding judgment on what has been achieved for a while. Time will tell. I must say, while I don't always agree with your positions on a lot of issues, I do find interacting with you gentlemen a civil and altogether pleasant experience. If only that was always the case. As always, if I can ever be of assistance please let me know. Rockpocket 17:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you took my Inspector Javert analogy to heart, even if the Jean Valjean in this case was not as innocent by any means. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 04:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your analogy, though I don't consider it particularly relevant. Irrespective of what some would have you believe, my interest in our Jean Valjean is entirely academic. Its not a case of his guilt or innocence, simply one of whether his continued presence here will continue to disrupt the project. My extensive experience of his behaviour was set out in full in my evidence to justify my belief we would be better off without him. I would have been lambasted if I had offered that opinion without any justification, yet in providing my reasoning it all I got in return was so-called "uninvolved" editors taking the opportunity to admin-bash.

I would simply note that I have never been blocked or warned, never edit-warred, never operated a sock or meat puppet, and never personally attacked anyone, yet you are compelled to counsel me for drawing ArbCom's attention towards someone who has done all those things and more. Sorry, but somehow I don't think I'll be taking it to heart. Rockpocket 07:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't mean it in the way that you were somehow malicious in all of this, I perhaps just think you focused all of your energy on Vintagekits and ignored the contributions of his "opponents" to the continued cycle of edit warring. It does take two to tango, even though Vintagekits unarguably displayed the worst of this behaviour, it does not give the other side a free pass. And they will now probably move on to something else, and as I gather from User:Counter-revolutionary's talk page, it is atheism, a despicable practice that no gentlemen who so dearly loves his Queen and Country would ever take a part of, thank you very much. *wink* We're better off without ALL of them. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 12:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon, Deus. I am an atheist. But, then, I do not claim to be a gentleman, nor indeed to practice my atheism. - Kittybrewster ☎ 13:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably take your "feather in the cap" back from David then. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 05:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That may very well be the case, but I have consistently pointed out that my experience with his "opponents" is extremely limited. That is not due to "ignoring" them, but because I have never had any reason to interact with them. Consider my involvement in this and tell what exactly am I was supposed to do? The reason my attention was focused on Vk was simply because someone completely uninvolved came to me with evidence that VK was involved in vote stacking with sock and meat puppets. No-one provided evidence that any of his opponents were doing so and, even though I checked, I could find no evidence of anyone else doing that. So, I supervised his parole, during which he edited drunk, used terrorist rhetoric and issued death threats. Again, no-one else did that as far as I am aware and his opponents were not even involved in that incident. Subsequent to that (on his second parole) VK was the one who revealed personal information about other editors. Again, no-one else did that as far as I am aware and it appeared to be entirely unprovoked. These are the three major issues I have with Vk and those are the three major incidents I discussed at ArbCom. So again, what exactly am I supposed to say about his "opponents" with regards to these three issues considering they were barely involved?

The issue here is that those people who persistently abuse our policies always respond with the same cry to attempt to deflect attention from their own poor behaviour: "Well, X's behaviour is the same as mine and you are not saying anything about that, therefore you are biased". This is exactly what Vk said and, quelle surprise Giano tries that same tack the other day [3] I have absolutely zero time for anyone that tries that, its pathetic. It is also a straw man argument. The lack of awareness of someone else's poor behaviour, on a completely different occasion, is not the same as ignoring it. Admins are volunteers; it is entirely unfair to expect them to be involved in every aspect of everyone's involvement in such as complex issue as this. If anyone could provide an occasion where they drew my attention to the poor behaviour of an "opponent" and I ignored it while taking action against them, then they may have a point. But, that doesn't happen, of course. Instead they would rather wait, then use it retroactively to bleat about bias. So, I completely refute any suggestion that I "ignored the contributions" of anyone in this case. Rockpocket 02:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just trust you walk away from this with a few lessons - I certainly did, and so did probably most - about bias, POV and canvassing in articles. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 05:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have learned plenty from this experience. Principally that there is a certain type of person who does not respect rules. And only adhere to them when they have they have exhausted their lies, their attempts to cheat the system and are left with no other options. Personally, I think it is a terrible waste of good faith editors' time to indulge this to the extent we do. The question we all should be asking is, have those people whose behaviour was the subject of the ArbCom learned any lessons? Rockpocket 21:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I rather thought, when I originally posted my Barnstar here, that it might attract some minority criticism. I also hoped (and rather expected) others to agree with me that Rockpocket has done a good job under difficult circumstances. That was the point that I was making, no more, no less; I was not making a partisan point or trying to continue the interminable childish debate about 'who started it'. Frankly, I'm sick to the back teeth of the whole thing, and I'd be astonished if Rockpocket isn't as well. We've had the ArbCom - how does prolonging the discussion (including here) help anybody? Let's move on. Taking the liberty (sorry Rockpocket!), I invite the next person following in my footsteps to archive this discussion. Haven't we got better things to do? Such as: this gentleman (at least during the week) is crying out for his Wiki article to be expanded, and - I had to laugh - there seems to be a shortage of Admins prepared to get involved in sorting out this mess. Let's all go and do something constructive - please!--Major Bonkers (talk) 10:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was doing some "new pages" speedies this evening and came across DJ Christopher Craze which I thought was pure advertising. Another editor had already tagged it for 'more references". Is it considered rude to add a "speedy-spam" tag in this instance? I haven't done anything yet. Bielle 03:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure this guy is non-notable, and most admins would probably delete this under WP:CSD#A7 rather than as WP:CSD#G11. However, by the letter of the policy its probably not strictly a speedy candidate, as I think there are probably sufficient claims of notability. Personally, I would use the {{prod}} template with this and, if that is removed, nominate it at WP:AfD (or let me know and I can do it). Rockpocket 06:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate it if you would do it. It takes me a very long time to find, assess, find template (having to read almost all of them every time as I don't know them yet), insert, notify author, and then, with copy vio, try and do all the reporting. My first one of these copy vio's, Busse Combat, took me 7 tries and my sandbox to line up all the pieces. (If you want to check and see if I have done it correctly, that would be helpful. I found the website only because the article arrived, complete, almost immediately after I tagged it for a speedy. I wondered how it was written in that space of time; it wasn't.) Thank you for all your help, but it's bedtime out east (3:00 am) for us oldsters. Bielle 07:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You showed me how to check on admin status quite some time ago. A discussion I was having with Resurgent insurgent on his refusal of a Speedy Delete I had put on William McKeen became moot when he said he was an Admin. Assuming then that he was doing his job of following up on an editor's Speedy, I backed off and apologised. There is no symbol on his page denoting admin status, though he has a "category: wikipedian adminstrators" on the bottom. When I clicked that link, though I found his name listed, the page itself warns that the list is not accurate and the only accurate one is Special:Listusers/sysop. I cannot find Resurgent insurgent in this list, nor can I find an RFA for him under the title Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Resurgent insurgent. Where have I gone astray? Thanks for your help. Bielle 05:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Resurgent insurgent has taken off another of my Speedies (Eaton Hotel) after someone deleted a photo and a lot of the text. His summary said "doesn't look like an ad anymore" which is just nonsense. I am not going to argue the toss, however, if he is an Admin just doing his job. (He could still be wrong, of course, Admin or not, but it's not worth an argument when the matter is merely one of judgement.) I'd appreciate your opinion. Bielle 06:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bielle. Strange one this. Resurgent insurgent claims to be an alternative account of both Kimchi.sg (talk · contribs) and Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh (talk · contribs). Kimchi.sg was an admin (Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Kimchi.sg) and Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh still is. If an admin returns under a different account and can convince a 'crat of their identity, they can get their tools back under the new account. That would explain why there is no record of Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh's RfA. However, Resurgent insurgent doesn't have the tools. He has never has. I expect its simply a case that Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh was logged in with he alternative account and decided to deal with a few speedies. Its not a particularly helpful thing to do, of course, but I doubt it was with any intention to mislead. Let me have a word with him to see if we can sort it out. Rockpocket 06:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Rockpocket. I seem to have an affinity for strange ones. I was once good at informal forensic accounting and also taught body language, so I suppose oddities stand out to me, by training and experience. Most admins are quite humble about their roles, and most would tell me, even thought they were an Admin, that didn't mean they were right, or words to that effect. There was something not quite the ticket about the flatness of his statement, thus the query. I shall look forward to the conclusion. Too many sockspuppets spoil the play, I think. Bielle 07:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rockpocket, somebody named KAtremer keeps erasing my work on the Twisted Metal article, it's pissin' me off. Could you block this user from editing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by King Gemini (talk • contribs) 00:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[4] Resurgent insurgent 04:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm a policy-compliant sock. Only the account with the long-winded name has ever had admin powers (the actual ability to delete, etc). Resurgent insurgent 06:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if this has changed now and the admin powers have been moved. Today, Resurgent insurgent seems to have blocked Lawwithal according to that user's discussion page's revision history. Is blocking something one can do without using an Admin's tools? Curiouser and curiouser. Bielle 21:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the log for said user. Only that account actually does blocks. The other account (this one) signs off. Who actually does an admin action is recorded unalterably in the logs. That is what you should be referring to. The sig on the talk page is not as relevant - it might have been edited by anyone. Resurgent insurgent 23:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed true, but this incident surely shows it needlessly confusing, especially for less experienced editors, when you split janitorial tasks between different accounts. I also don't think it is policy compliant, per WP:SOCK, to use a non-sysop status sock puppet account to carry out administrative functions (such as WP:CSD reviews). An administrator's entire record should be available for review in their contribution history, splitting CSD reviews between different accounts means this is not possible. If you disagree, perhaps we could move the discussion to WP:AN to sample wider opinion? Rockpocket 23:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the less experienced editors, I can only agree about the confusion. As far as all the readily accessible records show, though they are now archived from his user page, Resurgent insurgent claims to be an admin, but is not one, and appears to be doing admin work. It is only if one has the skills to go deeper that it is possible to discover what actually is happening. This is further confused by the fact that "real" admin, Awyong_Jeffrey_Mordecai_Salleh has no user page and redirects straight to Resurgent insurgent. Bielle 00:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely believe that I have not taken any unreasonable measures to obfuscate my administrative identity. The redirects are meant to hint that these two accounts belong to the same owner. Furthermore, both accounts' contributions and logs are linked from User:Resurgent insurgent.

If either of you still feel that having edits split between two accounts is a matter for community censure, I do not object to you raising this at AN/I. Resurgent insurgent 02:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to suggest there is any mis intent in your actions at all. I have no reason to believe that and thus I have no wish to censure you. I just think our policies are quite clear that sysop tools are to be restricted to a single account and, that follows, sysop actions should be restricted to a single account. I have requested wider opinion at WP:AN. Rockpocket 21:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I never said "have been" so I don't know where you got that from, and as for referencing then how do I? How do I reference the history of Hip-Hop over the last few years? Should I reference lyrics? Should I reference interviews? If so written or spoken? Should I reference TV? Should I reference Black rappers reffering to Latinos as niggas? What please tell me how because even though you might not want to admit it for whatever reason, this IS fact. Just listen to HipHop and you'll find out for yourself. One of the reasons why Latinos are allowed to say it is most definately because of the close cultures between blacks and latins. Latinos have also been involved in Hip Hop culture from the very begginning and are a big part of it and have been apart of alot of the same struggles faced by blacks. Please just let me know so I can edit correctly what is already known. TeePee-20.7 00:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The text you added says, "Latinos on the other hand have been granted a higher acceptance in using this word... " [5] have been granted a higher acceptance. Thats where I got that from. So what exactly are you trying to say?

• If you believe Latinos use the word more frequently than other groups, then that is fine, but you need to provide a reliable source that says so. A reliable source is a document, book, quote, interview that explicitly says "Latinos use the word more frequently than other groups". What you can't do is say, listen to Latino rap and you'll hear it. That is what we call original research and is not permitted.
• If you believe African Americans are more accepting of Latinos, specifically, using the term, then fine. But again, you need to provide a source that says that explicitly. Inferring that "because of the close cultures between blacks and latins" is a synthesis of unrelated information to forward a view, again not permitted. By the way, something similar to that is already noted down the article, "Some African-Americans express considerable offense when referred to as a nigga by Caucasian people, but not if they are called the same by other African-Americans, or by some other minority, as a term of endearment." This would appear to support your belief, but the source does not relate it to Latinos specifically, just non-caucasians.

The problem with your edits is you are making claims about one group of people specifically without any support from reliable sources. In an article a contentious as this one, 'everything has to be sourced scrupulously. Have a look at it, every single sentence has a source apart from yours. This is because everyone has their own opinion on the word, and we have to ensure that what we report is not your personal opinion, but that it is verifiable. If you can provide sources, then let me know and I can show you how to cite them, if you can't I will removed your edits in a day or two. Rockpocket 00:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK first let me say sorry about "Well I never said "have been" so I don't know where you got that from" comment I made as I was only paying attention to the edit summaries that was my bad. Now to address your points the first point I am not debating as there is no way of really knowing that and alot of other groups use the word profusively. To address your second point I don't know a source that would specifically say that. What is a reliable source? Any of what I previously mentioned? To address your third point yeh that is kind of true not EVERY sentence is referenced but alot of the article is. And actually I just quickly checked then alot of the referencing is wrong. So anyways can you please directly address what I said before your reply. TeePee-20.7 01:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you listed yourself as a participant on WikiProject Cell Signaling. This project has been reactivated, if you are still interested. Biochemza 20:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You are not welcome there and its is a just pure provikation that you are posting there - DONT DO IT AGAIN - you are not needed there - there are plenty of admins about watching this situation and you - who I consider a disgraceful excuse for an admin and not required to get involved and inflame situations involving me. I know all you want me to do is explode and get banned but its not going to happen, please use your bitterness in a more constructive manner and stay away from me - its the best thing for wiki!

Have a nice evening and control your endless rage.--Vintagekits 01:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. Just so you know, you are welcome on my page anytime, so long as you keep your tone civil. Your opinion of me is of little importance (I think we have already established that, considering your threats of violence in the past), however what is important is that you adhere to the terms of your probation. As you were unable to do that on this occasion, do not get the right to determine which admin enforces ArbCom's remedy. Too many good admins have already been burnt out by dealing with your disruption (cf. Fozzie and John). If other admins are unable, unwilling or just disinclined to do engage with you, then I will and no amount of vitriol from you will intimidate me from doing so.

I'm curious - if Sir Fozzie is "burned out", why is he busy posting final warnings on my talk page for the "crime" of trying to introduce some neutrality into Martin Meehan. Apparently now the rule around here is that any Irish admin may defend any Irish article in the interests of maintaining Republican POV and go to the lengths of posing as "lapsed" in order to trap the unwary. Flippin heck. What a place this is. LiberalViews 16:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did expect it was too much to expect that you might actually prefer I offered you a courtesy warning rather than block you immediately? No matter, it won't happen again. Let me say it again: if you edit civilly and adhere to your probation, then I'll stay away from you. Its really not that difficult, plenty of people do it. Good evening to you too. Rockpocket 01:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You sound like you are going to cry, you really are obsessed with me, it's sad really but hey I cant do anything about it - you should really just concentrate on editing articles whic hI notice you rarely/never do! You are an involved admin and cant touch me even if you wanted to - even if I actually did something, god its a joke - It must kill you that you just can ban me doesnt it. Just stay away from me and I will do the same - enjoy your time on wiki and dont spend too much time plotted to get me banned - I'm not worth the hassle honestly.--Vintagekits 02:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can tell yourself that if you want, Vk, but it was specifically noted that the admins involved in your case do not count as "involved". I will block you if you revert war or are incivil. Its a clever tactic to try to claim that any admin who is familiar with you history is involved and thus can't deal with you anymore. But it doesn't work. You can also try and convince anyone you wish that I am "obsessed" with you, that I "hate" you, that I "plotted to get you banned" but its all a reflection of your own prejudices. You are saying those words, not me. I hate to break it to you, but I don't care about you, personally. I care about the project and I care when it gets abused. This is the one thing you don't seem to appreciate - just because you see everything in terms of a personal and political battleground doesn't mean that those you have personal issues with, have a have personal issue with you in return.

Moreover it doesn't make any sense. If I wanted rid of you so much, why did I unblock you from your indef block? I was the blocking admin and no-one except Gold Heart (talk · contribs) (what an guy to have on your side, eh?) protested. I suggest instead of trying to turn this into yet another conflict, you just stick to the probation, treat other editors with a modicum of respect, and then we can both go about our business. Rockpocket 02:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rockpocket, I'm sure you have the right to enforce the Arbcom re Vk, but is it a good idea? It certainly isn't necessary with so many other Admins watching everything. Why pour petrol on the fire? And btw, I thought GoldHeart was genuine too - we can all be wrong sometimes. (Sarah777 02:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I think that Gold Heart (talk · contribs) was honest, I was in touch with him by email at the time, but had to go off to Italy. The true story is deeper than anyone knows. I won't call it blackmail, more a case of greymail. Rockpocket, don't push too hard, GH was a gentleman who lost it a bit after being betrayed, best for all to leave it in the past, like he has done. 02:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Where are all these other admins watching everything. Fozzie? Oh, he is on a extended wikibreak because his health suffered dealing with Vk et al. John? Oh, he walked after Vk mounted a campaign to discredit him. I don't see them, Sarah, perhaps you could point them out to me. And even if there are others around, I presume they didn't notice Vk has done exactly what ArbCom said he shouldn't. Its not as if we work with a hivemind. As far as I can tell it is pretty much only Alison and myself that have Vk's edit range overlapping on our watchlists. Furthermore, Firstly it was John (talk · contribs) who had it in for Vk, then not too long ago Alison was the person who, in Vk's mind, had it in for him. He seems to have since warmed to her again, which is nice. But because I was the one who took it upon himself to present the evidence indicting Vk to ArbCom, now I am the guy out to get him. Can't you see how it works, whichever admin is dealing with Vk presently is the one he attempts to paint as having a personal vendetta against him, so that he can claim to be the victim of admin abuse and get them off his back. Or do you think it is more likely that three completely independent admins all chose an entirely innocent Vk to "hate" and "plot" against? I'm sorry, I refuse to be intimidated into leaving Vk to edit disruptively just because he claims I "hate" him. This problem has nothing to do with me, and the solution need have nothing to do with me either. All he just needs to stick to his probation and he can live a life free of all the admins that are out to get him. Its that simple. Rockpocket 02:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Few things in life are simple. (Sarah777 03:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

In this case I disagree, Sarah. Look around, there are hundreds if not thousands of editors that edit without getting blocked, without edit warring, without assuming bad faith, without immediately thinking anyone who disagrees with your edit is your enemy. Look at OnIH. I have no idea what he thinks of me, really, he could "hate" me even more that Vk, yet we manage to interact in a perfectly civil manner. He edits in the exact same sphere as Vk yet manages to do so without resorting to antisocial behaviour. Let me tell you something else, I also edit extensively in an extremely inflammatory subject - animal testing - and there are a number of editors there with extreme opposite person views from me. We differ in opinion completely on some editing matters but does that mean we insult each other or feel the need to accuse each other of bad faith and edit war over it? No, one of them nominated me for adminship (and the others supported). So, is it really that difficult to not edit war and not insult people? Not if you don't want to. Rockpocket 03:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is all very interesting. I have fallen foul of several editors recently for posting to Irish-related articles. Most recently, I had the cheek to do minor but positive edits on Great Irish Famine for which I was villified by one Irish editor, who campaigned with an admin to have me RFC'ed, a campaign the admin ignored, and now Vintagekits has stepped in following a minor edit to Martin Meehan where I was removing a false claim about a source. Do I detect a pattern here? Are a dedicated group of Republicans attempting to control the Irish, and most particularly, the Republican interpretation of Irish history, articles in Wikipedia? If so, admins need to get a lot tougher. Reading back through the last few months of material on this, it does look as if this plot is winning, which is presumably why admins are having to give up, as above. Time to be much tougher I reckon! LiberalViews 11:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, by removing sourced information and adding your own interpretation of events instead of sticking to what the sources say? Good start! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Show us where in the sources it says he "was beaten by british soldiers and required 47 stitches". It says no such thing and you know it. Note that the other piece One Night in Hackney re-instated was apparently an implication that IRA beatings resulting in confessions were justified. Note to all admins; this is the belief system we are dealing with here. There is no liberalism, no discussion of ideas, none of the bedrocks on which Wikipedia is built - apparently in the Republican vision of Wikipedia, confessions produced by torture are fine and believable! LiberalViews 11:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote #2 links to this article, which says "Soldiers of the regiment finally caught Meehan, and give him such a beating that he needed 47 stitches in the back of his head"? So where's the false claim or propaganda as you also described it? There is none, the only problem is your failure to read the source properly. As regards the confession, you are not adding your own opinion of the events, stick to what the sources say. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I totally endorse Rockpocket's warning, [6] which was extremely lenient. I think you should have received a block. He is doing a good job of attending to the ArbCom ruling and has every right to post on this page. Kindly stop telling him not to. Kindly stop making personal attacks and accusations against him or I will block you for harassment. Tyrenius 12:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]