This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi Tariq, Recent Coronal mass ejection#CMEs has been updated with a (albeit short) paragraph and it's not in the past tense because the expected aurorae haven't occurred yet, but the solar flares are (I believe) happening now and the consensus at ITN/C was to post now and expand the blurb later (hence the second half of the blurb in the hidden comment). If I've missed something, let me know, if not, I'd be grateful if you'd reconsider. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
After that edit summary, I realized the mistake regarding the tense, but the reality doesn't make my complaint any less relevant. It's three short sentences, and it's debatable whether some of them even constitute part of the update (i.e. the first sentence isn't exactly talking about this event, as the paragraph is ordered fairly illogically). It seems even you recognized that the three-sentence update was rather minimal (in one of your comments on ITN/C). The Israel-Lebanon incident was recently posted, so I don't see what the rush is. That update is way below sufficient; I'm not even sure why this is debatable. --tariqabjotu 00:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
*Tariq,
The blurb HJ added to MP about the CME series is only a partial. There is another hidden addition about the auroral effects, but HJ wanted to wait to post that until there was proper documentation. I have found numerous sources reporting spectacular aurorae as far south as Wisconsin, which I then updated the article to reflect... and even added a picture of it. I have posted on HJ's talk page requesting him to finish the blurb, but he has not responded and seems to be offline. Would/can you do it?
If there is a reason why it has not been finished that I am unaware of, then no worries and forget the whole thing. At any rate, and as always, thank you for your time and trouble and I continue to look forward to working with you in the future. Cheers!Cwill151 (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment made irrelevant, sorry for wasting your time... Cwill151 (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Question
Hi, can you help me out, where do I report administrator misconduct? Thanks. --Phoon (talk) 02:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Disregard that I found it. --Phoon (talk) 04:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
You just blocked an IP editor for edit warring at Jason Leopold. It takes two to edit war, so are you also going to blockUser:Yworo? I cannot as I've recently edited the article, but if I were uninvolved I would block them. Fences&Windows22:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think so. Yes, if I were just talking about this edit war, then I would have blocked Yworo for edit-warring. However, it was really the IP's history, combined with his recent actions, that has been a problem. Notice the block was primarily for disruptive editing, not edit-warring. -- tariqabjotu 22:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey, just in case you missed it, there is an oppurtunity to get a free dinner this Tuesday August 11 and a chance to meet and hang out talk about Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Public Policy and WP:GLAM/SI. Sorry that this is so late in the game, I was hoping the e-mail would be a better form of contact for active members (if you want to get on the e-mail list send me anUser e-mail ). Hope that you can attend,User:Sadads (talk)12:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Doncram
I believe your block of Doncram was inappropriate. His final edit was not to restore the disputed article, but to create the disambiguation page with more than two items that the other editor (Polaron) had been requiring before he would "allow" there to be a disambiguation page. Polaron himself had begun the third article to facilitate this. Seems kinda useless to block him for the edit where the two of them had finally worked things out! Lvklock (talk) 23:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Doncram's unblock reason doesn't seem to prove that. As far as I can tell, his evidence is based solely on the idea that Polaron didn't continue the edit war, rather than an actual resolution. Some remarks from Polaron would be appreciated. It's also interesting to note that Doncram's latest revert was also reverted again. -- tariqabjotu 10:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that you blocked User:ValenShephard for a 1RR violation at Gaza flotilla raid. I personally think that 48hrs is a bit harsh, considering that he is a relatively new user (I just taught him how to do citations today, for instance -- he is still learning Wiki policy), and might not have known to look on the Talk page first to notice the 1RR policy, or even if he did notice it, might not have understood it and assumed he had the normal 3 revert threshold. I'm pretty sure that if you informed him of what he did wrong, that he would not cause any problems, and would avoid editing Gaza flotilla raid for 48 hours, even if his block was removed. Thanks -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Everytime someone begins to make an edit on the Gaza flotilla raid article, one sees a message at the top saying "WARNING-- In accordance with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions, editors of this article are restricted to 1 revert per 24 hours. Violations of this restriction will lead to blocks." Further, he had beenthree times about edit-warring. He, therefore, has no excuse for edit-warring on that article, let alone making two reverts within one hour. -- tariqabjotu 08:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
No worries then -- I didn't realize he had been warned. In light of that, the block seems totally reasonable. Cheers -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 09:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Wait -- I just looked at the link you posted of the warning. That was for something different, and was for 3RR, not1RR. A new user would very likely not know what 1RR was, and I think it would be fair to warn them, or at least give them a shorter block. As I suspected, he claims he did not know about 1RR and that a warning would have been sufficient. I suggest "time served", and unblocking him, with a warning not to work on Gaza flotilla raid for the remainder of his 48 hr block. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Jrtayloriv, as I said, there is an edit notice describing the restriction on the article and the consequences for violating it. It does not say "This article is under a 1RR restriction"; it says "editors of this article are restricted to 1 revert per 24 hours". No matter how new a user is, that explanation should be clear. Yes, those warnings were on other articles, but they were warnings for edit-warring nevertheless. If you want to go farther back, you see has been warned about edit-warring, and other disruptive actions, on this particular article. -- tariqabjotu 15:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks -- I didn't realize that he'd been warned about that article in particular (several times). It seems that he does need some time to cool his head off about the flotilla raid, and he had ample warning. Sorry to be a bother, and thanks for taking the time to explain this to me. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
This editor is now requesting unblock. I have placed the unblock request on hold while waiting for comment from you; I would have accepted it but it's an arbitration enforcement. Seriously, though, it's possible to miss that message and WP:BITE comes into play here. His edits certainly seem constructive; it would be a shame to chase away such a new user. --Shirik(Questions or Comments?) 15:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Hm, I missed the edit warring warnings from earlier that you pointed out. I'll leave the call to you. --Shirik(Questions or Comments?) 15:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
The article has been under 1RR restrictions for a long time, since June 1 (the 1RR restriction should probably have an expiration, but it doesn't at the moment). While ValenShephard's recent edits may not suggest it, he has edited the Gaza flotilla raid article many, many times. I do not buy the idea that he did not know about the 1RR restriction. I'm not going to allow him to play the new user card here; he's made more than 1,200 edits -- many to this article -- and been around for over three months. He should know about this aspect by now, especially after receiving numerous warnings for disruptive reverting on this article and others. --tariqabjotu 15:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Tomáš Kaberle
Hi, and thank you for the semi-protect on Tomáš Kaberle - I was getting a little tired seeing it continuously pop up on Recent... ruins the variety of it all over there. ;-)
Hi. As a courtesy, I wanted to let you know about the draft RfC I'm working on, since I've mentioned your block of the involved editor in the evidence. Please feel free to contribute (or not) as you will. Yworo (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I concur with the removing pending changes, it's a noble idea but doesn't seem practical, at least not in this case. --WGFinley (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
NP, trust me, I feel your pain on the "I should be working" thing. --WGFinley (talk) 16:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I wanted someone else to make that call on protecting it. --WGFinley (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree that normally the editors would enforce the 1RR restrictions on the article but I think some are afraid their revert to enforce it would be seen as a violation. I think that you're right, it's the only solution at present and will allow me to step back from constantly trying to curtail the warring. --WGFinley (talk) 14:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Tariqabjotu , you removed a part of my comment on AE. I am not going to re-post it of course, but in my opinion you are wrong. AE is kind of Wikipedia court of low. In any court of low any evidences might be presented to prove one statement. Of course, if the user in question behaved, and I would have came to AE with his real life articles only, it would have been a different story, but the user was brought there for a different reason, and IMO in this case I have the right to present other evidences as well. Why can't I? Is there any policy about that? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
To me, it appears you're outing him, presenting his real-life information so as to say "look, he's biased, and therefore he should not be editing these articles". Oh, dear... can you imagine if we knew the real-life identities of all the people who edit in the Israel-Palestine area? Can you imagine the pandemonium? And, more importantly, in what way does that help the articles? That's why we're supposed to comment on contributions, rather than contributors. I couldn't care less if the head of AIPAC were editing Wikipedia; so long as he's able to adhere to our principles of neutrality and verifiability, it doesn't matter. Same here; Mr. Hammond's activities off Wikipedia shouldn't prevent him from editing certain articles on it. -- tariqabjotu 14:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. There was no outing there as I explained on AE, and I still believe, if the user's behavior brought him to AE,one should be able to use any evidences (on and off wiki) to make one case. In any case I am going of course to respect your decision on removing part of my comment. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Tariq. I broughtthis matter up with Tim Song. He agreed that a block was warranted per [1] but asked that I refer the matter to another admin to carry out a sanction per his stated (and well-grounded) reason. I am referring the matter over to you since judging by Tim's talk page, you have some level of familiarity with the case and the previous sock puppets. Best--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it seems quite obvious to me as well. I've indefinitely blocked the account. -- tariqabjotu 18:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Can I ask you a question?
Hi Tariq,
Quick question, there was a recent change to the structure of the Gaza flotilla article whereby the casualties list was moved from a chronological position in the article to the very beginning.
There's a little bit of discussion on the talk page HERE andHERE.
Mostly I'm curious if wikipedia has any standards for how pages are layed out content-wise. I looked in the MOS and elsewhere in the wiki documentation, but I couldn't find anything.
Thought you should know that an apparent AGF edit has in effect removed the semi-protection template from Wiz Khalifa. I have left a note on their talkpage for the Wikipedian (User talk:Andrewlp1991) who did this edit so they can revert the template back to its 'live' status.
He did not remove the semi-protection template. When you put small=yes in the template, it puts a silver lock, indicating semi-protection, in the top-right corner of the page so that the template isn't obtrusive. That's generally done for longer protections, so the template doesn't constantly appear within the text of the article, but it's a matter of preference. Andrew didn't do anything wrong, and there's no need for him to revert his edit. -- tariqabjotu 21:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, ok, thanks for the correction about the small=yes thingy...I knew I probably had to be missing something! (And I didn't mean to imply that something was wrong, just that I didn't understand the edit and that I don't like to possibly revert unless I make sure of things.) Shearonink (talk) 22:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
If you wish I can also provide strong circumstantial evidence of one account behind wikibias.com, though I don't think it is particularly important, that account has fallen in disuse. un☯mi 00:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi! Take a look at my updates on Template talk:Infobox Sura, and let me know if you support my new, concise version of the infobox. Peace. --Muslimsson (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Jiujitsuguy
It looks shocking that you indefinitely blocked the above user without any discussion and without referring to any Wikipedia policies. There was a discussion going on where you youself expressed scepticism that Jiujitsuguy's action warranted any sanction, but after receiving some info from an equally activist editor, you went as far as blocking indefinitely. If this was discussed anywhere please point me to that discussion. Jiujitsuguy made a lot of useful contribution here. Sincerely. -BorisG (talk) 17:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Just because I didn't link to a particular policy in the block log doesn't mean I didn't think policies were violated. My block description was quite clear about the nature of the problem, and, despite initially expressing skepticism toward the impending e-mails from Nableezy and Supreme Deliciousness, the evidence itself was very clear and quite damning. Regardless, I have started a thread at ANI on this issue; it'shere.-- tariqabjotu 18:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Pursuant to your offer to send the evidence in question to any admin, I do so request.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Clarification
Hi. I don't understand why you blocked me. I did not surpass three reverts and made a sincere effort to talk things over with the other editor on the relevant discussion page. Also, could you please explain to me what is the best way to handle userspace vandalism? I would appreciate direction, as it is a recurring problem with the other editor. My talk page is presently being used as a propaganda tool by him/her, the so-called "wall of shame" that WP:HUSH discusses. That WP:HARASSMENT sub-policy indicates that it is an editor's prerogative to remove material he or she deems questionnable or unwarranted from his or her own talk page, and that another editor should not attempt to re-insert them. However, this editor has been relentlessly doing just that. At one point, although no revert-warring was actually going on at the main article at that particular moment, he evenadded an additional tag out-of-the-blue right after he had just restored the numerous other tags that he had already inserted -- clearly an attempt to elicit a negative response of some sort. Contrast his behavior with mine, where I posted a 3RR warning on his talk page per the 3RR reporting protocol, which he then promptly removed and I did not restore. I then later contacted him once more (right after he had posted that out-of-the blue tag on my talk page) to ask him torefrain from vandalizing my userspace, literally pasting the relevant policy for him to understand where he had erred. Predictably, he alsoremoved this message and I did not restore it. This is the type of trollish, double-standard behavior I am referring to, whereby only one editor (i.e. me) follows or indeed even cares about Wikipedia's policies, including its instructions on respecting another editor's userspace, while the other just violates them whenever and wherever inconvenient unless blocked from doing so. I would also like to know how best to deal with constant incivility and personal attacks because those are major issues here as well. Best regards,Middayexpress (talk) 22:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello again. I don't understand why you have not responded yet to my post above. I apologize if I've caught you at a bad time; I know weekends can be busy periods. However, I would still appreciate a reply of some sort. Best regards,Middayexpress (talk) 21:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Dude, seriously. Thunderbird tells me when I receive e-mails. -- tariqabjotu 17:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
ANI
Very early on someone brought up the WP:EEML decision as possibly having some bearing on our discussion. Having reviewed it now I think he's right and have added a section for discussion I'd like your feedback on. --WGFinley (talk) 17:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Jiujitsuguy
I have been given permission to forward the email exchanges I had with Jiujitsuguy on this issue in July. I have done so together with a brief summary of events. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Barnstar
Magog the Ogre's first barnstar, ever:
The Admin's Barnstar
For repeatedly making difficult decisions that prove both unpopular and politically difficult to sustain. Every time I've reviewed your adminwork, not only have you been willing to go the extra mile (including doing difficult research, and defending the decision to all involved), but you are breathtakingly evenhanded to all sides of any debate. If only Wikipedia had a few more editors like yourself. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Jiujitsuguy
I engaged in a lengthy correspondence with Jiujitsuguy when he emailed the functionaries list regarding possible misrepresentation of his views by other activists. I was aware of his frustrations as voiced in the web page referenced, although I'm not sure who controls that webpage, but stressed that although editors with a point of view background or motivation were free to edit that they were expected to conform to Wikipedia policies and culture, once they had an reasonable opportunity to become familiar with them.FredTalk 00:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, but the short answer is, "yes, you were aware of that page, and the same evidence provided by Nableezy"? Don't worry; I'm not going to debate you on your conclusion. I just want to clarify as it relates to be promise on Jiujitsuguy's page that I would unblock him provided your earlier review looked at the same material (and especially that particular page on the Activist Network).-- tariqabjotu 00:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
AN/I et al
I don't think you had to do that but I understand the frustration. I am going to close out the AE with strong wording and I will be putting this together for an Arbcom filing. I think it shoud be an Amendment to ARBPIA, do you agree or think it should be its own case? --WGFinley (talk) 01:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you meant by that, but the unblock of Jiujitsuguy was not out of frustration. It was solely based on the fact that the issue had been addressed earlier by another admin, who determined no action was necessary, and the defense by JJG, which gave a plausible explanation for why he was misattributed to the Activist Network. The former point is the most important, because I believe that if a block result based on ArbCom decisions can't be overturned without ArbCom or overwhelming community consensus, I don't think a no-block result based on ArbCom decisions should be overturned without ArbCom or overwhelming community consensus either. I still disagree with Fred on some points, including the implications of this edit summary, but I did not allow those differences to be a factor when deciding to unblock.
I'm indifferent on whether a new case is needed, but I imagine some may want the block of Eric to be addressed, and I don't think that would work well as an amendment (as it singles him out in a very general case). However, I'm looking for the least drama-inducing approach possible; as you can see in the ANI thread, there is a tendency for people to stray off into personal disputes (e.g. the "Nableezy: did he or did he not out someone?" sideshow) whenever the opportunity presents itself. It also happens on AE and AN3 a lot. -- tariqabjotu 08:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I think one of your responses started with "fine," and I just interpreted that as frustration, sorry if I read something into what wasn't there. So I'm clear I do not wish to bring an Arbcom case because I htink you did anything out of line, I don't think you did. I think we just need more direction from Arbcom on how to handle some of these issues. --WGFinley(talk) 14:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Tariqabjotu. You have new messages at Wgfinley's talk page. Message added 01:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Updated
You can find the updated blurb here. Thanks...Neutralhomer •Talk • 02:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Re: AE
Hello, Tariqabjotu. You have new messages at Wgfinley's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
