MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 4 thread(s) (older than 7d) to User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Archive 24. |
|||
Line 95: | Line 95: | ||
:: I was advised by an arbitrator to appeal via AE before appealing to the Committee. I would discuss this issue with you first before going through the AE process. As you have mentioned "like reasonable people", I feel that you should at least contact the editor directly on their talk page to raise any issue you may have before you decide to impose any ban on them. Besides, I believe it is a requirement to warn the editor directly before any sanction is imposed. I had made one revert in order to restore a version close to the original version before the change of the wording in the NCGN page. I don't think I fit into this description for a sanction: "if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process". [[User:STSC|STSC]] ([[User talk:STSC|talk]]) 02:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC) |
:: I was advised by an arbitrator to appeal via AE before appealing to the Committee. I would discuss this issue with you first before going through the AE process. As you have mentioned "like reasonable people", I feel that you should at least contact the editor directly on their talk page to raise any issue you may have before you decide to impose any ban on them. Besides, I believe it is a requirement to warn the editor directly before any sanction is imposed. I had made one revert in order to restore a version close to the original version before the change of the wording in the NCGN page. I don't think I fit into this description for a sanction: "if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process". [[User:STSC|STSC]] ([[User talk:STSC|talk]]) 02:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC) |
||
::: Warning was given on the guideline talkpage; besides, it is longstanding practice that editors who are named parties of the Arbcom case in question don't need extra notifications about the formalities, as they are already aware of the decision, especially when it's so recent. Edit-warring on a guideline page is a particularly serious matter, and you were continuing this problematic conduct after the warning. Moreover, the style and tone of your accompanying talkpage message displayed an aggressive, unconstructive attitude in your editing. I get the same impression from going over your talkpage contributions in the archives of [[Talk:Senkaku Islands]]; they are repetitive, fail to constructively address arguments by other editors, and could well be described as [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]]. For these reasons, I believe the sanction is justified. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 06:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC) |
::: Warning was given on the guideline talkpage; besides, it is longstanding practice that editors who are named parties of the Arbcom case in question don't need extra notifications about the formalities, as they are already aware of the decision, especially when it's so recent. Edit-warring on a guideline page is a particularly serious matter, and you were continuing this problematic conduct after the warning. Moreover, the style and tone of your accompanying talkpage message displayed an aggressive, unconstructive attitude in your editing. I get the same impression from going over your talkpage contributions in the archives of [[Talk:Senkaku Islands]]; they are repetitive, fail to constructively address arguments by other editors, and could well be described as [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]]. For these reasons, I believe the sanction is justified. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 06:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::: I refute the allegations you made to justify your questionable sanction. This serves as a notice to you that an arbitration enforcement action appeal is lodged. [[User:STSC|STSC]] ([[User talk:STSC|talk]]) 18:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:46, 11 October 2011
![]() Archives |
---|
Note: If you leave a message here I will most often respond here
About Philippine Governemnt Seals
Hello Future Perfect at Sunrise,
- I was wondering if I could get your advice. See I was browsing city and town articles when I spotted some of their official seal's summary in the source description said's Own Work and also the author claimed by a user. I want to seek your advice. Is this really possible? ---- talk now! 14:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC+8)
Image licensing
Dear Future Perfect, Anthony Nguyen is my name and that is my photo, however Moo-Hyun Kim is the director of the hospital in question and I am an employee of his. The image for the first file is his property, and he has asked me to upload it. Unfortunately he is not very computer literate, and I'm pretty sure he would be unable to do it. I'm unsure of how to license it appropriately. The other two flagged images are also hospital property, but we are unsure of how to get permission to use them. Please advise if possible.
- Anthony
Photograph Biswabijoy Sen.jpg
Hi this is a photograph which has been stylised using Nero Photo Snap viewer and useing the "Aging" effect. If required, I can send you the original image. Please consider
Deletion
Fut.Perf. Why are you so antagonistic about the article on Daniel Kanu, please am not Daniel Kanu am not a politician, am a programmer and on of his fans in Nigeria. There articles on him on independent sources on the web, he has contributed a lot for our democracy (talk)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/Mail-message-new.svg/40px-Mail-message-new.svg.png)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Cailil talk 19:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hi FPaS, just to say that if you don't have the time for the above or don't want to touch it no worries but do let me know and I'll go elsewhere--Cailil talk 08:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Range block
Hey, could you do something with [1]? I don't think that this block is OK, because it's a big range of main Polish ISP. There's really many, many users affected with it. Tell me what's your problem with user:Wikinger, maybe there's a way of getting rid of him... Herr Kriss (talk) 22:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- The issues with this vandal are outlined at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Wikinger. The problems have been so severe and persistent that unfortunately this rangeblock remains necessary. As far as I know, even at pl-wiki they have been considering making these rangeblocks (he's been all over their admin board all these days), and I assume collateral damage there would be significantly higher. I'm not in fact aware of any concrete collateral damage here so far, can you point to any? But in any case, I'm afraid I'm not willing to lift this range block at this time. If you know of any way of getting rid of the guy, I'd be glad to hear of it. As far as I know somebody from pl-wiki once had some response to a provider complaint, but that evidently hasn't so far led to any improvement of the situation either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- How you'd see that damage? The damage there are people who can't edit and fix Wikipedia. It's invisible, but still damages Wiki. As far as I learnt from Internet, 99% of those users just leave the site and part of them won't ever come back here to edit. Others wants to notice admins and half of them will find address to OTRS and write there. So, I guess it will be about zero. "He's been all over their admin board all these days" - you haven't seen that, have you? Because I did, and that's not really as you write. But never mind Polish Wikipedia. The point is that people suffer cause administrators are too lazy - to block, to revert, etc. It's cruel and some admins will neglect it, but it's the truth. I'm an admin on WMF projects for many years and I've learned that you can't take one's privilege (i.e. editing and creating account) because you have a problem with idiot. It's totally negative of wiki and a classical biting newbies. For you it's just bunch of anonymous people, but imagine how it would feel to be one of them. The bigger Wikipedia doesn't mean that we could range block many people (and Poles are active users, as you see from article count) without thinking how to resolve it. And it's mostly up to you to resolve it, not for me or people affected. Editing Wikipedia is a work for free, so when they are not able to work, they just resign. I'm noticing that your block helps block Wikinger (BTW he can use proxy and there's a loads of not blocked ones on en.wiki) and defend Wiki from damage, but you are ignoring many active people which fixes more than Wikinger destroys (but they can't). I offer you English>Polish translation (official) and vice-versa (not official). Maybe you should contact Polish admins (I've resigned about year ago, so I can't help you) and they will tell you some tips about him? I could help you find some people who were active these days, but you'd have to talk with them and it won't be easy work - official mails, etc. So if you don't will to write them, then point me an admin who have a free time and is willing to work on that problem. Please, don't look at people as at IP number, but as at humans who wants to help and they are not able. Herr Kriss (talk) 19:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, but calling me lazy will not help you make me reconsider my position. I've had to sacrifice insane amounts of my time defending this project and its sister projects (and myself) from this particular madman; my patience in this case is now limited, and I know that the damage prevented by the blocks is large enough that I'm willing to accept some amount of collateral damage as a reasonable price to pay. On pl-wiki, they once had another particularly nasty vandal, incidentally on this same ISP; they range-blocked the ISP – essentially, a whole major Polish city – until the ISP kicked the user out. This may well be necessary again, and if pl-wiki decides to do this (as they were considering doing), so much the better. pl:User:Beau seems to be the person who already had some contact with the ISP in question [2]. Meanwhile, legitimate users who come here to en-wiki and find themselves caught in the rangeblock are encouraged to use the {{unblock}} template and will then be given help on how to create an account and avoid the block; so far, in this case, the number of people who have done so has been zero (to the best of my knowledge), so I assume the dark figure of unreported cases can't be that high. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm switching to e-mail talk. Herr Kriss (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, but calling me lazy will not help you make me reconsider my position. I've had to sacrifice insane amounts of my time defending this project and its sister projects (and myself) from this particular madman; my patience in this case is now limited, and I know that the damage prevented by the blocks is large enough that I'm willing to accept some amount of collateral damage as a reasonable price to pay. On pl-wiki, they once had another particularly nasty vandal, incidentally on this same ISP; they range-blocked the ISP – essentially, a whole major Polish city – until the ISP kicked the user out. This may well be necessary again, and if pl-wiki decides to do this (as they were considering doing), so much the better. pl:User:Beau seems to be the person who already had some contact with the ISP in question [2]. Meanwhile, legitimate users who come here to en-wiki and find themselves caught in the rangeblock are encouraged to use the {{unblock}} template and will then be given help on how to create an account and avoid the block; so far, in this case, the number of people who have done so has been zero (to the best of my knowledge), so I assume the dark figure of unreported cases can't be that high. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you
I have lifted this block per request at WP:ANI [3], to allow you to migrate from your old local account Omulazimoglu to this unified SUL account, noting that having used both accounts in parallel back in late 2009 was a mistake but evidently not intentional deceptive sockpuppetry. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. It seems now everthing is ok and i can use same username on wikipedia and commons. Ozgurmulazimoglu (talk) 07:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Re: Fideldrumbo
You recently blocked Fideldrumbo. Could you look at the abusive IP user 175.100.41.133 who shares their editing interests, posts identical documents, and is engaging in personal attacks? Thanks. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- And 84.196.72.121 appears to be puppetting the same conduct of 175.100.41.133 and FidelDrumbo at Technocracy. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- 175.100.41.250 is signing posts in exactly the same was as 175.100.41.133, and posting while banned. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the technocracy article dispute
The "Precursor" section of the Technocracy article advances a position that is not supported by the sources that are cited. This is in violation of WP:ORIGINALSYN. The content qualifies as WP:NOR, and must be removed per Wikipedia's guidelines.
Secondly, user Fifelfoo exhibits a behavior that amounts to accussing other editors of being sock puppets of user FidelDrumbo without any basis in fact. Please have an administrator investigate these claims to clear the name of those involved. Thank you. Malik047 (talk) 10:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Before I investigate further where you suddenly popped up from, here's a straight question: were you the 84.196.72.121 IP? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Civility please
Hi Fut.Perf. My intention is not to discuss on a particular topic, but I'd rather appreciate more civil tone when blaming other users. Comments like "pretty useless bunch" and "politically motivated abuse of admin powers" are not something that is open to publicity and anyone should read. I therefore warn you to remain civil with no attacks to others anywhere on Wikipedia. If you like to express your emotionally motivated thoughts to anyone else, you have many other allowed ways to do it, but surely not on Wikipedia. Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- My opinion of the admin corps on your project is well-founded, and I will express it in any way I see fit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- If you have something that is well-founded, it doesn't allow you to use confrontational tone. I also have some thoughts, but being impudent is not the right way to express them. My warn again is that Wikipedia is not a place where you can accuse other users. Best.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Bruno again?
This article and its creation (by a user who edits twice a year and strangely started editing now once again) fit Bruno's mo in more than one aspect. The stuff's a blatant WP:POVFORK in any case, at best worth a note in the main article. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Vojsava Tripalda
Hello! I just wanted to inform you that we should finish the work we started. Article Vojsava Tripalda, with numerous problematic parts, are recreated so far by lede and one section, so i ask you what should we do next? Lets finish this.
Thanks for you great contribution so far. --WhiteWriter speaks 15:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions: topic ban
You appear to have imposed an invalid ban on my account. An appeal will be sent directly to the Committee. STSC (talk) 08:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- It would have been more appropriate if you had pointed out to me why you felt the ban is invalid; that way, we might even have discussed it, like reasonable people. But in any case, it seems you have already gone ahead and asked the arbs directly, so I guess I'll just leave it to them to handle. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- I received a ban appeal by email, and I am replying here in order to keep conversations together as much as possible. Firstly, as a general principle, I would never think to undo a fellow administrator's action without some sort of communication with them first, both from the appealing party and from myself. Secondly, whilst I was the Arbitration Committee clerk in the Senkaku Islands arbitration case, I am otherwise uninvolved in this dispute, and do not intend to involve myself further. Thirdly, if the intent is to appeal directly to the committee, I do not see what role I am expected to play. I will consequently not be taking any action on the ban appeal. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. From what STSC said, I gather he meant to appeal to the committee itself, so maybe he thought you as the clerk would be forwarding it to them; but in any case he seems to have written to NYB too so I suppose the committee has what it needs. STSC: in principle, you could also appeal to the community via WP:AE; the process is outlined there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- I was advised by an arbitrator to appeal via AE before appealing to the Committee. I would discuss this issue with you first before going through the AE process. As you have mentioned "like reasonable people", I feel that you should at least contact the editor directly on their talk page to raise any issue you may have before you decide to impose any ban on them. Besides, I believe it is a requirement to warn the editor directly before any sanction is imposed. I had made one revert in order to restore a version close to the original version before the change of the wording in the NCGN page. I don't think I fit into this description for a sanction: "if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process". STSC (talk) 02:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Warning was given on the guideline talkpage; besides, it is longstanding practice that editors who are named parties of the Arbcom case in question don't need extra notifications about the formalities, as they are already aware of the decision, especially when it's so recent. Edit-warring on a guideline page is a particularly serious matter, and you were continuing this problematic conduct after the warning. Moreover, the style and tone of your accompanying talkpage message displayed an aggressive, unconstructive attitude in your editing. I get the same impression from going over your talkpage contributions in the archives of Talk:Senkaku Islands; they are repetitive, fail to constructively address arguments by other editors, and could well be described as WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. For these reasons, I believe the sanction is justified. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- I refute the allegations you made to justify your questionable sanction. This serves as a notice to you that an arbitration enforcement action appeal is lodged. STSC (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Warning was given on the guideline talkpage; besides, it is longstanding practice that editors who are named parties of the Arbcom case in question don't need extra notifications about the formalities, as they are already aware of the decision, especially when it's so recent. Edit-warring on a guideline page is a particularly serious matter, and you were continuing this problematic conduct after the warning. Moreover, the style and tone of your accompanying talkpage message displayed an aggressive, unconstructive attitude in your editing. I get the same impression from going over your talkpage contributions in the archives of Talk:Senkaku Islands; they are repetitive, fail to constructively address arguments by other editors, and could well be described as WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. For these reasons, I believe the sanction is justified. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- I received a ban appeal by email, and I am replying here in order to keep conversations together as much as possible. Firstly, as a general principle, I would never think to undo a fellow administrator's action without some sort of communication with them first, both from the appealing party and from myself. Secondly, whilst I was the Arbitration Committee clerk in the Senkaku Islands arbitration case, I am otherwise uninvolved in this dispute, and do not intend to involve myself further. Thirdly, if the intent is to appeal directly to the committee, I do not see what role I am expected to play. I will consequently not be taking any action on the ban appeal. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)