User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington/Archive/Archive12: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 15:52, 24 February 2007

Revision as of 16:14, 27 February 2007

Line 481:

::I'm not sure I see consensus there at all. Several people are arguing for it to be kept. [[User:Worldtraveller|Worldtraveller]] 11:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

::There is no consensus. ([[User:MichaelJLowe|MichaelJLowe]] 13:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC))

<span id="63297107686" />

=={{user|Benjiwolf}}==

Thanks for dealing with this situation; it was getting out of hand. Just dropping a note to let you know s/he is demanding an explanation. Usually I'd just keep moving if the person hasn't added {{tl|unblock}}, but s/he has added a legal threat to the demand as well [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Benjiwolf&diff=prev&oldid=108366303]. On a related note: great work on the 3RR violations. Some won't touch a malformed report; good to see some initiative. '''[[User:AuburnPilot|<font color="mediumblue">auburn</font><font color="darkorange">pilot</font>]]''' [[User_talk:AuburnPilot|<small>talk</small>]] 17:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

:Could you please take a look at [[User:Silence-of-the-Wolves|Silence-of-the-Wolves]]. It is an admitted sock of Benjiwolf [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Benjiwolf&diff=109300974&oldid=108981504], and is continuing the same disruption. A [[WP:SSP]] report was filed [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Benjiwolf|here]], but I'm afraid we need more immediate attention. Thanks, '''[[User:AuburnPilot|<font color="mediumblue">auburn</font><font color="darkorange">pilot</font>]]''' [[User_talk:AuburnPilot|<small>talk</small>]] 02:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

::Blocked indef. &mdash; [[User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|<font color="black">Nearly Headless Nick</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|<font color="black" title="Contributions">^'''{C}'''</font>]] 09:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

<span id="63296983966" />

== Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration==

I have initiated a [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Nearly Headless Nick disregarding consensus and consensus-related policies]], a matter in which I believe you to have been involved in the case history of. Your commentary may be appreciated. [[User:Balancer|Balancer]] 13:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

:Thanks for notifying me. But it does not interest me at the moment. Thank you. &mdash; [[User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|<font color="black">Nearly Headless Nick</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|<font color="black" title="Contributions">^'''{C}'''</font>]] 17:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

::In light of the proper order of steps to take, I have opened [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (2nd RfC)]], which you should also be informed of. [[User:Balancer|Balancer]] 23:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

<span id="63297032686" />

== Unblock request on one of your 3RR blocks ==

Please comment on the request for unblock at [[User talk:Wjhonson]]. Thanks, [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 00:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

:I suppose the block has already expired by now. &mdash; [[User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|<font color="black">Nearly Headless Nick</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|<font color="black" title="Contributions">^'''{C}'''</font>]] 13:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

<span id="63297032626" />

==Support==

Hey Nick. I can't say I've looked at much of the details of the recent RFAr's, but I've always considered you a talented and solid administrator and contributor, so I just wanted to offer you my support. Let me know if there's anything I can do. [[User:EWS23|<font color="#0000EE">'''Eric'''</font>]] ([[User talk:EWS23|EWS23]]) 04:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

:Yo. Thanks. I guess I will '''''[[WP:ROUGE|cabalise with you]]''''' over email. See ya! &mdash; [[User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|<font color="black">Nearly Headless Nick</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|<font color="black" title="Contributions">^'''{C}'''</font>]] 13:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

<span id="63297032326" />

==Concern==

Hi Nick

I am getting concerned about [[user:Freedom skies]] edits. There are two areas of concern:

* S/He has begun to remove material again that I have added to the [[Indian mathematics]] page. At first her/his complaint was that I was adding "Wikiquote material" (perhaps, since I was using "cquote"). I then began to paraphrase the quoted material and s/he complained that I had violated [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:NOR]] in my paraphrases. See the discussion [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Indian_mathematics#Reverts_by_user:Freedom_skies here], where s/he produced some exact quotes (which I had added earlier) and claimed that my paraphrases were not accurate. So, I finally added the exact quotes (that s/he her/himself had quoted on the talk page) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_mathematics&oldid=109035223#Assessment_of_Mathematics_of_the_Vedic_Period here] in addition to adding some technical material [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_mathematics&oldid=109035223#Baudhayana here] (essentially all the material that doesn't have a "citation needed" tag on it). Well, earlier today s/he made a number of edits, where s/he mostly removed material that was critical of the notion of Vedic mathematics. (See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_mathematics&action=history here]). The material s/he has removed was all sourced and consists of text from articles in internationally known journals or well-known text-books published by Wiley and searchable on Amazon. I have refrained from reverting anything as I had promised you, but I can't prepare the article for the RfC that I am planning on the mathematics portal, if material keeps getting removed. Please advise.

* What is troubling me more however, is a post on my talk page earlier today from [[user:IP198]], who says that [[user: Freedom skies]] had stated in her/his edit summaries on some articles that IP198 is a sockpuppet of mine [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hindkowans&action=history here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kashmir_conflict&action=history here]. These are both articles that I have never edited, and hadn't even heard of the first, "Hindokowans." Here are user IP198's posts on my page: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fowler%26fowler#WP_Sock InitialPost] and here are: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:IP198 my replies] to user IP198. My only contact with user IP198 has been on the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Salwar_kameez#Intro Talk: Salwar Kameez] page, where as you can see, we have different points of view. I don't know what game user:Freedom skies has in mind, but he seems to have scared user IP198, who apparently fears getting blocked by Freedom skies! See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Freedom_skies#WP:Sock_.28moving_discussion_on_WP:Sock_from_User_talk:IP198_to_here.29 their discussion here]. As I suggested to user IP198, I am happy to challenge user: Freedom skies or anyone else to a checkuser ID (for me and IP198) and with the condition that the loser in the challenge donate $200 to the Wikimedia foundation! Anyway, please advise. Thanks! [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 21:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

----

I recommend that a closer look regarding the discussions on [[Talk:Indian mathematics]] is in order. Severe misrepresentations were made by Fowler and he attempted to present those misrepesentations as actual "critisisms." My understanding is that content disputes are resolved before actually being put in the articles in concern; as is being done by me and other editors on [[Talk:Zen]]. Fowler has gone on revert wars and has even indiscriminately removed the citations I procured after hours of research. His purpose of edits and assesments of mathematics are also given on the talk page, which not only is unethical but since it seperates geometry from mathematics, is also flawed. Since he has asked you for advice, I would recommend that you use your position to bring Fowler to the discussion table before he reverts again. His section, as inappropriate as it is, has still been allowed by me to stay in the article for the time being.

I have concerns that the user in question may have ben a sockpuppet of Fowler, given the nature of the editor involved it would not be improbable to assume that he would have an alternate account to aviod other users from checking on his contribs. The user IP198 reverted one of my edits to Fowler's version, shows unusual sophestication for a newcomer, has been known to "communicate" with fowler and has edits overlaping with Fowler. I will produce the overlaps on a future probable ocassion and will vigilantly watch for the activities of the editors involved. The response and allegations of the "user" of a "possible grudge" against fowler are also things I find extraordinary. Consider [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Freedom_skies#WP:Sock_.28moving_discussion_on_WP:Sock_from_User_talk:IP198_to_here.29 this section], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:IP198#WP:Sock here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fowler%26fowler#WP_Sock here] for details.

I, unlike, fowler and others am not keen on violation of WP ethics. All I ask is that Fowler discusses his edits and answers legitimate concerns before he reverts someone else's hard work.

Best Regards,

_{<span style="border:3px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Freedom skies|Freedom skies]]|[[User_talk:Freedom skies|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;">&nbsp;talk&nbsp;</font>]]</span>} 07:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

----

I have additional concerns regarding Fowler. He has initiated a revert war by maliciously stating that ''"reverting '''freedom skies' bogus reverts'''; have you added anything to this article yet, or do you only know how to revert.?"''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fowler%26fowler] His new confidence may stem from his sucsess in involving a completely unrelated editor to help him out on Indian mathematics. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dbachmann] The new editor has stated things like "oh dear, why cannot '''they''' just leave good enough alone." and "I suggest you sit back and watch F&f's work on the article, and maybe learn something."

Fowler's conduct on Indian mathematics has been extraordinary. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Indian_mathematics#Reverts_by_user:Freedom_skies] I find this continuation of mailicious agenda surprising. Recruiting muscle to back him up up in revert warring and using semi-abusive online bullying does not amount to fair decent behaviour.

Kindly take appropriate action. There is bound to be trouble due to revert warring and semi-abusive bullying by the parties involved.

_{<span style="border:3px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Freedom skies|Freedom skies]]|[[User_talk:Freedom skies|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;">&nbsp;talk&nbsp;</font>]]</span>} 10:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

===Response by a harried Sir Nicholas===

*I am not getting involved. I barely know anything about the topic.

*I'd rather stick to those topics that are amply covered by sources over the internet.

*Quibbling over hotly contested and disputed topics on Wikipedia, where the sources are not clear and unavailable is a major pain in the ass.

*In case you did not notice, I have a second RfC on me. I guess, I am gaining notoriety faster than [[Darth Vader]] and [[Boba Fett]], (you know what I mean).

*And oh yeah, some one ask that [[User:Dbachmann|dirty rouge admin]] to stop using rollback while reverting contentious edits.

*Chao. &mdash; [[User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|<font color="black">Nearly Headless Nick</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|<font color="black" title="Contributions">^'''{C}'''</font>]] 12:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

<span id="63297033166" />

== A suggestion ==

I recommend that when closing AfDs against the numbers you give a better indication of your rationale. Some of these definitely need closing as delete, so it's worth the effort to avoid pain. An extensive rationale can forestall a lot of criticism. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 23:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

:[[Battle droid|Roger, roger]]. &mdash; [[User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|<font color="black">Nearly Headless Nick</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|<font color="black" title="Contributions">^'''{C}'''</font>]] 13:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

<span id="63297004366" />

==Question==

Is this a 3RR violation by TJ Spyke: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Short_Sleeve_Sampson&action=history]. All the reverts aren't 100 percent identical, but pretty close. It was reverting vandalism: but he could've easily reported the users instead of turning it into yet another wrestling article edit/revert war. [[User:RobJ1981|RobJ1981]] 05:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

<span id="63297037246" />

== Alan.ca ==

I appreciate the backup, but I think you might have missed part of the history. The "relist" comment was added by [[User:TigerShark]] while I was in the process of closing the AfD, although TigerShark did not actual relist the AfD other than add the relist comment. I completed the closure without noticing the relist notice. [[User:Alan.ca]] then reopened and relisted the AfD, completing what TigerShark started. Just letting you know since Alan seems intent on pushing this issue that he'll probably not be happy about your comment in light of this. Anyway, thanks all the same. —[[User:Doug Bell|Doug&nbsp;Bell]]&nbsp;^{[[User talk:Doug Bell|talk]]} 14:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

:That's ok. But it is well-within admin discretion to close the AfD if he feels that the community has put in it's opinion. In this case, there was a unanimous call to '''keep''' the article. Even if you ignored the template, no other user should revert back an administrator's edits. We have the [[WP:DRV]] process for that. &mdash; [[User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|<font color="black">Nearly Headless Nick</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|<font color="black" title="Contributions">^'''{C}'''</font>]] 14:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

::Oh I agree, just wanted to give you a heads up of how your comment to him might be taken. —[[User:Doug Bell|Doug&nbsp;Bell]]&nbsp;^{[[User talk:Doug Bell|talk]]} 14:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

:::Nevermind him. He has been blocked before. Doesn't take anything seriously. &mdash; [[User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|<font color="black">Nearly Headless Nick</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|<font color="black" title="Contributions">^'''{C}'''</font>]] 14:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

<span id="63297104746" />

== about civility ==

Hi Nick. Look, I don't want to be a dick about all of this but I do think you're being rude to me for no particular reason. You keep implying that since my RfA failed you understand policy better than I do: this is patently unfair and childish. I was in fact involved in the transformation of [[WP:N]] from an essay to a guideline and I have been one of the main architects of [[WP:BK]]. I've participated in probably hundreds of XfDs and have mostly used detailed constructive arguments to do so. Now we obviously don't quite agree on how policy should be interpreted and that's quite ok. But you should remain civil regardless of these disagreements. Cheers, [[User:Pascal.Tesson|Pascal.Tesson]] 15:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

:Don't spout [[WP:CIVIL]] at users whom you don't agree with. &mdash; [[User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|<font color="black">Nearly Headless Nick</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|<font color="black" title="Contributions">^'''{C}'''</font>]] 09:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

<span id="63297067366" />

== Active RfC ==

I went ahead and weighed in on the active RfC concerning you, and have lent my support as I feel is appropriate. I am glad to see that Wikipedia still has some administrators left who are willing to fight the good fight against [[WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY|mob rule by the masses]] in favor of policy and encyclopedic standards. Be prepared for a rather heated RFC, as some of the people who didn't like your stand against voting blocs, canvassing, and policy-weak arguments will surely show up to accuse you of having some hidden agenda related to the complete abolishment of consensus on Wikipedia; just ignore those kooks - they belong on fan wikis and in chatrooms, and not on a place whose goal is intellectual writing of a meaningful nature. Keep fighting the good fight against fancruft and tribute pages! [[User:NetOracle|NetOracle]] 22:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

<span id="63297104386" />

== GamePro ==

The ignorance evident in your characterization of this magazine is shameful. Please be more careful in the future when it comes to evaluating sources. [[User:Night Gyr|Night Gyr]] ([[User talk:Night Gyr|talk]]/[[User:Night Gyr/Over|Oy]]) 03:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

:What kind of argument is that? &mdash; [[User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|<font color="black">Nearly Headless Nick</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|<font color="black" title="Contributions">^'''{C}'''</font>]] 08:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)