I admit to knowing only the name Mykungfu and not the history. However, before speedy-closing the above referenced AfD, don't you think that the sock puppet suspicion needs something beyond the connection with an interest in the Alpha Kappa Nu article? By your action, you have effectively tried and convicted FrozenApe as a sockpuppet without the benfit of process. I'd certainly feel better about this if you had at least requested a checkuser to confirm the allegation of sockpuppetry. As I said, my familiarity with the extensive sockpupperty of Mykungfu is limited—I can only base my comments here on the good-faith exchange with FrozenApe, whose behaviour did not strike me as that of a banned user.
On the separate issue of the Alpha Kappa Nu article, I see no reason this article shouldn't exist here. Whether it was created by a sockpuppet of a banned user, the article had been edited in good faith by several other users. It appears to be both encyclopedic and adequately sourced. I don't mean this to be seen as in any manner disregarding your action in closing the debate, but after a brief period I intend to recreate the article myself. That should remove the stigma of sockpuppetry and allow an honest discussion on the merits of the article to proceed unencumbered by any past disputes. —Doug Belltalk01:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find the attack page claims to be thin. Even if that was the original motivation behind the creation of the article, that doesn't mean there isn't a basis for including the article. In fact, that's my entire issue with this at this point. I think that FrozenApe probably is a sockpuppet as Mr. Darcy has claimed. I just don't see where that fact should continue to taint the separate question of whether an article on Alpha Kappa Nu should be included. —Doug Belltalk04:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Articles started/primarily edited by banned users are subject to deletion under WP:CSD#A5. This article clearly qualifies. I agree that the subject is probably deserving of an article. And I agree with Real96 that this article has been used as an attack/POV fork, which IMO further justifies deleting it to try to get a fresh start without interference from Mykungfu. Doug, if you re-create it, especially if you can do so organically without using too much of MKF's work, I won't speedily delete it. This is about a bad user, not a bad topic. Thanks. | Mr. Darcytalk04:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in the topic. However, at this point I feel compelled to see it through, in part because regardless of the history with Mykungfu, there seemed to be a concerted effort at keeping legitimate information out of the encyclopedia. (This comment is not directed at anyone in particular, but rather on the overall effect of the various AfDs.) I appreciate your promise not to speedy delete any good faith effort using the previous AfDs as a justification. (BTW, you might be interested that a short while ago Mykungfu left a so-long-for-now message on my talk page.) —Doug Belltalk06:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP
I have looked at BLP and am aware these sections were sourced. I did ask for a better source to be provided before re-stating- tabloid newspapers are not always reliable eg the policy says Not all widely read newspapers and magazines are equally reliable. There are some magazines and newspapers that print gossip much of which is false. While such information may be titillating, that does not mean it has a place here. Before repeating such gossip, ask yourself if the information is presented as being true, if the source is reliable, and if the information, even if true, is relevant to an encyclopedic article on that subject. However I did report each instance on the talk page to invite comment and have not edit warred when users have insisted on re-adding. It is sometimes better to err on the side of caution, particuarly when accusations of criminal activity are involved.
On another matter- I appear to be under attack by One Night in Hackney and Vintagekits. They are openly talking about how they can gang up together, see here. ONH has been very uncivil to me recently when I have engaged him. Vintagekits also deleted a comment of mine on the Northern Ireland page today [1]; and accussed me of disruption when I made a simple tidying edit after an article move [2]. Astrotrain23:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. No one is ganging up on up. 2. I removed your comment because if you read that section its states "no comments/further discussion" just vote - however, you went ahead and kept disussing, 3. you are disrupting and removed Slab Murphy's name in Irish for no reason at why, why did you do it?--Vintagekits23:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I almost missed this forum shopping. If we're going for RfC, then there needs to be more than one editor anyway, it's hardly "ganging up". Please provide diffs for your other allegations. One Night In Hackney191623:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's have a cease-fire, guys. I took an hour or two to think this one over. ONIH/Vintagekits, whatever you guys are planning - and I hope it's an RfC and not something underhanded - please get it out in the open as soon as possible, and please make sure you focus on questions of policy or guideline, not on matters of personality or on your content disputes with Astrotrain. Astro, if they're setting up an RfC, then your best move is to wait to see the RfC and respond to them there, sticking again to questions of policy and guideline and avoiding the other conflicts that have characterized so much of the interactions among you all. If there is an RfC on Astrotrain, please notify me, as I think that you could use a hand in keeping it on point and avoiding a degeneration into a spat.
Astro, responding to your original note about my BLP comments: You were using the BLP policy to justify edits that, given your history, look to me like POV edits. You also didn't claim that the sources were unreliable, but only switched to that claim once it was pointed out that BLP doesn't require that sources be available online. If you must continue with this line of editing, then I suggest that you post on article talk pages asking about the sources BEFORE removing any text from the articles. It will greatly reduce the tension around here and will be more in line with our policies.
Regarding the specific edits Astro mentioned: Vintagekits, you shouldn't have removed Astrotrain's comments, as we strongly discourage polls in favor of discussion, and Astro was justified in making his comments; and Astro, you shouldn't be removing Irish-language names or anything along those lines, especially given the fact that you have come out strongly against Irish nationalist viewpoints (as well as the dominant religion of Ireland) - disruptive probably isn't the right word, but it was definitely inflammatory. | Mr. Darcytalk01:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't delete the information I was asked to produce by more than one administrator. I'd really like to kno how it could possibly be described as an attack page as well. One Night In Hackney191610:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's my plan, as has been clearly stated. I'm using that page for the purposes of gathering all my evidence together, and will be filing the RfC in the next day or so. It should also be pointed out that he brought this up on ANI after my reply here, and although two administrators have said it's ok for now he's still lobbying to get it deleted. Thanks. One Night In Hackney191615:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, should have said something on your talk page but I had to step away from that computer. The best course of action is to respond below it, pointing out that it's unsubstantiated. Striking out another user's comment is nearly always bad form. I understand what you were trying to do but I think that it's better to respond in kind rather than striking it (which definitely feeds the flames). Again, sorry for the confusion. | Mr. Darcytalk02:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had to remove a link before archiving in order to assess Blind Guardian, because the spam filter caught a link, which isn't spam (a myspace page). Please tell me how I can archive properly to the version without having the spam filter being turned on. Real9603:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :) You're right, I was overdue. Anyway, back to your question - I don't fully understand. What are you trying to do to that article? The myspace link is there now, and I'm not sure what you mean by "archiving" the page. Thanks. | Mr. Darcytalk22:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to assess it for the WP:BIOGRAPHY assessment drive. I try to put the correct archive on the archive page, but the spam block won't let me, because the link is blog.myspace.com Real9622:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You helped me out before with Johnpedia.[4] This is really weird but apparently User:Anynobody is WP:CANVASSING anyone he can find that has had a dispute with me and inviting them to pile-on with him over my objection to Anynobody's making my religion an issue in my edits.[5] Personally, I think that Anynobody's actions are extremely inappropriate but this response from Johnpedia is just over the top as far as a PA. I mean, even bringing my imagined appearance into it??? I could really use some help here if you care to. Thanks --Justanother23:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I posted this to WP:AN/I, and three folks who wandered by (all experienced users) all felt that it was uncivil but not a personal attack. Can you show other diffs where Anynobody is trying to rally troops against you? | Mr. Darcytalk02:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No prob. Thanks. I guess I need to write WP:No Weird Rants (WP:NWR - laff). Actually Anynobody only notified one other user that I am also having some (3RR) trouble with, User:Smeelgova.[6] Smee is also kinda being a butt-in-ski and interjecting himself in conversations I have with other editors so as to further any disagreement we might be having and to fan the fires and stand in the way of our reaching some sort of agreement or compromise with each other.[7][8][9][10] The funny thing is that Bishonen later warned "helper" Smee (and presumably Anynobody) against doing precisely the sort of canvassing he did with Johnpedia.[11]. Note also the next (experienced) editor complaining on his talk page about Anynobody's "psychoanalyzing" him instead of just discussing the issues.[12] In my case, in addition to "analyzing" me and defaming my "motives", he always brought my religion into it. Personally, I got sick and tired of it after taking it for some days and telling him repeatedly to knock it of and finally I let him know in no uncertain terms. So now I am a mean guy and he wants an RfC on me. Thanks for your help on this. --Justanother03:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I asked the question about reverting removal of vandalism warnings at the Administrator's notice board
Re your comment about Astrotrain: I found the bit about his posts being "arguably anti-Ireland/pro-England." actually quite offensive, crude and provocative. Would you consider revising or removing these words from your comments please. Weggie12:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think that it is time to unprotect the article, since MyKungfu is gone? I know that you are on break, but have a good one! Real9608:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I created that page because the term was mentioned in a news article. I then took a long time locating
detailed info on the subject, and the info was burried in somewhat unrelated articles. I'm a bit supprised that it got deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rkeene0517 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Madster
How would you suggest I modify the Madster article to comply with the Wikipedia "standards"? There are very few reliable third-party sources for the information in that article because the company was a complete fraud and most of the publicly known information was wrong. John Deep claimed his daughter wrote the Aimster program, I know that to be false, but there's no third-party source saying so. Is it in line with Wikipedia's "standards" to publish information and assume it's correct simply because someone took the time to write it down? And anyway, I didn't write the entire article, several people contributed their experiences. Are you saying that first-hand accounts have no place in Wikipedia? That seems like it seriously devalues it as a reference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Evandhoffman (talk • contribs) 14:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
He keeps on making rude and disruptive remarks towrds other users. See: [13] or [14]
Could you please remind him that this is not acceptable?--Tresckow22:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to understand the chain of events that led to User:Brian.Burnell being blocked. I cannot find any links to an article that caused this, nor do I see anything on Flamingo's page in that time frame that seems to intersect with Brian's typical topic matter. I am trying to figure out what started all this, but the lack of detail is stifling this attempt. Maury12:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What brought it up Brian's hugely constructive edits in the past, some of which I worked on. For instance, the article on Chevaline is doubtless the best article on the topic anywhere. When I went to see what he was working on more recently, with the hopes of working on further collaborations, I found that he had been banned.
From what I can see, it seems that all of this started after he attempted to remove some material from the wiki, material he created. I'm sure it starts earlier, but the history is unclear. After that it appears an ever-increasingly stressed out Brian is being stepped on by admins. There appears to be no attempt at mediation, no calming down period, no temp block, or anything else. I am sure all of this could have been avoided had everyone just chilled out.
While his actions are certainly objectionable, admins, notably newly minted ones, should try to do more to keep major contributers like Brian happy. You "demanded" an apology on behalf of a 3rd party, something that is equally objectionable IMHO, and when that was not forthcoming he was banned. This is not how it is supposed to work.
I have written to User:Neil, the blocking admin, on two occasions now. To date he has not responded. That's why I'm here. I am of the opinion that this matter was allowed to be blown out of proportion, and as a result an extremely valuable contributer has been banned in order to placate people by following rules I am sure Brian had no idea even existed.
I am considering unblocking the account, unless someone can come up with much better reasons not to than I have been given so far. If you object to the unblock, please spell out your reasons in detail.
Please be assured that I understand the difference between a block and a ban. As you noted, someone cannot unilaterally un-ban a user, but it is also the case that someone cannot unilaterally ban one either (except in specific circumstances). Yet this appears to be what has happened in this case. It is also the case that there is supposed to be an "audit trail" of the banning process (again, with certain exceptions). I cannot find any evidence that the ban in question took place in any channels, official or not.
I am not accusing you of anything, geebus, calm down. The ANI was precisely what I was looking for. Why can't anyone be bothered to post links to these on the user page in question utterly baffles me. This happens all the time. Maury11:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find your accusations of original research to be completely out of line. The section on the 2007 Rangers is fully supported by independent third-party sources, with footnotes to factual evidence. Please stop making baseless allegations of original research. Casey Abell17:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How it is an interpretation of the statistics to say that the Rangers' starters have the worst composite ERA in baseball, or that Michael Young has poor offensive numbers in 2007? These are statements of fact that cannot be reasonably denied, and which are fully documented with footnotes to reliable sources. Such statements are not original research, so please stop characterizing them as such. I also don't particularly care for your telling me to be more "a little more mature" – especially after you warned me about "incivility."
This will be my last comment on the matter. I strongly suggest that we leave the 2007 section to other editors of the article. If they consider the statements to be original research, or in any other way objectionable, they will remove or modify them. I have no intention of starting an edit war or any other kind of war over this. That's one reason why I have a clean block log after more than 10,000 edits on Wikipedia and a successful featured article nomination. Casey Abell17:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vintagekits block
This block is outrageous, that an editor can add God knows how many pages of uncited rubbish drivel and trivia to Wikipedia, refuse to acknowledge flaws in facts until they are almost rammed down his throat is ridiculous. Where were you when Kittybrewster and his friends were inferring Vintagekits was a member of terrorist organizations etc? I think you should apologise to Vintagekits and unblock immediately. Giano06:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And what Mr Darcy is your comment to all the warnings that Kitybrewster has removed from his own page in the immediate past? Giano07:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you aware of that, it is a pity you did not bother to check to the history first then isn't it? before making this woefully ridiculous block, which now fortunatly has been lifted. I suggest you now explain your actions on WP ANI as you should have done when making the block! Giano12:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And reblocked, as well, without gaining support for that action in what is clearly a contentious case of blocking to begin with. Please continue to discuss on AN/I; the issue is not closed. KillerChihuahua?!?13:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing left to discuss. What I did was right, and it's being undone by users who don't have the full history and don't seem to want to take the time to learn it. | Mr. Darcytalk13:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've unblocked with the hope that things move towards formal dispute resolution. I believe your block was in good faith but at this point will not have the desired effect. Best, Mackensen(talk)13:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point one: Blocking established users for personal attacks does not work!! As we have seen over and over again, this only escalates the situation. Point two: All blocks are open to review. Blocks of established users for any type of disruption need broad support of the community and need to be a very last resort. Usually this is best done through an ArbCom case. Point Three: If you have a wikibreak template then unblocking without your input is justified. Point Four: Your reblock without consensus is a problem. That is wheel waring. Friendly advice; Do not do it again.Point Five: More friendly advice; You seem over invested in the situation and best leave it to others to handle now. Take a break and do something fun. See you soon, I hope. Take care, FloNight14:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. Then ban the user in question. It's not hard. Personal attacks create an unfriendly atmosphere that will drive good users off. 2. Review, yes, but it involves the blocking admin. This user has a long history of bad behavior, and the community seems unwilling to deal with it. 3. It was clear from the block and my contribs that I was around. 4. No, the unblock without discussion with me was a problem. I would do it again if the same set of circumstances presented itself. 5. I have no direct investment in this case; I just know the history, and I think that other admins are being bamboozled by an editor who knows how to forum-shop. FWIW, I don't feel like your advice is all that "friendly." Your fifth point makes a broad assumption that isn't warranted. | Mr. Darcytalk14:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect you will be back; but, idiot that I am; I thought Point 3; when you said you were on a Wikibreak, that you were on a Wikibreak. I consequently spent an hour of my time looking for your email. I now realise what an idiot I am; your time is more important than newbies who cannot immediately suss your cryptic ever-presenceAatomic101:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC) p.s Come back to us - if only to block kitty again should the need arise.[reply]
As I said in those places, the blocking itself should be warning enough to Vintagekits to mind our policies. There are widespread concerns about the Arbuthnot articles, given the paucity of verifiable information in them. I would not call them "lies" but they have a strong smell of unfiltered family history. -- ALoan(Talk)15:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree 100% regarding the Arbuthnot articles, and have even expressed this in at least one prior AfD, where I pointed out that Kittybrewster wasn't being above board in his connection to the family. However, in my opinion, based on my reading of our policies and guidelines and on all my experience here on Wikipedia, there is NO content-based justification for a personal attack. None. Vintagekits has a legitimate reason to be annoyed or even angry with Kittybrewster, Astrotrain, et al, but it does not in any way justify his behavior, which he refuses to change or even take responsibility for. If we're going to allow that kind of behavior to continue, then this isn't the place for me. | Mr. Darcytalk16:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I quite agree that this situation is not entirely black and white and there have been episodes of better and worse behaviour on all sides - none of us is perfect, and we should all be careful of throwing stones - but I think it is reasonably clear from the discussion at WP:ANI that I am not the only person to think that this block was unnecessary.
Please don't take my unblocking as a personal affront. I understand that this puts you in a difficult position, and I'm sorry if you feel that you have to leave - I have not come across you before, but you have clearly made a significant contribution to become an admin. Sometimes people have to agree to disagree. -- ALoan(Talk)17:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My departure is much more about Vintagekits' behavior and the fact that it is being condoned. In fact, my wikibreak in early March was a result of me being sick and tired of the juvenile behavior coming from Vintagekits and some of his adversaries in the IRA/AfD dispute (and if you think that this Arbuthnot stuff isn't really about those IRA edit wars, you're nuts). This incident today reinforces for me that Wikipedia isn't serious about civility and no personal attacks, so it can go on without me. | Mr. Darcytalk18:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I have upset or offended you in anyway then I am truely sorry. However you are now just making blanket accusations against and interpreting events in your own persepctive which I would disagree with. I wish you would stay and play a constructive role in any issues that are raised - however, if you think that your two blocks on me where rational and reasonable then I dont know what to say.--Vintagekits18:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
:-(
Real96 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Real96, thank you for the smile. You are one of the few Wikipedians who had a legitimate cause to hold a grudge against me, and not only did you never do so, you reached out and always tried to work with me. For that and for your wonderful disposition, you have my respect and my gratitude. | Mr. Darcytalk16:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
