User talk:AGK/Archive/11

The following user talk subpage an archive of archived discussions on User talk:AGK. Please do not modify it. New discussions should be raised through this link; to contact this user, see User:AGK/Contact. For an overview of old discussions, see User talk:AGK/Archive.

This 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.

[edit] Thank thee! :)

Thank you for the little gift and your kind words, dear Anthony! :) She's fine, thanks - after some serious health issues, both she and I are enjoying life again. It's great to see you around again, and please, take your time with that email - there's no hurry :) Love, Phaedriel - 22:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Work!

Thank you for the compliment! At least somebody thinks I'm doing a good job. Don't worry about the barnstar; it's the thought that counts :-) Happy editing! --Boricuaeddie ^hábleme 18:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem ;) regards ~ Anthøny (talk) 18:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:newspaper guy 999

How about blocking him for vandalism then, if not for being a sock? -Nard 20:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It's funny you should say that, as I was about to drop a note on his talk page with some advice concerning his contributions. Perhaps, if he's not taking the hint from you then he'll listen to an Administrator who unblocked him ~ Anthøny (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SR West Country and Battle of Britain Classes

Hello. I'm eventually putting the article SR West Country and Battle of Britain Classes up for FA status, and would like to offer you the chance to peer review the article. If you are interested, then please pop your comments here.

I would be most grateful if you could do this. Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific 21:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, but reviewing (whether at WP:PR, WP:ER or the other review pages) was never my strong point, so I'm going to have to say no. However, I'm sure you'll get some input - just give it a few days ~ Anthøny (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block evasion by User:Chajeshukarie

He is obviously evading his block through 62.220.217.83. Please look into the situation. Mr. Neutron 19:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur; a 24 hour block has been issued for 62.220.217.83 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log), and the original 24 hour block for Chajeshukarie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has been reset and extended to 31 hours. Thank you for bringing this to my attention ~ Anthøny (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. And we have another IP on the same article from the same ISP Mr. Neutron 20:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Likewise blocked; let me know if more appear ~ Anthøny (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

And one more. Maybe protect the article? Mr. Neutron 20:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No, the only clause of the protection policy that would allow such an action is "...[semi-protection should be used for...] preventing vandalism when blocking users individually is not a feasible option..." - I'm willing to continue blocking the IPs so long as the situation doesn't get out of hand. If it does get "unfeasible", then I'll proceed to use semi-protection on the article ~ Anthøny (talk) 20:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok well, it seems like he can keep changing IPs then. There is another one. Mr. Neutron 20:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CHECK

I listed you as inactive, because you didn't perform clerk actions within the past month. There are plenty actions to do regarding clerking, and is not just a "title" or a "status seeking job". Recently, I had to archive 13 cases because no one had archived them, because this passed the 3-day threshold of archiving. I will be taking a break soon, so you will have plenty of opportunity to showcase your clerk talents. Cheers! Miranda 17:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the gesture, but if you remember on IRC I requested that you take nothing to do with me, and I shall take nothing to do with you. Please don't try and lecture on status-seeking: I have my fair share of status, and I know for myself that it's not as nice as it appears from the outside ~ Anthøny (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember this conversation at all. However, what's done on IRC is not regulated by the WMF. I am not lecturing you on anything. I am responding to your situation as to you "reverting my action", which is perfectly fine by me. Please assume good faith, next time. Thanks. Miranda 17:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mao: The Unknown Story

I don't know why Giovanni didn't participate properly - it's not as if he hasn't been posting on wikipedia. Guess he wasn't taking it seriously..... John Smith's 20:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding - I've been plenty patient; I just couldn't waste any more time on it ~ Anthøny (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Last I heard John Smith was still willing to mediate this. Can I see the diff where he declined? Giovanni33 21:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No - it was my choice, as Mediator, to close this case. I've repeatedly asked for your input over the past few months, and you've continually gave one or two quick responses to immediate questions, before proceeding to neglect the case. Mediation cannot take place under such circumstances - especially when there are only two parties ~ Anthøny (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Not true. I waited a long time for the mediator to come off of his break, and finally, I was notified. As soon as you notified me I went to the place, as directed, and asked how to begin? Then you told me I had to affirm, first. So, I did that. After that I received no further instructions about what to do next. This is my first time with this process, and I do need some directions.Giovanni33 21:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Why did you need to be told what to do? The instructions were on the mediation page. You had plenty of time to read them and act on them. John Smith's 21:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You've received directions, plenty of times; the final straw really was today: I posted an obviously immediate-attention-required request, which you proceeded to ignore (although you did reply to the next comment). This is not an isolated incident - in fact, it pretty much sums up your attitude and contribution to this entire case, from its original filing several months ago. Perhaps, if you are willing to devote full attention to this case (and John is willing to give it, and you, a second chance, as well as both of you feeling that it would be worthwhile), you could file another request at WP:RFM. In the meantime, however, this case is closed ~ Anthøny (talk) 22:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I saw no posting from you, and I did not ignore anything. I'll go back to my talk page to look for it, but I dispute your claims that I've recieved plenty of directions. I was only told I needed to affirm, and was waiting for the next step. There was no other directions given to me. I don't characterize that as "plenty."Giovanni33 22:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) This post requesting you to show more interest in the case was ignored (see the date stamp of your reply to the next post, compared to my date stamp). In addition, there has been numerous occasions where you have been contacted, as well as requested to watch the case page, which from your low contribution to the Mediation you have obviously not paid attention to. This case is closed; please file a new RfM if you wish to re-open it ~ Anthøny (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now I see this--for the first time (earlier after you pointed out here on your talk page). It got "hidden" under that BarnStar above, left at the time time, so I didn't see this notice. I was waiting for instructions about the next step. I'm sure I would have seen this by the end of the day. I'm at work and its busy here so I only glanced at it earlier, and saw the barnstar above, and the last message about the user check below, which I responded to. So getting three messages at one time, I missed yours about this matter. Again, I would have seen it by tonight for sure. I still don't know what step I was supposed to take next. I was waiting for that instruction.Giovanni33 22:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

AGK, can you please instruct Giovanni to stop posting on my talk page in regards to this matter. I've asked him to drop it, but he keeps ignoring my requests and implying that I'm the cause of the failure of mediation because I don't want to go through another round of this. John Smith's 22:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll get in touch with Giovanni ~ Anthøny (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. John Smith's 22:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I refiled the request as you suggest. You might want to review that to make sure I did it correctly. I would inform John Smith that I did, incase you wishes to retract his agreement, formally, to mediate, but since he sees message on his talk page as harassment, or badgering, I'l let him read it here, instead.Giovanni33 00:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

He's already noticed, and gave his approval ~ Anthøny (talk) 10:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not give any approval - what are you talking about? I've asked another admin if we can go to arbitration - I'm not going to play this song-and-dance game with you again unless I have to, Giovanni. John Smith's 10:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Give me a second, until I clear this up: it appears that you've gave your support at the case page to a second attempt at Mediation, so I'll investigate this matter. Again, just a second ~ Anthøny (talk) 11:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the Chair has handled this matter; you're directed to User talk:Daniel, where related discussion is in place ~ Anthøny (talk) 11:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Liftarn 3RR

Hey, You previously commented on Liftarn's 3RR, but moved the discussion AN/I and kept the case pending. I'm not sure if it was dealt with there, but either way please close discussion the 3RR noticeboard. The 3RR in question occurred on July 20th. Blocking him/her now would be pointless. Perspicacite 06:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been in touch with Liftarn, and dropped a friendly note to him/her that reverting others should be avoided where possible. However, no further action has been taken ~ Anthøny (talk) 10:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missed 3RR report

I filed a report on HongQiGong last night. I see you've been processing some reports. I don't mind what the result is so long as it is dealt with - it's been up there for quite a while now. John Smith's 13:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

That may be the report I've just handled; anyway, I'll have a look over at WP:AN3 again, to see if I have missed any ~ Anthøny (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Y Done ~ Anthøny (talk) 13:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Rgfolsom

Why the removal of the block? Each and every one of his four reversions contradicted talk-page consensus. He persuaded one editor to drop one objection (while retaining other objections to the misleading content), but the fact that an editor can wear down the resistance of other editors through tendentious persistence is precisely why we have the 3RR policy in the first place. THF 16:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Rgfolsom has been warned against future violations of 3RR, and I'm confident that this action is sufficient. Blocks are not meant as punitive measures or "punishments", and I'm not going to enact one unless preferable measures (i.e., strongly-worded advice through an email conversation) do not work ~ Anthøny (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Anthony, you may have noticed some of THF's behavior on the Technical analysis talk page -- the latest is him accusing me of tricking you into lifting the block. He took down some of the incivility but here you can also see other recent examples of name-calling, and unfounded suggestions of bad faith. I hope you can help with this situation. Thanks--Rgfolsom 16:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Rgfolsom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is currently blocked, and the matter has been resolved ~ Anthøny 20:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Foxe 3RR block

Anthony, that was wholly unsatisfactory. First, it was the second warning provided to User:John Foxe for the exact same edit war. Nothing has changed and he has been allowed t revert ad nauseum against all concensus. What is the motivation to follow policies and rules when they can be ignored and broken without any consequences whatsoever? Would it not behoove everyone else to simply ignore rules in favor of "getting our own way"?

If you are going to review a case, please do not take the word of another. I do not know or understand why User:John Smith would misrepresent the truth, but by just looking at the Foxe's discussion page would have easily shown two warnings for the same page. He was been warned twice and this is the second report for the same edit war where absolutely NOTHING took place. Please try to review the case thoroughly before making a decision; this one was made under false information and a lack of understanding of the full extent of the Foxe's tyranny of one. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me look into the case again; in the meantime, however, let me comment that the layout wasn't exactly crystal clear, and there's only so much mucking around to be expected of the Administrator handling the report ~ Anthøny (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You know, I have had problems making that format work effectively; I guess I am not as bright as I should be. I would greatly appreciate a more thorough review of this situation. I also apologize for being a bit testy; willfully violating policies without any consequencies by one editor only encourages others to follow suit and before you know we have chaos. This fellow has gone on long enough. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

"Not as bright as I should be" - it's not a question of that at all: countless reports are filed each day, and the majority of them are, frankly, dire, so don't worry! Anyway, if you could file another report at WP:AN3, I'll re-handle it, and proceed from there ~ Anthøny (talk) 17:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Storm Rider, people make mistakes, as I did on the warnings. That said the other points I made about failing to file a version reverted to and there not being 4 reverts in 24 hours (although that is not necessarily a reason not to block) were correct. I don't take kindly to your allegation that I "misrepresented the truth" - that implies I deliberately lied, which I did not. John Smith's 19:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

We are talking about an editor, John Foxe, that has had two separate reports to the the 3RR admin board during the past two weeks. Both reports were for the exact same edit history. During this time frame this editor has refused to participate in mediation on the First Vision aticle. He has continued to make the same revert repeatedly and has frozen the editing on the article because he refuses to participate in any discussion that results in his way not being completely ratified by all other editors. I have been around the block a bit here; I don't report editors unless they are a serious hinderance to the improvement of Wikipedia.

The lack of any control on this editor has now resulted in the article being taken to Arbitration. I believe this could have been avoided if proper action had been taken. A simple review of the article's discussion page and Foxe's would have shown that there is a serious problem going on with this editor. Yes, I understand how difficult it is to serve as an admin, but that it not a valid excuse. If we are going to do something, let us do it properly the first time. When we do less than our best, the consequences of our actions can be completely unknown. How are other editors supposed to observe policies when they are so blatantly, consistently ignored by the few? We all failed in this situation.

Anthony, I know you requested that I repost the complaint, but frankly, I don't know what I should do. The system does not seem to be working too well right now and I really don't have any faith that the outcome would be any different than it is right now. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You do realise that if he has refused mediation you can go to arbitration. John Smith's 12:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The main editor that has had the most conflict with Foxe has already requested arbitration. It is unfortunate action, when a simple block would have achieved much better results without near the headache and effort an Arbitration will cost.

My concern is that we run the risk of causing editors that are committed to observing policy to leave Wikipedia simply because they see rules applied so haphazzardly that it is just too much frustration to remain. Instead of being a place where all can contribute freely, we turn Wikipedia into a place for those with the biggest soapbox that refuse anything but their specific POV to be heard. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 14:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your note

The blocks were agreed by the ArbCom, AGK, and the accounts shouldn't be unblocked. There were multiple BLP and ArbCom violations, going back over a year in the case of one, and several months in the case of the other. In addition, there was a suspicion of sockpuppetry in case of the second. Discussion here. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much, SV; that clarifies things - I won't be unblocking ~ Anthøny (talk) 17:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rgfolsom unblock

For reference: Rgfolsom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log).

Was wondering if you might explain what's going on here? "Consensus" is not a reason to break the 3RR (if you really do have consensus, other people will join in and support you!). And if we give thinking you have consensus as a license to edit war, we may as well just say "Revert warring is fine" and be done with it. In this case, Rgfolsom had been reverted by several different people, which seemed to make his assertion that he had "consensus" ring a bit hollow. Could you please clarify? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

That's the thing - he was explaining to me (via email, as he was still under your block) why he had consensus, and it all appeared fine and dandy (including the links). However, it now appears that I was a little deceived, despite my double-efforts to make sure I wasn't, at the time ... judging by the number of posts here, opposing his claims of consensus, I'd say there may not have been 100% honesty. What do you think? ~ Anthøny (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I have deceived no one. All I ask is that the Technical analysis talk page, and the time stamps on ALL the article reverts, be looked at very carefully. THF had not posted on the talk page on the 22nd or 23rd; I've already explained that smallbones was banned from similar pages and would never agree on a consensus with me; my attempts to find consensus were with Cool Hand and shotwell, and it is clear that their comments and mine were in a spirit of finding common ground. Again, I will gladly answer any questions about what happened. Thanks--Rgfolsom 18:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Rgfolsom; however, I've already listened to that opinion - this section is simply for Seriph. and I to discuss the matter, as the two Administrators involved ~ Anthøny (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Without seeing what it was you were presented, I really can't comment on it specifically. It certainly didn't appear justifiable at the time, else I wouldn't have blocked, but it's always possible to make an error. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

As an involved admin, I mean no disrespect, but "consensus" is no reason to ignore the 3RR. The war itself—involving multiple users reverting Rgfolsom—makes clear that no consensus even exists; I especially loath being invoked as a party to this non-existant consensus. I know it's hard to judge whether consensus exists, but that's precisely why we don't unblock users under these circumstances. Cool Hand Luke 18:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

An 8-hour block has been issued to Rgfolsom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) ~ Anthøny 18:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Birmingham bombing block

Your recent block on the Birmingham bombing. The blocked editor is making some serious accusations. I really feel you should have a look. I will not have editors say that about me. Thanks very much, --Domer48 18:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you direct me to the page in question? Cheers ~ Anthøny (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that [1]. --Domer48 18:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Y Done ~ Anthøny 19:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey Anthony

Good to see you removed the talk page link from your sig. Even though its got absoloutely nothing to do with me I think it looks much neater with just Anthøny. Cheers; — Rlest 19:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Definitely :) ~ Anthøny 20:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Also :) On a totally unrelated note is the colour for my new signature readable as it seems to be to me but just requiring a second opinion. — Rlest 20:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Erm, I suppose it is a bit bright - perhaps if you toned it down a few shades, it would be even better. Other than that - no complaints! ~ Anthøny 20:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah you were right, what do you think of this? — Rlest 20:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you are going for blue the very first signature was best ;) ~ Anthøny 20:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah you're right, I've copied everything of Daniel :-). Thanks for keep replying and giving me some advice when you didn't have to, . — Rlest 20:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't copy of Daniel - he gets very grouchy over userpages, etc...; although it's perfectly correct to keep it all, you should probably put a little attribution somewhere on the page ~ Anthøny 20:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Any advice

This is regarding Aatomic1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log).

Anything be done about this [2].--Domer48 20:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted - it's blatant WP:POINT ~ Anthøny 20:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Ye think! Thanks for that, Regards--Domer48 21:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

:) ~ Anthøny 21:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Another Admin has had to step in, still at it. Going down stairs to check I locked the doors.;). Regards --Domer48 21:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see it's resolved ... it's just a shame we had to resort to extending the block and cutting him off from the encyclopedia ([3]) :-( Kind regards, ~ Anthøny 21:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MFD Closure

Hi AGK. Was this closure due to WP:SNOW? I don't think anyone could dispute that you did the right thing... I just was curious as to the procedural mechanism. Thanks. /Blaxthos 05:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I tend not to rely on or reference to WP:SNOW, especially in Deletion Debates. Rather, I just followed WP:DGFA, specifically WP:DGFA#Deciding whether to delete. Are you interested in getting involved in XfD closures? ~ Anthøny 18:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've participated in AfD debates for a long time now. I had no previous experience with other types (IfD/MfD/CfD) and I'm trying to familiarize myself with determining when and how consensus is recognized. AfD seems to run closer to a specific timeline, but that doesn't always seem to be the case elsewhere. Before a "trial by fire" I prefer to watch and ask, however I would consider getting more involved if people think I would be of service. /Blaxthos 19:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

We're pretty much covered over at WP:MFD, but WP:CFD and WP:TFD often need extra hands. If you're not already aware, a complete guide to the technical arrangements for closing WP:XFDs (including AfDs, MfDs and TfDs) is available here ~ Anthøny 19:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Gaimhreadhan's block

Hi Anthony. I've replied on his talk page now. Thanks for the followup - Alison ☺ 20:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Alison :) I've declined his request to be unblocked. My thanks for taking the time to respond - it's much appreciated! ~ Anthøny 20:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad Ali of Egypt mediation

Hello, thanks for your help. There needs to be mediation as there is a revert going on. I can agree to include various theories, but I believe that there was already a consensus on how to address of the ethnicity of Muhammad Ali of Egypt earlier. I have included modern sources as references including a mention from the World Book Encyclopedia that Muhammad Ali was Albanian and not Muslim Greek. The other user has included as proof older sources from the 1800s and they are not primary sources on the Muhammad Ali. Thanks Azalea pomp 19:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to list below things that you need to include in the RfM, that haven't been; please put some thought into this, as it's vital to the case being accepted: simply putting something down never guarantees acceptance of the Request for Mediation (in fact, acceptance is never guaranteed :):

1. Steps in the Dispute Resolution process that you and (the) other part(y/ies) have attempted (see WP:DR for information on the Dispute Resolution process, and see Template:Dispute-resolution for the "chain" of Dispute Resolution);

Once you've done that, the following need to be done:

1. Add {{subst:RFM-Request|Article that is the subject of the request|Name of the mediation case (from the RFM page)}} to the talk page of all involved parties.
2. Add {{subst:RFMF|Article that is the subject of the request|Name of the mediation case (from the RFM page)}} to the top of the Article's talk page.

Once you've done all that, let me know and I'll double-check it, and then, so long as the other MedCom members are okay with everything we'll await the agreement of the parties, and proceed as necessarty ~ Anthøny 19:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Post Script – by the way, you have to sign your "agreement to Mediate" ~ Anthøny 20:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I have filled out the information. Thanks! Azalea pomp 21:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem :) ~ Anthøny 21:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Closure of 3RR

Hi Anthøny, thank you for dealing with the 3RR report. Is it possible to unprotect the article (Fatimah) - since there was no-one else agreeing with editing against policies or at least revert to the version before the 4RR violation by User:Klaksonn? Regards. → AA ^(talk) — 21:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sort of reluctant to do that, for reasons I'll keep to myself. Might I suggest filing a report at WP:RFPP? Posts there are usually handled very quickly, so the matter should be resolved soon; instructions for Requests for Page (Un)protections are available here ~ Anthøny 21:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - no problem. I wasn't sure if it was part of the 3RR closure to revert/unprotect the article in question. I will file an RFPP as suggested. Regards. → AA ^(talk) — 21:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem :) Cheers, Anthøny 21:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

"this "Ned Scott" thing has, frankly, went on far enough."

I'm a bit confused (and alarmed) by your comment. What "Ned Scott thing" are you talking about? -- Ned Scott 06:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block of Levine2112

Hi Anthony. I am reviewing this user's unblock request and (to me) the user has a point in maintaining that they did not edit-war, nor breach WP:3RR. Is there a background here that I am unaware of? Failing that, do you mind if I unblock? Best wishes, --John 02:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

On closer examination I see the 4 reverts now. You may safely ignore my previous message. Apologies. --John 02:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to examine my block - it's good to see I won't get away with misusing my sysop buttons :) I see you've found the violations, but for reference, I was working with a WP:AN3 report, located here. Regards ~ Anthøny 07:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

I'm currently very busy, but I'll comment on the case as soon as I have time (probably some time around August 16). --193.178.229.130 15:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC) (User:Akhristov)

OK ~ Anthøny 14:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help with template

Hello Anthony, we haven't talked in quite a while but I hope you're still willing to help me. I've created this template and I can't move the logo from the right corner to the left corner. I'm hoping you still consider me your adoptee, although I've been absent for quite a few months. THANKS! --Db1944 16:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey DB; I actually retired from the Adopt-a-User program a long time ago, but that doesn't mean I can't still help you! So, do you want to explain a little more about your query - the image appears to be over to the left corner already ~ Anthøny 14:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Likeshit

Hi Anthony,

Thank you for your advice. I was always wondering why non-admins could block users like that, and you gave me the answer. I am still a teen, and I don't have much insights as adults, but I'll try to think before I press the save button.

Thanks,
--Hirohisat ^Talk 18:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Age should have nothing to do with it :) keep up the good work! ~ Anthøny 14:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Erebus band

Why can't we have a wiki page? We are not selling anything, just providing the history of the band. Please fix this. 68.112.66.242 19:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

There is an article for the band Erebus, located at Erebus (band); however, user pages are not to be used for "copies" of Wikipedia articles, when that copy is the same as an article but with a POV; and your username was blocked because it was promotional - that is, it promoted Erebus, the band. Please see WP:USERPAGE, WP:USERNAME and WP:SPAM for the relevant policies, and feel free to register a new account under a username that is acceptable under the username policy. Cheers, Anthøny 19:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Frikkers

This user, who you gave the block notice to (I'm not sure whether you placed the actual block or not) for edit warring on the Boerboel article has again immediately reverted to the edits he desired without discussion now that his block has expired. What recourse do we have but to wait for another 3RR violation? Is this now considered vandalism? I have tried to urge him to discuss the issue, but as he has made not a single talk comment anywhere I have no idea what his intentions are. I am beginning to suspect that either this user doesn't care to create consensus and will not stop until he receives a indef ban, or he doesn't speak English. VanTucky ^(talk) 04:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It only appears to be a single instance, and the reverting has stopped; if it continues, I intend to place heavier measures, including longer blocks. Please inform me if the user persists in edit-warring; if I am not online, please file a report at WP:AN3. Cheers, Anthøny 10:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It has continued, and User:Quadell reverted it. VanTucky ^(talk) 21:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello...but...

Thanks for VS approval. But you may wish to simply take it off me again, unless you see a future for VS on windows; I did not relaise until a few secs ago that this doesnt work ion Windows, and unfortunately - thats what I use. So, unless you see VS on Windows sometime down the track, you may want to take it off me. Cheers, -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I've no problem with you remaining on the list - you certainly meet the requirements, and if a version compatible with Windows is released then it would be rather a waste of resources for both you and I if you needed to re-apply. Short answer: you can stay on the list :) Kind regards ~ Anthøny 11:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. Just out of curiosity - do you see a version of VS being applicable to Windows any time soon? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, no: Crazycomputers, the main author, is merging the program with something else. So a Windows version of *VandalSniper*, no; a Windows version of the program that comes to suceed it, probably yes ~ Anthøny 11:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you! :)

Thank you for your beautiful words and warm wishes on my birthday, dear Anthony! I took a well-deserved one-day wikibreak and spent it with my family and my friends... and actually had a beer after months of forced abstinence! :) Of course, there's no way I'd forget about you, so I saved a great, tasty piece of chocolate cake just for you - but sorry, no beer left! Again, thank you so much for taking the time to wish me well, and have a wonderful day, my friend! Love, Phaedriel - 19:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC) No worries at all about that email, Tony - I know you're a busy man! ;) And you've done more than enough with your kind words. What better gift than that? ;) Have a beautiful day! xxx, Sharon

Don't worry about the beer, I'm teetotal :-) see you around! ~ Anthøny 19:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Corner Gas block

The user appears to have just rolled another IP address and gone back to adding the external link to Corner Gas. I'm dropping out of reverting, since I'm at 3 reverts myself, but what's the next step? --Steven Fisher 19:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's the plan :-) (no, seriously, I do have a plan) I'll block the IP; if it re-appears, I'll block again; if it happens again, I'll block again, and protect the article. Hopefully he'll have stopped by then, though. Cheers, Anthøny 19:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected – until 6 August 2007 (UTC) ~ Anthøny 19:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! When I posted this question, I was thoroughly depressed about Wikipedia. It seemed astonishing that one idiot could cause so much damage just by not registering. I'm much happier knowing there's a way to stop this. --Steven Fisher 21:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem! Glad I can help ;-) Cheers, Anthøny 22:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Newspaper guy 999

Would you kindly reblock this user now that the Checkuser has confirmed[4]? -Nard 19:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Y Done ~ Anthøny 20:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Mop

In a word, no. Why do you ask? Is it the recent bout of contributions to RFA?

Not that I think there is an admin cabal, but I do think there isn't enough admin oversight. I figure the one place I can stop (potential) rogue admins is at the ballot box. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Admins should be held to stricter rules of good conduct than regular users; with increased power should come increased responsibility. Applying that to myself, I can honestly say that I am a very passionate person (to put it kindly), and that I am not the cool-headed type who is interested in arbitrating things on Wikipedia. I would rather work to develop good relationships with sysops who are already cool and calm in the midst of heated discussion. And maybe this is just my angry little anarchist soul showing, but I don't feel like holding an axe over anyone's head.

Beyond the amateur philosophizing, I just plain think there are too many users involved in meta administrative tasks (sysop powers or no). So that's my response. VanTucky ^(talk) 21:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

No - it's just, you seem like the kinda' guy that has the mop :) please don't flame me again! ~ Anthøny 21:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

My apologies if you felt like I went off on you. No harm intended, seriously. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm only joking ;-) I've had much worse abuse thrown at me through the lines of Wiki Communication than that! Anyways, thanks for answering my questions, and keep up the great work! Cheers, Anthøny 22:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You have a reply...

...on my talk page. The Transhumanist    00:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks TT ~ Anthøny 08:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your signature and User:Anthony

Hi Anthony. I'd just like to notify you that an usurpation request was carried out before, and Anthony DiPierro was renamed to Anthony. I'm notifying you, should you wish to change your signature to avoid confusion. Thanks :-) --Deskana (banana) 19:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you think the "ø" makes this unnecessary? Perhaps we should get Anthony's opinion on the matter? ~ Anthøny 19:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not demanding a change, it was just a polite notice should you wish to change your signature. You can contact him if you wish. Or you can just ignore my message :-) --Deskana (banana) 19:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

:D perhaps it isn't a problem? Well, thanks for the notification, anyway; if an issue is raised, I'm willing to discuss it with Anthony ~ Anthøny 19:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

Is there a reason you don't want to tell me what you mean by your comment? -- Ned Scott 21:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm currently discussing it on IRC with an involved party. Could I ask for a few minutes in this matter? I'd be much obliged ~ Anthøny 21:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You can take all the time you want, I just thought it was kind of odd you had archived my first question so fast. I don't mean anything bad by it, I'm just honestly interested in what you feel about my behavior. Cat has lumped a lot of different issues together, so I'm not sure what parts you're actually agreeing with or if it's all of them. -- Ned Scott 03:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, basically your entire attitude to Wikipedia. I've watched you harass White Cat for a few months now, and I've long wanted something done about it. Hopefully the realisation that such behaviour won't be stood for is enough for you too change your ways ~ Anthøny 08:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfB

Congratulations on deciding to enter the slaughterhouse rfb scene! I hope you get promoted, and I was surprised to see an oppose vote so early - oh well, I guess it does happen. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Matt - I appreciate your support! ~ Anthøny 22:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but with your limited admin experience (3 months isn't that much when you seek cratship), I really couldn't support. I hope that one day in the future (probably next year), you run again if this doesn't pass, and I will most likely support then. Giggy _U^CP 22:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It's 5, but I understand what you're saying. Thanks for the opinion ~ Anthøny 22:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA closed in May, and we're now in August. May, June, July = 3 months :D It's good (in a way) to see you withdrew, I think it's the right move. Giggy _U^CP 23:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to see you withdraw. Better luck next time? ~Kylu (u|t) 22:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about your RfB! Hopefully you will pass in the next few months. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) it was a huge mistake going in for it, anyway - I don't know what I was thinking! Trust me, I doubt I'll be reapplying. Anthøny 08:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Yeah, sure, you can close it. Peace. Spartan-James 23:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh...wait! let's let it go one more day...ok? Peace. Spartan-James 02:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears to already be closed. Ah well - better luck next time! Be sure to pay attention to the criticism given: it's all in good faith, and has your best interests (as well as Wikipedia's) in mind when it's given :) Cheers, Anthøny 18:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked for 10 hrs. vs. 0 hrs.?

Please forgive me if this is a stupid question (and/or if I shouldn't be asking about this here), but I'm curious as to why Desiphral was blocked for ten hours for 3RR, when another user who also committed 3RR on the same page (namely User:ILike2BeAnonymous) was not blocked at all?

Is it just because no one happened to mention him on the Administrators' Noticeboard? Or did I miss something? --Kuaichik 00:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it probably is because nobody mentioned him at WP:AN3. However, it's important to remember: there is no "set time" for a 3RR violation: Administrators (in almost all cases) block for a few hours for a first-time violation, increasing that block if (a). the user was being particularly disruptive; (b). the violation was particularly serious; or (b). the user has a previous block record (especially previous WP:3RR blocks. There are also some circumstances where a block is not issued; it really just comes down to the Administrator that's handling the violation; regarding why a block wasn't issued for ILike2BeAnonymous, you'd have to ask the Administrator who handled the blocks for 3RR violations on that page (you might want to check out Desiphral's block log); if you suspect a violation has occurred, you can file a new report at WP:AN3, or give the violations list underneath the original report for that article (you might want to put "Admin. attention requested" in the header, as it might not be seen otherwise).

I hope this helps! ~ Anthøny 18:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That does help, thank you! Unfortunately, if you don't mind, I still have some questions (or at least one question): if you are not "the Administrator that's handling the violation" or "the Administrator who handled the blocks for 3RR violations on that page," then who is? You are the only administrator involved in this dispute in any way, as far as I can tell.

Anyway, thank you once again for remaining civil as well. Far too often, discussions concerning Romani-related issues in any way turn into heated arguments, both here on the Wiki and in real life. --Kuaichik 23:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You'll need to file a new WP:AN3 report, and the Administrator that handles that report will be the "handling Administrator" (for those particular users) ~ Anthøny 08:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AFD closure

Hi Anthony, I just wondered about what the process of AFD closure. I created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Positive friendships between men and boys in literature and film on the 26th, and it has not been closed yet. As I understood things, and as the main AFD page says it, 5-6 days is the norm. Is it just a waiting game or is there a particular process I must enact to request closure? Thanks for any help you can provide, VanTucky ^(talk) 19:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it requires closing now, by the looks of it. I'll deal with it (usually, AfDs simply await an Administrator to come along and close it, unless special requests (like this one) are made) ~ Anthøny 19:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much Anthony. And whatever the result, I want to commend you for taking the extra effort and time to actually read the debate and article thoroughly. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Y Done ~ Anthøny 19:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No questions, just thanks for your quick response and your thoughtful closing comments. VanTucky ^(talk) 20:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem :) ~ Anthøny 20:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please look again

I just wanted to ask you too look at the violation I posted again. By your standard, and by wikipedia standards, it is a violation. What happened is that the editor took three edits, not related but on the same page, and reverted all three of them, but disguised it as one by copying and pasting all into one. It's clearly three reverts at one time - please look closer. Thanks for your work. Gatorgalen 20:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you please link to the article? I handle too many 3RR violations a day to remember them all :| Cheers, Anthøny 08:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)