Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Ferick

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 3RR

It should be noted that User:Ferick has been blocked for 3RR. See his talk page. Regards, E Asterion u talking to me? 09:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mitigation

I agree with most of what's been said on the main RfC page, and that Ferick has clearly broken some of the guidelines / rules, as documented. But I stop short of signing the endorsement because I think it should be noted that more than once he has been antagonised by people with equally partisan views against his, and also, frankly, by less than sympathetic rebuttals from otherwise fair and civil editors. I feel it's also important to remember that we're writing about a place which was part of a war in very recent memory. I don't know Ferick and sure, he may just be trolling. But it's also possible that he lost people in the fighting, and is extremely emotionally affected by it. This doesn't give him carte blanche to mess up Wikipedia, but I do think the possibility should remain in the minds of people making any sort of disciplinary decision against him.

Also, I'm very uncomfortable that the RfC doesn't have a sub-heading for objections, only for endorsements. I've not been involved in an RfC before and I must go and read about it and learn if this is standard procedure. But I think it's potentially antagonistic. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 10:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that any conclusions coming from this RfC should take into account the fact that he might be emotionally involved in the Kosovo situation. I certainly also agree that he is not trolling for the fun of it and that he really stands behind his edits, as he is not the only one with that view on the subject. And yes you are right that people (including "neutral" editors) have been not so kind to him lately. But you have to keep in mind that this has been going on for a long time now and that Ferick has not been susceptible to any argument from the start of this dispute (when things were less hostile) and has rejected other ways in solving the dispute (the attempt to get mediation on the dispute). Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Since you have not been really involved in the dispute, you might want to consider writing an outside view on the RfC page to share your thoughts. That is also the way to present another view here, rather than objecting to others. That is the common way for RfC, I assume to prevent these things from turning into votes. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice Reinoutr :) I'd spotted the outside view section, but wasn't confident I could claim to be an "outsider", having been involved (in a small way) in the Talk:Kosovo page. But you're right, I've not actually conversed with Ferick, so I'll jot something down over on the main page. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 11:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Noah30

It is interesting to read how self-proclaimed nationalists call someone else who tries to be objective for a nationalist. I understand that Serbian wikis do not want Albanians here, because than it will be easer to spread the Serbian government approved propaganda. Most of the Serbs editing the Kosovo article have never lived in Kosovo, most of them even visited. I am half Albanian, and half ........(a country in Western Europe), and I dislike nationalists since they have destroyed the Balkans, but I am convinced that Ferick is not one of them. It is easy to say something that is understood as nationalistic, when you have so much polarization and trolling, like in the Kosovo related articles.
Once again, I strongly recommend letting Ferick again be a part of Wikipedia. Albanians are underrepresented here in the Wikipedia, while Serbians overrepresented.

I am against nationalists both in the Serbian and Albanian side.

UNBLOCK FERICK --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Noah30 (talk • contribs) 07:11, 7 August 2006

This statement was made on the project page by Noah30, I've moved it here because he already made an outside view and discussion should be on this talk page. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside views

So far most of the outside views have been given by editors who are not at all outside of this dispute, but who have been involved in editing Kosovo-related articles a lot. How are views like that treated here? Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous troll

An anonymous user has posted this to the RfC and this to my talk page. Somebody - probably someone we know - is trolling in an apparent attempt to smear me as anti-Muslim. Check out the anon user's edit history. Last week the same user made a series of edits to Kosovo, reverting it to Ferick's Albanian-nationalist version. I believe this is the same person who also edited around the same time from 172.214.0.245, 81.132.186.22 and 87.86.8.3. The odds are that this is Ferick himself. I think the comments need to be removed from the RfC - I'll ask on the administrator's noticeboard (as it's not something we should do, given our own involvement in this dispute). -- ChrisO 18:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes I noticed that addition to the RfC. It was already removed by Noah30, but I restored it, only because I feel an indepedent editor should do that, not someone who expressed an opinion here. Also, that user has made questionable edits to Kosovo and Kosovo Liberation Army just now. However, I do want to take distance from the suggestion it was Ferick himself, there is no way to prove that at the moment and there are many other people here with similar partisan opinions. Also, this edit: [1] is not likely to be made by Ferick himself. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 18:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure who is behind this but neither those comments (I doubt it is Ferick[2], considering the effort he went through to clear his name after the autoblock) nor Hipi Zhdripi's can be taken seriously. One for the reasons mention by ChrisO, the other for attacking anyone else with a different view. I have reverted a few of the trollish edits to both articles. Regards, E Asterion u talking to me? 18:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Asterion, you suggested on my talk page that it might be Hipi zdripi. I rather doubt that, considering how limited Hipi's English is; on the other hand, the edit summaries from multiple anonymous IP addresses, of which this is the latest, are very much in Ferick's style. The fact that this particular IP has a history of making pro-Albanian edits before suddenly making pro-Serb edits strongly suggests that someone is playing games. -- ChrisO 18:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
ChrisO, I don't think I was clear enough: This was Hipi Zhdripi (editing the infobox, not the main article). Sorry for the misunderstanding, it was late and I had no much time to spare at that time. E Asterion u talking to me? 18:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
PS: Hipi's got a long history of edits using 172 aol proxy IPs, though I may be wrong. (I'm not saying he's the same as the 208 ip) E Asterion u talking to me? 18:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
PPS: Should we request a checkuser? E Asterion u talking to me? 18:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
If so, had we better be quick? I understood that was only possible for 24 hours? – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 18:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like a good plan. If it really is a registered user who is trolling using anonymous proxies it would be good to know and take appropriate action. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I have to lough when ChrisO blames an Albanian for Anti-Albanian edits. The vandal 208.3.69.196 should be blocked imedietly. He or she is most probebly Serb.

I hope I have not misunderstood something. Were you talking about the same ip address? I am new and make maybe some mistakes in the beginning.--Noah30 20:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Troll update

It appears that we actually have two trolls. The person behind the 172.214.0.245, 81.132.186.22 and 87.86.8.3 IP addresses is in fact User:Tonycdp, who has posted to this RfC in support of Ferick. See User talk:ChrisO/Tonycdp for evidence. He's been told not to persist with this behaviour. The other troll, who has been using 208.3.69.196, appears to be a different individual based in the United States; possibly Ferick, though I may revise this view as the evidence comes in. -- ChrisO 23:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hippi Zhdripi's comment

Copied from the main page:

[edit] Users who don't understand this summary

  1. --KOCOBO 22:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC) (Please learn English, Hipi Zhdripi)
  2. --serbiana - talk 00:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC) words or sentences I do not understand:
  • thate
  • accont
  • clearle
  • supportit
  • finde
  • hier
  • They user the same way
  • and there supporters
  • traing
  • extrem
  • nationais
  • wie
  • democratie
  • calle
  • burocrats
  • Albaner
  • hi is pasive
  • dont wont
  • albaners
  • cane
  • chacke
I think we should only allow comments which are understandable --serbiana - talk 00:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. --Svetislav Jovanović 02:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

A you can see, me and 2 other users don't understand this summary. I'd like to ask anyone who speaks Hipi's language to translate this into standard English language, so that we who speak English can read what he's trying to say, and not only users who speak "Albanenglish" or whatever it's called. Tomorrow, I might just post something in "Serglish" and let's see if someone will dare to remove it. --KOCOBO 23:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Although I agree with you that his post is incomprehensible, making bad posts on purpose because someone else is not capable of better English, just to make your point, is never a good idea. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 23:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying that I'll do it, I'm saying that to put things in perspective. Is one's "accidental" bad English different from someone's "on purpose" bad English? Would someone remove it knowing that I wrote that on purpose like that? Maybe I could say that I was lazy and didn't want to check for grammar errors. Maybe Hipi couldn't find the time to do spellcheck, so now we have to decifer what he's trying to say. I'm not saying it's his fault that he doesn't speak English very well, but I'm saying it is his fault that he didn't run the text through spellcheck, or check a dictionary if he's not sure how to say something in English. Is it too much to ask for? It's not about knowledge, but very much about lazyness (I hope I spelled that correctly). --KOCOBO 06:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, "on purpose" bad English is worse than "accidental" bad English, see Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point for an explanation. And with regard to his unreadable text, you don't have to read it. The sheer fact that it is virtually unreadable means also that it is very unlikely anyone else will endorse it. But by adding purposely another text with bad English on the RfC page, or by adding a section Users who don't understand this summary (which is not very disrupting in itself, except for the list of words that Bormalagurski added), a precedent is generated for disruption of the RfC also by others. And an RfC is supposed to follow quite strict rules (for example also only endorsement of summaries, no opposing) to prevent this from happening. A discussion on the talk on a summary that worries you is a good idea, however. So it is good you posted your worries here. But in my opinion, the summary by Hipi doesn't do any harm in the RfC so I see no need to remove it. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 07:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you get it. Hipi could do spellcheck and improve his comment, but he doesn't want that. Isn't that "on purpose"? Also, "you don't have to read it", Reinoutr, I want to read it. Is it too much to ask for a comment in English on the English Wikipedia? Now, if Hipi is calling someone a nationalist (and he does mention the word a bunch of times), I'd like to know who he's attacking. Is it too much to ask? I ask Hipi to use a dictionary or spell check, so that we all can understand what he's saying here. If I was a member of a jury (and we all have equal rights here), I'd want to know what a witness is saying (if you compare this to a trial). Is it too much to ask for? But, if Hipi doesn't want to help us understand him, the comment is useless, and should be removed. --KOCOBO 19:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Serbiana,

I don't agree. Yes, Hipi's (and other editors') English can be difficult to understand at times, but that does not mean that what they are saying is not valuable and worthwhile to listen to. It just means that we have to, and should, try harder.

Cheers Osli73 14:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

"we have to, and should, try harder"? Why? Why do I have to listen to Hipi's bad English? Gee, I'd really like to contribute to Spanish Wikipedia, seems like there's a lot of nice people there.. oh, wait.. I don't speak Spanish. There's a difference between what we'd like to do, and what we can do. Hipi can't speak English. Hipi should learn English, and then come to English Wikipedia. I believe that comments that are not in English (and I can say that only 20% of the comment resemble standard English - grammar and construction of sentences included). What's the limit? Is there a limit to this "democracy"? --serbiana - talk 19:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I will "translate" Hipi Zhdripi's comments. Regards, E Asterion u talking to me? 20:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)