User talk:Robdurbar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia.
(see: block log • contributions • page moves • current autoblocks)

Robdurbar was an editor on Wikipedia from about June 2005 until March 2007. I mainly edited pages related to the United Kingdom, Durham University, Barrow-in-Furness, Football and pop music in the UK. I became an admin in August 2006 and was mainly active on the requests for page protection and the speedy deletions page.

I've closed this account off because I've decided I want to spend more time doing other stuff. I'll still read Wikipedia and probably still edit if I see something obviously wrong when I'm reading, or if I'm a bit bored. But I'd rather start anew, rather than keep using this one.

Wikipedia's great and if you're thinking about editing on it or becoming involved, then do! Thanks to everyone whose been nice to me over the last year or so, I've really enjoyed it. --Robdurbar 12:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

ps If you've come here to leave me a message, I won't receive it as I won't be logging in. If its absolutely desperate you can use the 'e-mail this user' function on the left of the page. If you've got a querey related to something adminny that I've done, its probably best to go to the administrator's noticeboard, where someone will help you. --Robdurbar 12:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Main Page

What? – Riana ऋ 10:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

I dont know what is wrong with your account but it is vandalising the main page continuously. I have blocked till the mess is sorted out — Lost(talk) 10:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hacked?

Is this account compromised or is it some kind of weird wiki suicide? -- lucasbfr talk 10:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd go with 'hacked'. Sentinel75 10:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Probably not, the note above was posted a few moments before doing that... -- lucasbfr talk 10:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
What "note above"? Robdurbar's note was seemingly posted on March 3. I think it's been hacked. fudo (questions?) 10:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Woops, my bad, I misread -- lucasbfr talk 10:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Is it regular practice to desysop admin's accounts soon after they've left? Sentinel75 10:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I guess it isn't, but Robdurbar (or somebody else using his account) was vandalising the main page. Now I got the meaning of your question. I think it would be a clever policy.fudo (questions?) 10:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
It's been considered before. The prevailing wisdom was that this kind of sabotage was unlikely to happen, so it wasn't worth the bother to preempt it. I still think that's right, although some people may wish to reconsider. YechielMan 01:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Wiki-hacking? I see it, if the editor in question gets in dispute alot. But, other than Desysop, what would the hackerr benefit from? Hmm....Quatreryukami 02:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Maybe he was addicted to it (Wikipedia) like a drug. By getting kicked off, it may have ensured that he kicked his habit. --Inetpup 04:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Um....rofl? I've never heard of Wiki-diction.Quatreryukami 15:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I don't get this: Why did you delete the Main Page? April Fool's is over. :P--Tdxiang (Talk) 10:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm with these folks.
Oh so that's what happened yesterday! Ryan Got something to say? 12:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bye

Bye Rob, thanks for your past help. -- zzuuzz(talk) 10:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] April 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Main Page, are considered vandalism and immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. You hacked the main page. As soon as a admin finds out, someone is in trouble. zrulli 10:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Hm, I'm tempted to make up a variant like "unconstructive blocks, such as those you made to Jimbo Wales, are considerd blah blah blah". >Radiant< 11:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • That message wasn't exactly relevant. 82.18.125.110 19:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What?

Why did you do all that crap to the main page? Someone needs to revoke this accounts admin privlages, since hes no longer active and that it keeps getting hacked. Karrmann 10:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I already did. Jon Harald Søby 10:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mass blocks

10:14, 19 April 2007 Robdurbar (Talk | contribs) unblocked Robdurbar (contribs)

10:14, 19 April 2007 Robdurbar (Talk | contribs) blocked "Sarge Baldy (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite

10:12, 19 April 2007 Robdurbar (Talk | contribs) unblocked Robdurbar (contribs)

10:12, 19 April 2007 Robdurbar (Talk | contribs) blocked "Agathoclea (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite

10:12, 19 April 2007 Robdurbar (Talk | contribs) blocked "Danny (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite

10:11, 19 April 2007 Robdurbar (Talk | contribs) blocked "Dannyisme (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite

10:11, 19 April 2007 Robdurbar (Talk | contribs) blocked "Jimbo Wales (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite

10:11, 19 April 2007 Robdurbar (Talk | contribs) unblocked Robdurbar (contribs)

10:10, 19 April 2007 Robdurbar (Talk | contribs) blocked "Badlydrawnjeff (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite

10:09, 19 April 2007 Robdurbar (Talk | contribs) blocked "Riana (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite

10:09, 19 April 2007 Robdurbar (Talk | contribs) blocked "Lostintherush (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours

10:07, 19 April 2007 Robdurbar (Talk | contribs) blocked "Raul654 (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite

10:06, 19 April 2007 Robdurbar (Talk | contribs) blocked "Secretlondon (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite

Can someone check they're all unbanned? 212.219.142.161 10:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Doing so now. Daniel Bryant 10:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Too bad people can't get these expunged. — Deckiller 10:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
They possibly could, if they really wanted to. Daniel Bryant 10:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Very tricky to get logs expunged. From my limited experience with the oversight folk, devs don't want to do it unless the situation is very dire. – Riana ऋ 10:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
What would be the benefit of such an action, anyway? I can't see any tangible harm caused by the existence of the above logs. I realise Deckiller wasn't entirely serious, but still. :) -- Daveydweeb (chat/review!) 12:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Logs will be expungable in the not to distant future. Voice-of-All 12:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone will read this, but oversights can still expunge the history on the main page, removing Robdurbar's and BuickCenturyDriver's edits, as well as all of the stuff in between. That would take quite some time... Astrale01talkcontribs 20:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for arbitration

As a matter of form, I am filing a request for arbitration to confirm your desysopping. Since you are blocked, you may participate in the case by e-mailing a statement to any active arbitrator or arbitration clerk (other than myself) for forwarding to the arbitrators' mailing list. Newyorkbrad 22:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Your emergency de-sysopping has been confirmed by the arbitration committee. You can not regain administrator status without the approval of the committee. Thatcher131 02:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:1915 Dance by Rodchenko.jpg

Hello, Robdurbar. An automated process has found and removed a fair use image used in your userspace. The image (Image:1915 Dance by Rodchenko.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Robdurbar/Archive 2. This image was removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image was replaced with Image:Example.jpg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image to replace it with. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 23:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please keep an eye on BNP

Copies of this message are being sent to: User: Adambro, User:Fethroesforia, User:Lucy-marie, User:Marcus22, User:One Night In Hackney, User:Robdurbar, User:VoluntarySlave, User:WGee

I am writing to you because over the last few months you have all played a significant part in editing and debating the article BNP. Even though we have not always all seen eye-to-eye, it is the case that all of you have shown an interest in producing an article that is accurate and representative of the subject within WIkipedia policies. The purpose of this message is to alert you to a potential threat to the article and to ask for your help in keeping a watchful eye on it over the next few weeks. I am going to be away from home with only occasional access to a slow dial-up connection.

On 1 June, I added to the BNP infobox the descriptor 'fascist', with appropriate references (as had been discussed a few weeks back - see archive discussion). I was happy for anyone to question this in the usual way and, indeed, had other references available if necessary. Almost coincidentally, an anonymous editor User:86.146.242.233, began making a series of edits without justification. On the talk page, he referred to previous editors (i.e. you) as "the many militant liberals and communists" and indicated that he was "also going to be going through the whole article because I notice most of it is either liberals or nationalists posting their points of views". I asked him to identify his position and was told "You're fucked up, leave the god damn article alone" and he told me to "stop trolling the BNP article". He also made inappropriate comments on the user pages of other editors to the BNP article and, for no reason I can fathom, did this to the user page of a 14 year old: [[1]].

User talk:86.146.242.233 shows he received several warnings and was eventually banned from editing (having only recently, it seems, been released from an earlier ban). This might have been the end of the matter, but the following day a new editor appeared with the name User:Evianmineralwater and proceeded to make identical edits to BNP and some related articles. I reported my suspicions that 86.146.242.233 and Evian were identical to adminUser:Anthony.bradbury who agreed it seemed to be the same person but told me had been banned again. In fact, he was banned for using a trade name and returned almost immediately as User: Mineralwaterisgreat. (I had misunderstood what the admin had told me and assumed he had been banned for vandalism and so reverted his edits on that basis, earning a rebuke from another admin for my mistake.)

Mineral has made the following statements, among others.

Wikipedia is "corrupt piece of shit populated with idiots". Rebuked by an admin, he replied, "Wikipedia IS corrupt AND populated by idiots."
On the references I had provided: "I'm not reading the references because they are obviously left wing and I'm not buying a god damn book."
About me: "This guy wants to keep adding fascism to describe the BNP when it has been refused on both the disambiguation page and the main page. Isn't it clear to see he's just a troll without the best interests of the article in mind?" (I'm not sure what he means by being refused.)

Elsewhere, he has said he is a BNP member and that he intends to edit the article to remove anything he regards as anti-BNP bias.

Now I can deal with personal attacks or ignore them as the mood takes me, but this user is clearly setting out with a POV agenda that we have, I believe, worked hard to keep out of the article. (And, yes, it has sometimes been heated but I still think we have done a good job between us.) I am even happy to debate with BNP members and supporters if they use rational arguments and respect the views of others. (An honourable mention here to Fethroesforia.) I would hate to see the good work we have done go to waste, so I ask that you keep an eye on the article and ensure that edits are made in the correct wikipedian spirit, backed up with sources as appropriate and discussed in the talk page where necessary. It is highly likely that this person could reappear under other names.

(Incidentally, it is ironic that this person has chosen to attack me so vehemently given that, apart from regularly removing the BNP ARE WANKERS type of vandalism and correcting references, the only edit I can recall ever having made to the actual article is to add 'fascism' to the infobox.) Sorry to go on, and I know you are all busy with other projects. Thanks for taking the time to read this. Emeraude 10:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Nikki_Sanderson.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Nikki_Sanderson.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk 17:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:DTC blue.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:DTC blue.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of List of products in The Simpsons

An editor has nominated List of products in The Simpsons, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of products in The Simpsons (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 13:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Socialist People's Party logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Socialist People's Party logo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Blag, Steal And Borrow cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Blag, Steal And Borrow cover.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 07:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)