User talk:AssociateAffiliate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


RETIRED
This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

Another one bites the dust

So Wikipedia chases away another long-term cricket editor! I join a long list of users, including YellowMonkey (who did fantastic work on Australian cricket), BlackJack (who did fantastic work on 1700s/early 1800s cricket), Parklands cobbler (who did fantastic work on Northants cricket), Jhall1 and many, many others. No wonder in the last four years the project has dried up and died a death. No doubt Daft will be back and like you all kissed the arse of CDTPP (a Daft sock), no doubt you'll welcome this banned lunatic back once again. Have fun with the depleting number of editors, because they sure as hell aren't being replaced. RIP WP:CRIC. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

To quote BlackJack:

I have resigned from Wikipedia aka Nineteen Eighty-Four in order to pursue my writing and research interests elsewhere without having to put up with rules, more rules and the unqualified ruleswankers who insist on deploying them. I am following thousands of other genuine editors and I recommend that all remaining genuine editors do likewise.

Suspected sockpuppets of User:Richard Daft

Having observed for the best part of four years the cricket project, one thing is very striking: Somerset County Cricket Club. Two editors in particular were very much involved in editing nearly exclusively articles related to this topic. Furthermore, these two users have been involved in several incidents whereby long established users have been driven away from the project. It is my belief, like a king in his counting house, these users are afraid of losing their monopoly over the project. Indeed, it seems they allow no rules but their own, but these rules are often word-for-word the same from each of these users. Perhaps it might be put out there that User:Harrias and User:Johnlp are the same user, with Harrias having infiltrated the project to admin level so as to hold power over others within the project. This narcissistic obsession with "power" shares a trait with User:Richard Daft. It is, I argue it is plausible that Harrias and Johnlp are one and the same, and are the sockmaster of Daft. Let me explain. In order to maintain a civilised and benevolent front, the sockmaster created the Harrias and Johnlp accounts in order to be the kind and guiding face, all the while creating Richard Daft and future sock accounts in order to chase away users who might perhaps be a threat to their supremacy over the project. You could argue the ousting of User:YellowMonkey was the start of this control from within the shadows. It seems the person behind the Harrias/Johnlp/Richard Daft accounts is very much a Gollum type character. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 18:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Block notice

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Harrias talk 15:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I get threatened and I'm the one who gets blocked! Wow! No wonder BlackJack was sick to the back teeth of this site. Stick it. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Not me

F.Y.I. Johnlp, Harrias and The Rambling Man, User:HCCC14 appears to be masquerading as me, with references to losing passwords (obviously neglecting you can recover such things), apologising over past things and WP:BAN. However, it does appear this user is pretending to be me, as such it's likely Daft again. This user is not me, as stated before I have no intention in the near future of returning to this site and I have no intention of apologising for my actions following years of harassment from some moron with nothing better to do with their time besides creating over seventy sockpuppets and harassing dozens of members, or for what I believed was the overzealous "policing" of a long-established user who one would have hoped would not indefinitely ban long-term users. But there you have it, this HCCC14 character is not me, suggest you SPI it. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:OUTING

According to the notice currently appearing at the top of this talk page:

"This user is currently blocked. The latest block log entry is provided below for reference":

  • 15:19, 7 January 2014 Harrias (talk | contribs) blocked AssociateAffiliate (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (WP:OUTING is not acceptable under any circumstance)

This is completely incorrect and therefore unjust. You cannot "out" someone who has freely told the community at the outset of his "activities" on the site what his real name is and backed that up by providing salient facts about himself. Furthermore, the individual in question has subsequently never made any secret whatsoever of his true identity and has sometimes signed himself off using his name or initials.

Going right back to the beginning of the Daft saga, there is this diff in which he states his real name in the final line while within the body of the post is confirmation of his former role in the ACS, all of which is further confirmed by the relevant ACS publication. Therefore, he "outed" himself, freely and voluntarily, soon after he started using the site.

It would seem that you have overstepped the mark somewhat in the language used in the post that was subsequently erased, understandable given the provocation you have suffered, but still not the right way to go about it. If you apologise for swearing and undertake to abide by WP:RBI in future, using WP:BMB as reason for reverting Daft's edits, I'm sure that your case for reinstatement cannot be denied. In short, although you should not have retaliated as you did, you cannot be deemed guilty of WP:OUTING and so the block is completely unfair. HCCC14 (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello again! I have to say I am completely steadfast in refusing to apologise, I simply called out this troll like others should have done. He made lurid comments about me, so I made some about his visit to the Netherlands and one or two of their specialities. But I won't apologise because I'm never one for appeasement and I stick by my actions. As we know, others within WP:CRIC appeased Daft and allowed his socks to harrass other users, ignoring WP:BAN. That to me makes several of them accessories to Daft's actions, with some more than others who should resign for their Neville Chamberlain attitude. I'm pissed off by the heavy handed tactics of the user who blocked me, and when questioned by another user why it was indefinite he denied it was meant to indefinite, which I don't buy. If that were the case, obviously the ban would not have been so. Daft has acheived his aims on this site by driving away editors and now we are left with the motley crue who claim Lordship over this project, yet allow disruptive elements to remain. They should be ashamed, as forementioned, some should resign over their conduct and lack of integrity. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
See my posts to Rambling Man and Harrias. I'm asking for you reinstatement on grounds of unjust cause and unfair term. I think all you should do is confirm that you will comply strictly with WP:RBI in future but use WP:BMB when appropriate. RBI is fair enough if you read it. HCCC14 (talk) 09:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
HCCC14, frankly you have no idea what you are talking about. As far as I am aware, you did not read the post for which I blocked User:AssociateAffiliate. If you did, you would realise it was far more than simply mentioning another user's real name. The ban was never intended to be permanent, it was merely that at the time I made it indefinite until I, in conjunction with the community, could decide on an appropriate length ban. AA has since stated that he has no desire to return to the site, so I have seen no reason to consider a suitable length. If AA does which to return, then I am happy to start that dialogue at any such point. His comment above would suggest that this is unlikely to be the case though. Harrias talk 13:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so I "don't know what I'm talking about" because I didn't see the post that you and Johnlp found so offensive. Do you know what you are talking about or are you so ARROGANT, because you are a WP admin (for crying out loud!), that the whole world must accept you are a "qualified" administrator and that you are "always right"? This has gone on long enough. Why should AA apologise when he has been subjected to long-term abuse and what are you doing to protect other users from similar abuse, not just from Richard Daft but other people who also have an axe to grind with this site? This is not about some kid who comes on and writes "pooh" somewhere, so you revert it and Wales & Co. think: "Oh, what a good little boy Harrias is, let's make him an admin". Where is the common sense and the natural justice of the situation? I have already outlined to you what you should do and I will repeat myself below. And may I say that I am a qualified person in such matters in the REAL WORLD whereas you most surely are not. Or are you? Somehow I doubt it.

You are an individual who has already defended Johnlp's "divine right" to have Richard Daft's posts on his talk page, even after another, wiser, administrator had erased them, not merely removed them, because they must have been especially offensive to the editor who complained about them. So where does that leave you? Terms like "double standards", "hypocrisy" and "incompetence" come to mind because this whole thing absolutely STINKS, especially your own insufferable arrogance. Who do you think you are? Blair, perhaps? Well, that would be the answer, would it not?

Given your infinite "administrative" experience and wisdom, please outline to me how an administrator can be brought to book on this increasingly appalling site and made to account for his gross incompetence and arrogance with a view to getting his Wales-given rights taken away from him? You are not even a particularly good editor, bearing in mind the number of times your stuff has had to be corrected.

Coming back to what I have told you to do, and which you have ignored previously, I will repeat myself. You need to ask AA to give not an apology but an undertaking that he will in future respect the terms of WP:RBI, one of the more sensible "policies" on this inane site (inane because of idiotic "administrators"), and also promise that he will utilise WP:BMB in future when he encounters an edit or post put there by a banned editor and say nothing more in the edit summary than "rv per WP:BMB".

If you don't like the way I have addressed you in this post, don't in future be so RUDE and condescending as to assume that your Wales-given admin "status" on this site makes you into some kind of superior being who can tell other people that they don't know what they are talking about.

You don't know what you are talking about. You.

If this farce gets into the papers you will be exposed and hung out to dry. It is all about natural justice. Okay, AA retaliated badly to extreme provocation. So, if you were a competent admin who is not in the thrall of Daft's friend Johnlp, you would have issued a warning to AA and blocked him for a week until he cooled down and then you would have let him continue doing the excellent work he has done. And he is certainly a much better editor than you are. No contest there. You did not take that sensible, intelligent, compassionate course at all, even though another more experienced admin/editor questioned you about it on WT:CRIC. What you say above about "never intended to be", etc. is just the sort of crap one would expect from Blair and his ilk. You are using "soundbites" to cover something up and the one thing I especially do NOT like is your relationship with Johnlp and this whole thing about ensuring that Daft must be heard. As I say, something STINKS. HCCC14 (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Dude, "If this farce gets into the papers you will be exposed and hung out to dry."? Really? Not to mention that this is a borderline threat with no substance whatsoever, you forgot the whole point which was that if AA wants to come back, it's entirely up to him to do something about it. Why you seem to firmly believe that you've become his mouthpiece is beyond me (and others, it would appear). Probably best now to drop it, do as you suggested and move onto other things. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
DON'T use imbecile words like "dude". I thought you had more intelligence. AA does want to come back if you read his comments above. He has simply refused to apologise because he should not have to do so given the extreme provocation he has endured. The natural justice of this situation is that a cooling off period of, say, one week would have been sufficient given his (understandable) retaliation. He has made his position clear. He will come back if the block is lifted but he will not apologise as the incompetent admin insists he must. As there is a stalemate, someone elee must step in, despite the lunacy of this increasingly appalling site. The whole thing stinks and the banned editor is winning. HCCC14 (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Another thing. You have already said that this is all up to Harrias, he who knows what he is talking about. So what are you doing here? Can't he speak for himself? HCCC14 (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I think you've lost the plot. This is not Harrias' talk page. If you wish to address Harrias directly, you should use his talk page, not this one. As mentioned, variously, if AA wants back, he can ask. You don't need to do that on his behalf. Is that clear? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for fighting my corner HCCC14, much appreciated that honorable users still exist! You continue to raise many valid points about the appeasement of Daft by several users on here, as we know all too well, appeasement just don't work! However, I still struggle to believe that the ban was not meant to be permanent and was not done with malicious intent. This is not the first time Daft's personal information has been released on this site, it has happened on two previous occasions, where I blanked the page; you didn't see me run off to the admin police now did you. So perhaps it's time for a challenge, test the sincerity of some users. I don't want to go through all the bureaucratic nonsense of some other admin process to get this account unblocked. If the ban was not meant to be indefinite, then my challenge to you Harrias is to unblock this account. Perhaps that way the truth of your words will be revealed? Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 12:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Your kind words and thought provoking arguments have motivated me to assess your block, and I have changed it to a set period of one week from now. Harrias talk 21:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thoughts

I recently posted at WT:CRICKET about another matter, and noticed a reference to this when looking at the responses. I know nothing about cricket or the background to the situation mentioned on this page, but there are some points that might be born in mind. First, there is never a need to offer an apology to be unblocked—any suggestion to the contrary is incorrect. Second, when dealing with long-term trolling, the only remedy is WP:DENY. Any attempt to engage with a troll is counter productive—appealing to them, contradicting them, abusing them, explaining things to them, are all ineffective. In fact, any communication whatsoever is counter productive as it only encourages them to continue because communication says that you have noticed them and care, and that you are susceptible to further commentary from the troll.

Another important point is that debating issues with admins is rarely productive. Someone obviously thinks that outing occurred, and whether that is correct or not, or justified or not (outing is never justifiable at Wikipedia), it is common for an indefinite block to occur. In this context, "indefinite" means "until there is a plausible statement that outing, if it occurred, will not be repeated"—that might be half an hour. As mentioned, I do not know what occurred, but for an unblock all that is needed is a simple statement that while you may not agree with the assessment of your comment as outing, you understand that WP:OUTING is not permitted under any circumstances, and you will not reveal personal information about a user ("reveal" = disclose anything personal that is not currently shown on one of the user's pages).

Wikipedia is a strange place, but the reason for the strict outing procedure is pretty simple to understand. While it may at first glance appear reasonable to reveal information about someone who has been abusing the encyclopedia, if that were accepted, whenever an outing case arose an admin would have to assess whether the outing was "deserved". Good reasons can be advanced to say that even "deserved" outing is unacceptable, but disregarding that, it would obviously be untenable to have people debating the merits of a particular outing case. In brief, the community has (correctly) decided that absolutely no outing may occur. Johnuniq (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2014 Inter-Provincial Championship may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • '' is the second season of the [[Inter-Provincial Championship]], the domestic multi-day (though not officially {{Cric FC}}} [[cricket]] competition of Ireland. The competition is played between [[Leinster Cricket Union|

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frederick Bracher, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bedminster (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Abell (cricketer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marlborough (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

NWO loathsome individuals

Thank you for adding more people to my list ! I have some characters above my list but I didn't have the time to add them, most of them are Ukrainian fascists,oligarchs,stooges of imperialists in a nutshell,so feel free to add them. How could I forget that Belgian freak ???!!! He is poised to take some important role in the EU now that Barroso and Rompuy are leaving their posts.They just keep recycling these puppets ! I had some problems with internet lately, floos and heavy rains. Long story. Cheers :) ! --Killuminator (talk) 16:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a fellow Belgian figure with similar physical features ;). --Killuminator (talk) 21:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
You'd be amazed if you knew all the absurdities that surround my city and country in general ! We have not ONE ! not TWO ! but THREE heads of state !!! and it's hereditary gang,like a monarchy.We have a constitution that was imposed by Western nations,a discriminatory elective system,two entities (one of them is led by a racist secessionist demagogue),10 cantons and more which makes a monstrous political bureaucracy. Our political elite lives like the Gods of Olympus while most of the youth is unemployed. And a cherry on top, we have a governor general imposed by the EU. Political reform is nearly impossible cuz all the different religious groups. It's a tough place to live, especially when your leaders have to go to the US Embassy to get advice on how to run things. --Killuminator (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm no fan of your senile lizard Queen, in fact, I prepared champagne for when she finally kicks the bucket. I believe her funeral will be one of the most televised events in history and I love quality television lol. I forgot to mention that our upper house of parliament is not democratically elected, just like the House of Lords ! Only difference, it's called House of Peoples and has a fixed number of 15 seats, criminals and good for nothings nonetheless. The Royal Family are an amusing bunch in some way, a racist Danish born (calling him Greek would be an insult to that nation) prince,controversial divorces,skeletons in the closet,Prince Harry and his nightlife adventures,and IMHO they are a really ugly bunch of inbred cretins (spouses included).--Killuminator (talk) 22:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I love the new additions, how could I forget about the Bandit :O. Anyway, the list needs more Europeans.Check out the Ukrainians XD. Cheers ! --Killuminator (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
I know you're not very active, but there is one really annoying elitist user on the loose, not to mention he wants us to die.--Killuminator (talk) 10:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I guess we dissed the Welsh national mascot too much for his taste, hah.--Killuminator (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
In other news, there are new candidates for the most transparent and democratic institution in the EU like the Iron Lady ( No, not her,they give this nickname to even the most irrelevant puppets in world politics) and the lovely Mrs. Kinnock (the world really is a small place huh ?).--Killuminator (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
He really is persistent, and he keeps messing up a page you created.--Killuminator (talk) 13:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
My great grandparents fought Hitler ahhh, the ignorance of this person/thing. A fellow user (a genuine though) removed the list, I have a spare tucked away far far away so no biggy. The World Cup is starting soon, and I'm really hyped. Hopefully the host will not disappoint me.--Killuminator (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Halliday (cricketer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wing commander (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

E H D Sewell

Hello. You deleted one of the two EHD Sewell articles (actually, the more comprehensive of the two articles). They've been marked for combination, and somebody needs to do that. Obviously, simply deleting one of the two articles doesn't achieve that. Maybe you could combine them ? Many thanks.

July 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to E. H. D. Sewell may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ('An Outdoor Wallah', Autobiography, Stanley Paul, 1945 (comments written in 1935)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Anurag Singh

I see your edit summary.

I'll bite:

  • Why is the bot tag dumb?
  • More importantly, why shouldn't the article be deleted?

I do not see why the article is not a copyvio, so I hope you will explain what I missed.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Okay my turn to bite. So it's a "copyvio"... what from this site? Which happens to "copyvio" wikipedia? The bot is dumb for that reason. Why shouldn't the article be deleted? Happens to be a first-class/List A/Twenty20 cricketer, easily passing notability guidelines. So why should it be deleted? Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Ahem. Maybe it is best we gloss over how I came to be looking here and to see this and your edit summary when you recreated the article. But sometimes we admins are not so much lazy as stupid. Please, next time something like this happens, instead of recreating the page (attribution problem, new page patrollers running around tagging it all over again), could you flag down the deleting admin and ask them to take another look? or flag down any old handy admin you happen to know. I have restored the history and left a note on the talk page. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
@Yngvadottir: I'll be sure too :-) Best wishes, Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 22:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
In one sense, it is proper to describe the bot as dumb. It doesn't have native intelligence, it executes a sequence of commands, which might not fully consider all situations. For example, I believe it looks at newly created pages, and looks to see if similar wording exists elsewhere. It makes the logical inference that if it finds such wording, very shortly after creation, that the other wording probably came first. It doesn't delete, as it knows it could be wrong. For example, it doesn't check to see if a newly created article is a recreation of a recently deleted article, which might shed different light on the liming issues.
I see that there was an earlier version, something that the bot cannot see. I thought I concluded that the earlier version did not match the wording at that site, but I may have glanced too quickly, or not carefully enough. I'm not now sure which version I looked at. This version doesn't look at all like the current version.
The other site claims a copyright. That's not definitive, as many sites claim copyright on material scraped from Wikipedia. I didn't recognize it as one of the usual mirrors, but there are a lot of them.
I've now checked the list of mirrors, and see this site on the list, which leans toward the other site being a mirror.
Did you really expect a bot to figure this out?
I asked you why it shouldn't be deleted. I thought it was obvious I was concerned about the possibility of a copyvio. Your answer invoked notability, which has nothing to do with the question.
I'm sorry you've had some run-ins with some admins, but doesn't excuse the snarky attitude.
We get literally dozens of these issues every day. Check out Wikipedia:SCV to see the last few hundred in the last few days. Some are easy to figure out, some take some digging. My experience is that it is helpful to talk to the editor involved, as they know the subject matter better and can often help. I'm sorry to see that you declined to help, but we are all volunteers and you get to choose whether you want to be helpful or not.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Want a good laugh?

Try this one. It's the section right at the bottom of the page. Sorry, I really shouldn't be talking to myself, should I? Hope you are okay. All the best. Jack | talk page 11:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, AssociateAffiliate. You have new messages at BlackJack's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, AssociateAffiliate. You have new messages at BlackJack's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sandboxes

Hi AA. I'm sure you won't mind but I've asked Jenks to place page protection on all your sandboxes (and on mine too). He has kindly done some more reverts today. I don't know yet if he's allowed to do that but see what he says. Thanks. Jack | talk page 16:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)