User talk:Steel

Click here to leave a new message

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

Archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Binary and text files deletion

At 18:43, 9 December 2006, you deleted Binary and text files commenting "CSD R3". Now that a user has recreated the article under this name that was a "Redirect that is a result of an implausible typo", you may want to consider the situation anew. -R. S. Shaw 21:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

We have better pages at Text file and Binary file, and I wouldn't consider this a likely search term (though I'm not really fussed either way). – Steel 22:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism by floating IP

Hi. You seem to deal with requests for page protection. Currently there is one user with a floating IP that keeps deleting content from the Type 45 destroyer page. I guess that there is no way to block him due to his changing IP, right? So would you consider semi-protection as a special measure? I know the vandalism isn't constant so ordinarily the request would fail, but it's a fairly "specialist" page that doesn't have much interest. I don't see any other way around this - it is rather tedious to have to keep reverting.

Please respond on my talk page. John Smith's 13:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your help :) John Smith's 14:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Davesmith33

Hi - just to let you know that the bit of conversation that Davesmith33 pulled off of User_talk:Kaisershatner#Davesmith33 had nothing to do with him, but an IP that User:DGoanto had put on AIV around the same time - see User_talk:GDonato#Davesmith33 about on an unrelated note. Just thought I should point out what happened, don't want anyone to undeservedly get into hot water about vandalism or harassment. Thanks, ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought that was a bit weird since none of those edits appear in Dave's contribs. At any rate, he isn't doing himself any favours by edit warring, accusing people of sockpuppetry and telling people to 'get a life' all at the same time. – Steel 00:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed; I was actually worried for a moment that I might be a sockpuppet, but the feeling soon wore off. Anyway, I just thought I should point out what actually happened and put it all in context rather than let someone get into trouble for harassment or stalking. Thanks. ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 00:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Most appreciated. – Steel 00:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know that he's blanking his talk page warnings and accusing people of vandalism and harassment again. Sorry to be a snitch. ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Woah, what an attitude problem. – Steel 16:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your Userpage

I wish I knew what the heck it was all about...all I know is I saw the image in this thread on AN, made some stupid comment about how it'd be funny on my userpage, and then it shows up. Might I add, I couldn't stop laughing when I clicked on my userpage and saw it there... ^demon^{[omg plz]} 02:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

HA HA! Not hardly. Good work at trying to find one though :-P ^demon^{[omg plz]} 02:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Kurdish genocide

Hi! I saw you protected the above dab link. I am a new administrator, and, thus, I may not have fully understood the rules, so I want to clarify some thingd. This is the story of the protected page:

• The page, initially a redirect to Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey went for a RfD: the result of the RfD was Disambig to two articles: Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey and Al-Anfal Campaign.
• Then the dab was nominated for deletion, and according to the closing administrator the result was no consensus whatsoever, and most importantly the closing administrator insisted on the fact that "redirecting to one or the other article is not an option, since both have been called by this title".

So, we have a RfD and an AfD resulting in the fact that there is no consensus to link just the one of these two articles. Yesterday, two users User:KazakhPol (recently blocked for one week - among other blocks) and User:Baristarim seem (I still assume good faith) to have acted against the two RfD and AfD, arguing that "the only consensus established by the AFD was not to delete the link altogether." Something which is untrue, since the closing the AfD administrator clearly stated that "to redirect just to one of these two links is not an option".

After the edit-warring, you decided to protect the article. And I do know that pages "in an edit war are protected in whatever version they happen to be currently in." But in this particular case, your protection seems to (unintetionally of course) award (at least temporarily) those who initiated the edit-warring by acting against the RfD and the AfD. I just want to know what you think about all this issue, and what happns from now on. Cheers!--Yannismarou 09:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I wasn't aware of either of those (or, more accurately, I wasn't aware of the RfD and didn't check the AfD). Having the page as a disambig seems to best fit the results of those discussions and I've altered the protected page accordingly. Thanks for the heads up. – Steel 12:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

But what the closing administrator might have said is irrelevant - The debate at the Human rights of Kurds in Turkey had been going on for a long time, and anyone who knows that page knows what is going on. In any case, Steel359, is it correct for administrators to do content edits to articles under protection? Especially the ones they have protected themselves? It was not a simple vandalism issue, it has been an ongoing content issue and the editors involved are established editors - it was not an anon dropping by and messing with the page. The "award" argument is not valid, what does that supposed to mean Yannis? The pages are protected in whatever form they are. And AfD and RfD have been closed as no-concensus, which means that there is a legitimate debate. Can you revert back to the the status quo ante at the time of the protection please? I would have never gone running around the protecting admin just because a version of a page that I didn't like got protected, it is bad karma guys :) I am particularly disappointed with Yannis' manner of trying to discredit other editors in persuing this debate (who cares if KazakhPol was banned - if you look at it that way, the other user who kept on reverting to the dab page, Domitius, created another redirect at Kurdish Genocide in Turkey just two minutes after he hit 3RR on that article, and the page was speedied in ten minutes - one example among tons of his disruptive editing and Point creations). There is no such thing as "act against the AfD or RfD" - they were no-concensus.. Baristarim 01:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Baris, don't start again. It's admins' duty to enforce community consensus, and the latest XFD producing a consensus was the RFD. What's your point?--Domitius 09:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Steel, for reviewing your initial decision!--Yannismarou 08:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration proceedings

You have been included as a 'related party' in a request for arbitration Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Bullying_and_Victimisation_against_Davesmith33 Davesmith33 17:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all. I am absolutely baffled why you got dragged into this. I am very confident that the ArbCom will clear you entirely. Gwernol 18:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey Steel, thanks for fixing my protect- you are right that I had intended to do it sooner. I appreciate that you caught my error. Kaisershatner 19:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

United Kingdom

Thanks. I had just dropped a note on the culprit's talk page and used my 'back' button to find the UK's history indicating that you reverted the unduly move. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 9 Apr2007 23:55 (UTC)

Mmm. I don't pay a whole lot of attention to the talk page, but there always seems to be someone proposing a move and the consensus is always to keep it at United Kingdom. At any rate, nobody's going to be moving that page for a while. – Steel 23:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Asgardian

"You've been blocked. The reason is given in the block summary." isn't an appropriate block notification. We have templates for these things. What block summary? What kind of block are you talking about? Blocked from editing one specific page? Temporarily blocked from Wikipedia? Permanently banned? Clarify these things. While I'm amazed that Asgardian hasn't gotten banned yet, given all the edit warring that has gone on for more than half a year, appropriate notification is required. Asgardian needs to know what the block's about, people who've been warring with him need to know, people who try to work with him deserve to know, and anyone who needs to learn from this example ought to know. Doczilla 16:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I consider it a perfectly acceptable block notification.

• What block summary? - The one that appears both in his block log and in a huge red box when he tries to edit a page, with the heading "you have been blocked for the following reason" (or words to that effect). What else could be considered to be the block summary?
• What kind of block are you talking about? - Er, a block.
• Blocked from editing one specific page? - Not possible with the software.
• Temporarily blocked from Wikipedia? - Yes. Blocking a non-throwaway account indefinitely is a reasonably big deal and I would have specified what I was doing if that was the case. It'll be in his block log anyway.
• Permanently banned? - Er, no. Otherwise I would have said "banned", not "blocked".

Asgardian is an established editor and has been blocked for edit warring before. There's no need to baby him with "edit warring is really naughty, please discuss changes on the talk page". – Steel 17:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Nazi skinhead

Nazi skinhead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As far as I know, User:Laderov and User:EuropeanLynx are the same editor, who is also editing from 24.201.17.56 and 24.203.22.162, as their edits and edit summaries are broadly the same. The editor is more than likely a Nazi skinhead himself (based on his previous username of User:ProudAryan), and has repeatedly tried to remove the sourced fact that the original skinhead was heavily influenced by black music. User:Grandmasterka blocked User:EuropeanLynx for a week, and based on the block log including "sockpuppetry" he's of the belief he's also the same IP editor. Today there's been a further attempt to remove the influence of black music, citing Neo-Nazi sources which aren't reliable. There's an ANI report here as well. Basically the whole situation boils down to the editor making highly POV edits based on his own opinion or extremist sources. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much for the summary. The problem has disappeared for a week so I think we can probably lower protection to semi for now. I've watchlisted Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice in case he starts block evading over there. – Steel 12:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Roma people

I unprotected that page and I'll watch it to see if the edit war is done. Just FYI. CMummert · talk 00:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Alrighty. – Steel 12:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Brock Lesnar RFPP

Ah, good to hear, I was just posting a note in Yamla's talk page when the browser crashed. Thanks for the tip. -- ReyBrujo 00:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

SUN Article IS MESSED UP

FIX NOW PLZ 68.250.178.74 04:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)