User talk:Picaroon: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 06:40, 26 October 2007

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area		6 November 2024	0/0/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	10 Oct 2024	24 Oct 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	Motion	(orig. case)	17 August 2024
Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy, et al	none	(orig. case)	7 November 2024
Clarification request: Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee	none	none	7 November 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

To leave me a message, click here. To email me, click here. If I leave you a message, I've watchlisted your talk page, so please reply there. If you leave me a message, I'll reply here.

Archives: /Archive 1, /Archive 2, /Archive 3, /Archive 4, /Archive 5.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar

Could you possibly add me to the lis of parties in this case as I have had a "history" with Alkivar, as said in my previous comments. Is this possible? Thanks, Davnel03 21:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue in this case is the one surrounding his recent blocks - past things will be looked into, but are secondary. Being a party won't really affect you. Make a motion to add yourself on the /Workshop, if you wish. Picaroon (t) 21:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also please note that you can submit evidence on the evidence page, and/or add proposals to the workshop page, without being listed as a party. Newyorkbrad 22:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for October 15th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 42	15 October 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Brion Vibber interview
Wikimania 2008 awarded to Alexandria	Board meeting held, budget approved
Wikimedia Commons reaches two million media files	San Francisco job openings published
Community sanction noticeboard closed	Bot is approved to delete redirects
License edits under consideration to accommodate Wikipedia	WikiWorld comic: "Soramimi Kashi"
News and notes: Historian dies, Wiki Wednesdays, milestones	Wikimedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Military history	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 10:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: DYK doesn't quite meet standard

The article on Alhassan Dantata has not been expanded 5 folds so it doesn't qualify. "an expansion of five-fold or more" it says.

I won't say another word! I didn't make any comment on the DYK page so your entry may sneak its way in. :p Chergles 19:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for one, I only started it on the ninth - if I had more free time, I would have written it all then and nominated it as a new article. Second, its only 30 words short of being a fivefold expansion - I could add some fluff, but what's the point? "Richest man in West Africa" is a rather interesting hook if you ask me. Picaroon (t) 20:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 19 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alhassan Dantata, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

A little short, but it's okay. Thanks for the interesting tidbit. Cheers! --PFHLai 09:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dahiru Musdapher

Now stop fiddling with my essay! :) – Gurch 13:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it works! /me goes and tells everybody about the magic essay that does work for you. Thanks Gurch. Picaroon (t) 14:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration

Thanks for the notification. Acalamari 23:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

Copyedit from my page: "The placement is acceptable now that you're mentioning the comment in your statement; doing so at the top of the request for arbitration, above everything else, wasn't exactly adhering to the procribed format. Also, please note that "Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment." Picaroon (t) 03:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

Picaroon, I appreciate your explanation although I did feel that in the midst of charges and countercharges, that this statement should not have been edited as it was an example of how the editor who launched the arbitration did not have an understanding of the process as well as being illustrative of inappropriate editing of my comments to suit his purposes. FWIW Bzuk 03:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry, my mistake with the level 3 header, was not intentional.Nimbus227 01:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy request for The New Jersey Herald

Can you please create a userfied version of The New Jersey Herald under my username, so that additional material can be added. I had seen a version of the article for the paper, one of the oldest continuously published in the state, and was shocked to see that it had been deleted. Your assistance will be greatly appreciated. Alansohn 20:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the history to User:Alansohn/The New Jersey Herald and redeleted the redirect. Still not seeing an assertion of notability, though. Picaroon (t) 21:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good now! Do you want me to delete the redirects? Picaroon (t) 15:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Your accusation of vandalism

Sorry, I do not know anything about the article in question, but removal of such large amounts of information initially looked liked vandalism, please accept my upmost apologies, Schumi555 15:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it, it's a common enough mistake. Just remember to always check the last few edits of an article, to see if they shed some light on the matter at hand. Vandalism reversion isn't a race, you can afford to spend an extra 15 seconds making sure reversion is the right solution. ;-) Picaroon (t) 15:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Khachen

Yet another baseless and absolutely irrelevant tag by Andranikpasha [1]. He is claiming that Caucasian Albania (which has nothing to do with Albania in Balkans) is dubious because it contains title Caucasian. I am sorry but I don't see this as anything else other than attempt to simply get rid of Dowsett quote, which does not fit the POV. Atabek 19:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now User:MarshallBagramyan simply removed everything, including your version, back to old POV version [2]. Atabek 22:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've left AP a warning. As to the revert, well, I was trying to provide a compromise version. It seems that I was unsuccessful, so I guess back to the drawing board. Picaroon (t) 02:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks by an anon

162.84.187.178 (who also appears to operating as 141.155.140.142) seems to have inserted himself into a running battle in the F-22 Raptor that may be associated with the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Stefanomencarelli‎ entry he has made. It appears to be an ongoing issue with another editor. Since you have taken an interest in resolving the arbitration and have admin tools, can you check on the anon's actions? FWIW Bzuk 06:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I'm only somewhat familiar with this dispute, but I see no reason not to believe that this is Wikzilla. The IP he used the second time has been blocked by another admin, and if he returns I will block him as soon as I see him (I've watchlisted the article in question, please tell me if there are any other pages I should keep an eye on). As to his arbitration edit, well, it's been reverted, as it should be. Picaroon (t) 15:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Stoptheabuse

I am a third party observer who has registered specifically to speak on this subject. BillCJ, BZUK and the Admin AKradecki have all had problems in the past with other editors. They are arrogant, hypocritical and slaves to adhering to process over facts. They also tend to toss about Sock Puppet accusations rather freely. Stefanomecarelli's English may not be the best in the world but the arbitrary revisions by the three named are often arbitrary and their attitude elitist. I cannot blame stef for becoming frustrated with the entire process. The entire Wiki aviation project is out of control due to the antics of Bzuk and BIllCJ, and the abuse of powers by AKRadecki.

BILLCJ feels that it’s okay to circumvent the system when it suits him witness here quoted directly from his talk page

“Thanks for your suggestion. I do warn occassionally, esp. registered users who are becoming problems that need to be dealt with by an admin. However, I generally do not warn for the following reasons:

  1. I find the process to be tedious.
  2. I find that too many admins are reluctant to block to IP vandals promptly enough to be effective, if they block at all.
  3. I have not found a script or help program that is easy to use that also works well with my OS (WinXP) and browser (IE6)
  4. I find a reluctance by admins to punitively block consistant vandals, yet they use punitive blocking measures agaisnt regular editors for offenses such as 3RR.
  5. After having a multitude of problems related to IP vandalsim and harrassment, my attempts to approach Jim Wales to ask for help fell and deaf ears, and I was threatend with punitive action if I continued to object to to Open IP editing.

 As such, I refuse to waste my time cleaning up the Foundations messes in regards to most vandalism, when I know from experience that the Foundation does not back its editors if an IP gets vindictive. If a given user's vandalism becomes annoying, I have a couple of admins who are willing to help me out directly in blocking or in page protection. I'm sorry if my refusal to warn causes trouble for you, but I assure you it's far less trouble than the Foundation is causing both of us by their refusal to contemplate policy and other changes that might make it easier to fight vandalism and vindictive IPs. - BillCJ 23:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)”