User talk:Lifebaka

Hello!

Please add new comments in new sections. I will respond to messages here unless you ask otherwise. Or, if you're notifying me of a problem, I'll probably just fix it and leave it at that. I can also be contacted by email.

Changed your message

I changed your link to WP:RFCU on WT:AFD to link to WP:RFC/U as that appears to be what you meant to link, and those two are commonly confused. If that's not what you meant, please revert and accept my apologies. Stifle (talk) 10:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

No, that's fine. Cheers. lifebaka++ 12:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

RfC

The passive smoking article is most likely go right back to edit warring. I ask that you keep it locked until the RfC is complete. Soxwon (talk) 02:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to, really. It'd have to remain protected for quite a while, it looks like, if we waited for the RfC to complete. This is inconvenient to those who want to edit the article in ways not related to this dispute. And the article does appear to get a decent bit of editing from passersby. The looming threat of blocking should be enough, hopefully without me having to make good on it. And do note that this doesn't mean regular WP:BRD can't be done, so long as there aren't additional reverts before or during the discussion part. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Passive smoking

FYI: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Passive smoking (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Yilloslime ^T_C 17:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Two more SPAs

It seems two more SPAs have popped up supporting SonofFeanor, this is getting ridiculous. Soxwon (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the article. More won't be showing up for a while. WP:SSP is the way to go if you feel it necessary. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure if it's socking or meatpuppetry, so I left something in WP:AN/I. Soxwon (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

We don't really view them as different, so the page covers both. I'll be dropping in on that thread presently. lifebaka++ 17:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you object to me reverting to the way it was before the SPAs moved in? Soxwon (talk) 17:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Just keep going with the discussion, there's no reason to rush it. lifebaka++ 17:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've started an RfC, though I think this is rather silly. Soxwon (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not willing to edit the article at all under these circumstances. Until there is some sort of administrative response to this abusive sock/meatpuppetry - and I'm talking about blocking the perpetrators - it's not a good use of time or energy and I'm not willing to be placed on an equal footing with this sort of egregiously abusive editing. MastCell ^Talk 18:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

C'mon man, settle down. If they are indeed meat-puppets then proper action will be taken. Becoming overly dramatic will only damage the process. Soxwon (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent, reply to MastCell) I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm fairly sure I know how this will turn out, I just haven't had my hand forced yet. Supposing that a better solution comes up, I plan on removing that stupid restriction. lifebaka++ 18:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

And it appears I was wrong on that. The thread at SSP has evidence linking SonofFeanor to all the accounts now. Supposing that he gets blocked, you have my explicit permission to immediately revoke the 1RR restriction (which I suspect you'll have to use, as I don't believe I'll be online). Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the viewpoint that there is no deadline and hence time to systematically investigate the behavioral issue. But as an alternate perspective, it rapidly drains editorial goodwill and patience to deal with a festering situation like this. Sometimes there is a deadline - not in terms of producing a final draft of content, but in terms of preserving an environment where collaborative editing is possible. These sorts of behaviors polarize the article, they drain patience and interest, they scare away people who actually want to compromise/edit until all you have left are people who want to fight... I think there's a strong case to be made for expeditiously dealing with these sorts of editors in a time-sensitive fashion. But that's just my 2 cents - I'm admittedly on the "activist" side of the admin spectrum. :) MastCell ^Talk 18:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Takes both types to make the encyclopedia work properly, I think. I'll keep an eye out for a while, just in case, but this should be mostly sorted now. lifebaka++ 19:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Wait, what? He's continued to edit as SonofFeanor, why did he create a new account? Soxwon (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I prefer not to speculate, but I believe we both know the reason. lifebaka++ 18:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

As you've now become involved, I've posted on AN/I to request a review to see if it passes the WP:DUCK test. Thanks for your help. Soxwon (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Posted location.

See my talk page. TrioRuleYou (talk) 02:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Alive in Joburg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Alive in Joburg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 213.21.98.80 (talk) 11:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)