User talk:Off2riorob

• note - recently created alternate account User:Riorob watchlist2. - Off2riorob (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Off2riorob's talkpage. If you are unable to post here follow this link to post at my unprotected talkpage.

1RRThis user prefers discussing changes on the talk page rather than engaging in an edit war.

(Manual archive list)

Magistrates of England and Wales

Hi, I started the GA review and then noticed your comment on User talk:InExcelsisDeo. Please feel free to comment. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Replied on Jezhot's talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 10:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I have placed the article on hold for seven days. There is some work to be done. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks J, I have moved it up towards the top of my short to do list. Off2riorob (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

List of references on Amanda Knox documentaries

I see you finished filling out the references on my talk page. Any problems with posting them on the Amanda Knox page or were you planning on doing that? Dougbremner (talk) 20:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

No I have no plans to do that - I only cited some ... and User:Berean Hunter cited the others. I commented on the talkpage that I don't think they have much value even if cited but I will not remove them again if cited. Perhaps as a suggestion .. just WP:Be Bold and add them and if they are removed then move to discussion - Regards - Off2riorob (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

thanks. Dougbremner (talk) 13:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Offtocaracas

Hi Rob, you are mentioned here. Cheers, Racconish ^Tk 11:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

not web host

Hi - I came across this user, as they are not contributing to the project at all and posting strange stuff on their talkpage - can we just block him and blank his user and talkpage spouting? Off2riorob (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your message about User:Maleek222. Unfortunately, I don't think WP:NOTFACEBOOK is a valid CSD criterion. I left a warning message. If things get worse, I'll PROD the pages. Thanks. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Cool - I appreciate your looking. It was this post seemingly asking for help that attracted me to look at their contributions and from their posts they are very young and in care. Off2riorob (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Re User:Wran and DSK

Hi Rob. You should probably see this: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Wran.2C_copyright_concerns_and_edit-warring_in_our_.27Dominique_Strauss-Kahn.27_article.

AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Andy - yes I saw it - really its a content dispute that is clear the user is adding content he should not be - I support removal and attempting ot show him through discussion that his addition is not correct. Off2riorob (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

In as much as it is a content dispute, I agree. I'm more concerned with the copyright issue, and the way that Wran seems to think that 'expert knowledge' overrules policy. This seems untenable to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It is starting to be silly - we need to get him to discussion on the talkpage and clear the issue up for good. Off2riorob (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I note - that that User:Wran has never made a single post to the talkpage of the article - in fact his only contributions to the article itself are the three recent reverts - his three reverts are only reverts of another users recent addition - and he also has only the addition in dispute and two reverts back in, and no edits to the talkpage at all either, - User:Alis9 - I am smelling sock or meat editing...Off2riorob (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Yup - Wran seems to consider discussion unnecessary. I still think that the copyright issue is more immediate concern though, which is why I took it to AN/I. Maybe I'm overreacting, but I couldn't see any other way to resolve this - if Wran won't talk (except to insult others in edit summaries, and assert 'expert knowledge' as justification to ignore policy), action is going to be needed - and where copyright is concerned, we have to be careful. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

To be honest Andy I have not yet looked at the copyright issue - the addition in itself is imo completely policy violating even if its not a copyright violation. Off2riorob (talk) 21:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Amanda Knox

Hello. I noticed that you wrote on Dougbremner's talk page regarding COI and the Amanda Knox bio. A quick google search also reveals he is the brother of well known trial attorney Anne Bremner who has done a number of interviews on the case to major media sources (e.g. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6736512/Amanda-Knox-Foxy-Knoxy-was-an-innocent-abroad-say-US-supporters.html). I thought I would bring this to your attention as you raised the issue. I'm not aware of any unfair edits he has made. (Connolly15 (talk) 21:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC))

Hi - yes the user has declared a bit of involvement - I had a word with them about WP:COI and as far as I am concerned his good faith replies were enough for me that unless there are any specific problematic contributions I am OK with the current situation - as an addition it seems someone claiming to be Anne Bremner has also been editing her biography. see - Special:Contributions/Annne bremner - regards. Off2riorob (talk) 21:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Yadav

I've just commented on Rockstar1984's TP and, with hindsight, perhaps should not have done since it might inflame things further. I won't revert because it would still be there in the history anyway, but I'll keep away for the duration of the block (and hopefully will have no need to return thereafter). Your attempts at guidance are excellent, btw - proof positive that being uninvolved is a better place from which to proffer advice etc. - Sitush (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for your comments. Off2riorob (talk) 19:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: RFA -

Hi - I was looking for your RFA to further investigate your contributions and I am getting a redlink Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Tristessa_de_St_Ange - could you please direct me to the relevant discussion thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh sure, it's on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NicholasTurnbull, my old username (way back in 2005). --Tristessa (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

By the way: I understand your point re current article contributions, and I've been more active in WP:DR than I have in mainspace for a long time. But this would surely be a policy suggestion that would need to be proposed; there's no policy that currently stands which prohibits admins from performing admin tasks if they have under a certain number of mainspace edits, and I feel the judgement I've made in this situation appears to be satisfactory. If there is a good reason why the block should be lifted, particularly whether there's proof to show he'll listen in future, then I'll lift the block. I'm not seeing any right now, though. --Tristessa (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the detail. I am of the opinion that if your not contributing to article space you have no understanding of activity there and as such no authority or perceived authority to restrict good faith, non vandal contributors in that area and should have opened a community discussion rather than acting unilaterally. Off2riorob (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Off2riorob. You have new messages at Mugginsx's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bold

You forgot the last ''' on your post.--intelatiColloquium 21:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Delta blocked for 48 hours

• - Δ blocked for 48 hour

Come on, Rob. I've agreed with you (and disagreed with you) before, but you have to know that chiming in at a discussion at ANI with your personal comparisons of the recent edits of editors isn't going to go well. You claim it's just "common sense," but it's clearly not, and it's certainly not policy. Again, I encourage you to take it to the pump or anywhere else you'd like, just to see if someone will agree with you. I'll put it this way, in that discussion you're downplaying the opinions of an admin, trusted with the tools and an editor with 10,000+ edits and almost six years here. What's to stop someone from looking on your edits and judging you, and saying your opinion isn't worth as much because you're not an admin, or you have a long block log? Whether or not Beta's edits deserve a block is debatable, but anyone can chime in with an opinion. Please stop trying to judge other editors based on your own criteria. Dayewalker (talk) 22:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Dayewalker's comment - "What's to stop someone from looking on your edits and judging you, and saying your opinion isn't worth as much because you're not an admin, or you have a long block log? - I will stand by by edits and my contributions, - and by my block log - contributions to content is the primary objective here - users that don't have it - don't have it - Off2riorob (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It's fine that's your opinion, but those comments aren't based on policy, and can be pretty incendiary when they're dropped into the middle of a discussion at ANI. Dayewalker (talk) 22:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Your comments are incendiary themselves. Off2riorob (talk) 22:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

In what way? Dayewalker (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You are attempting to suggest that my block log is related to this discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 22:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not, and I apologize if that's the impression that I gave. I was just trying to point out that passing judgement on another editor merely by personal opinions of their contributions isn't productive. You're obviously a valuable contributor. However, the same could be said about Beta, Tristessa de St Ange, and Nagle. If every discussion at ANI is going to come down to what each editor thinks about another's credentials, nothings going to get done.

Every editor at Wikipedia is important, whether long-time or brand new, and I'm sure you'd agree that every editor is entitled to their own opinions based on Wikipedia policy. That's all I was saying, and again I apologize for any misunderstanding. Dayewalker (talk) 22:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)