Oh, I completely agree. I was the one who reverted the edits on AN. I have his contribs on a tab and am watching them. But that post just made me laugh and I thought you should know, you gave me a good laugh for the day :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that I'm using this channel to communicate with you but as an old wikipedia lover, I am really dissappointed by this matter. I have noticed the blocking on User:Socrates.awmn, I have read your explanation and I would like to give you some advice on the matter since I strongly believe that you have been mislead by someone. AWMN is not a business and thus it cannot be "advertised" in the commercial sense. As the article explains, it is an open community of human beings, no profit, no selling, no material gain involved whatsoever, only knowledge and fun. There is however a strong competition for control and a lot of arrogance since it is composed by a 99% male community. I do strongly, very strongly, believe that some envy person reported socrates.awmn for "advertising" and this lead to the block. If you spoke Greek you could visit the webpages related to AWMN and then you would immediately realise that it is a genuine non-profit hobby and that there is no realistic conflict of interest of any kind. However, you obviously do not speak Greek and thus I understand that it might have looked like a clear violation of rules while scorates.awmn was just presenting the community. I strongly suggest to invite some Greek speaker to review the AWMN web page and the forum and advise you if he believes that AWMN can be classified as a business in any way. If you are still not satisfied and you are still unwilling to unblock the user then please write your comments on socrates.awmn's talk so that we could see that you took this message under consideration. --racergr (talk) 10:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't block that user. Possibly my unblock decline was too strongly worded, since he was at least the tenth person I'd declined for unblock in a similar position, and I was heartily tired of people using Wikipedia to advertise- and yes, it's still advertising even if what you're advertising is not a business. If he isn't interested in editing Wikipedia, but only in using Wikipedia for promotion, then there's nothing I can do, and in any case, the username rules don't allow us to use website or organization names for our usernames, so that account can't be unblocked anyway. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)19:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok fair enough but what do you suggest him to do then? I assure you that his intentions were genuine, the problem is that this specific article was tricky. I understand the spirit of the rules but you have to understand that there is a fine line between "promotion" and "presentation", a line which can easily be crossed by a non-native speaker who wishes to present his hobby. I agree that the Greeks should not edit Greece but when we have an activity of a somewhat closed community, who would know enough and care enough to edit this article if not the members of the community? --racergr (talk) 06:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Greeks can and do edit Greece. If no one outside this community knows or cares about something, why would an encyclopedia need to write it? The people who want to know already know, and no one else wants to know. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)12:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...is that you were wrong about blocking User: MataNui44. That is because you probably haven't seen what he has been up to on the Code Lyoko page. He has violated the 3 Revert Rule (July 10; Code Lyoko), reliable sources rules several times and has reverted everyone else's edits. There is nothing wrong with that picture? I tried editing myself on one of the pages, which even had an internal link as well as sources at that link, and he still deleted it. You gave MataNui44 a block? He did nothing wrong, in fact if he did anything, he protected wikipedia, not start an edit war. I think you should disbar the ban from MataNui44 and place it with Rouge Penguin. --76.95.66.209 (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I denied the unblock; like most administrators, I won't enter into a wheel-war (the admin equivalent of an edit-war) by undoing another administrator's block, unless I've discussed it with that admin and they've agreed that it should be undone, or unless that block was clearly against policy. In this case, a block for edit-warring is very much within Wikipedia's policies. If I had been convinced that User:MataNui44 would not edit-war in the future, or that the block was unfair, I would have been willing to intercede for him with the blocking admin, but, looking at the edit history, the talk page, and the block history, I didn't see anything that made me believe that he has made a decision to refrain from edit-warring in the future. His unblock request made it seem that he didn't understand that edit-warring is a serious problem. I've been involved in disputes much more heated than this one, and I've managed to find alternatives to edit-warring. "But I really feel strongly about this!" and "But I'm certain that I'm right!" and "But I'm making the article better!" are not valid excuses for edit-warring. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)20:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it is a serious problem, and right now Penguin gets away with doing it. Penguin has broken the 3RR so many times, and it is his opinion to which he explains his actions to a page. He has deleted articles and text just if it challenges or proves wrong something he has or is going to say. But right now, while you let that go on unattended, unchecked, you are also in the wrong. You must correct the problem. --76.95.66.209 (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know anyone named Penguin; I don't think I've reviewed any unblock requests from a person of that name lately. Will unblocking User:MataNui44 make Penguin stop edit-warring? I don't think I understand how. If you see Penguin edit-warring and think she should be blocked, you can report it at the 3RR noticeboard. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)20:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't seem to currently be edit-warring with anyone, and isn't in violation of WP:3RR right now. Blocks aren't a punishment; nothing is accomplished by blocking him for edit-warring last week. If he does it again, report him at WP:AN3. I see he did recently revert an edit of yours, but that was only because you had forgotten to add your reference; you don't need me to help with that, since it's easy enough for you to just add the reference and discuss it with him. Come to think of it, User:MataNui44 could have done the same thing easily enough. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)21:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it does not accomplish anything to block Penguin for the great many things he has done, how is it so that it applies for MataNui? BTW, that revert was completely unnecessary, be cause I put an internal which at that page had the references. --76.95.66.209 (talk) 21:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MataNui was blocked because he was currently edit-warring. I don't know why the Penguin wasn't blocked at the same time, because I didn't block him. If you are curious about that, you could ask the administrator who did block him. I don't have any opinion at all about whatever subjects are under dispute there, but you are welcome to try some of the solutions at WP:DISPUTE if there are disagreements that you need additional opinions on. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)21:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I do not see that it is warranted. If you would like to use your time machine to go back and report him when he was edit-warring, I encourage you to do so; I do not have a time machine connected to my computer (perhaps it's time for an upgrade), so I can't go back and block him when he was edit-warring. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)21:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TIME MACHINE? Look all I asked was if you could block him because he has broken rules. That is clear from the Code Lyoko's history page, let alone whatever other pages he edits. --76.95.66.209 (talk) 21:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We don't block people because they have broken rules. We block people because they are breaking rules. Blocks are not a punishment. They are used to prevent disruption. Right now, no disruption is happening. If disruption does happen, you can report it. It looks like the penguin has been blocked for edit-warring many times before, if he does it again, report him, and he'll probably get a nice long block. But I can't block him today because I think he's going to misbehave in the future, just as I can't extend MataNui's block to indefinite because I think he is probably going to edit-war in the future. Everyone gets a chance to make the right decision. Now that you know that I'm not going to break the blocking rules for you, and you know where to report it the next time you have a problem, I don't think there's anything further I can do to help you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)22:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So a murderer who escapes police for a day is no longer a law breaker and charges should not be filed because it was in the past. Is that what you're suggesting is the moral of this story? --76.95.66.209 (talk) 22:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am only qualified to make decisions regarding Wikipedia's rules on edit-warring. Rules regarding murder vary from state to state and nation to nation, so if you think that the rogue penguin has committed a murder, you will need to ask a police officer for help, not a Wikipedia administrator. Your comparison is so deeply silly as to completely destroy my ability to take you seriously; good evening to you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)22:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you heard of similes or comparisons? The point is that you don't pursue justice just because of time? That's stupid. If he destroyed a couple pages and no one else checks it, he's free to vandalize, is that it? Is that what you're saying? --76.95.66.209 (talk) 22:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Similes are best employed when they're appropriate. Most crimes have statutes of limitations so the justice system isn't wasting its time prosecuting 20 year old shoplifting cases. That's an apt simile for this situation. We're not here to sift past contributions and retroactively apply some form of justice that does nothing to contribute to the creation of a free encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a court of law and administrators are not prosecutors. You know what to do the next time this happens. I suggest that you drop the stick and back away from the deceased equine. Acroterion(talk)22:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no. You must punish someone if they've done something wrong no matter when. Your speech is a waste of space and time that wasn't what I meant and you misssed the point completely. As for not doing anything, it only encourages more bad behavior, if you haven't learned that by now, you and wikipedia are in trouble. --76.95.66.209 (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that your analogy is unconvincing. Edit-warring isn't murder; it's more like some people arguing about a couple of lines in an online encyclopedia. We're not here to mete out punishment or to right great wrongs. A block for edit-warring is effective only when there's an edit war in progress; there is no benefit to the encyclopedia in randomly blocking people because they did something bad a while ago. Wikipedia's been successful at resolving this sort of thing through the established means; that doesn't mean that it's tidy, easy, or that it pleases everybody. Acroterion(talk)23:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quick Question
If an article is blatant vandalism but another editor started an AfD on it, can you still add a speedy tag or must you wait out the AfD process. The article in question is Call of duty 9 have a look at the main characters name 'Lt.Wann Kerr' thanks. BigDunc21:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, checking through User:Rebroad's recent edits, I can see where they may have been in violation of 3RR and contributing with poor etiquette but your stated rationale which included "promotion of various fringe theories" might unfortunately be confusing the title of the citation from the BBC (which includes "conspiracy theory" in the title) with the actual fact being added to the articles in question. That the BLP subjects did attend Bilderberg meetings has never been disputed and it was this fact that was supported by the BBC citation, not any other analysis or theory. Note that I am not suggesting that Rebroad should be unblocked, only that fringe theories are not the issue here and perhaps you could consider re-wording your rationale? Of course I may have overlooked something you noted, in which case an example diff would be very helpful. Thanks. —Teahot (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a lesbian English teacher in Cincinnatti and you're a middle-aged straight architect from West Virginia. Or the other way around, I get so confused. Oh, and I'm a Nazi. Acroterion(talk)19:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to interupt your confusion, but that's not what I said, you're just trying a false flag operation, because I'm lining up the facts. Perhaps this will explain how I'm theorizing the admin's recent contributions at: This is ridiculous., near the end.
