User talk:Barek

Barek is tired of wikidrama, and has chosen to spend more time in the real world; but may still wander back online occasionally. During this time, replies to queries may be greatly delayed.

Please click here to start a new message at the bottom of this page.
	If you post a message to me here, I will usually reply here - if you want a {{talkback}} notice, please request it. If I left a message for you on your talk page, I have it on my watchlist and will see replies made on your talk page. Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). I reserve the right at my discretion to remove uncivil comments from this page, as well as threads which are perceived by me to be disruptive. My alternate talkpage can be used to contact me if Wikipedia indicates that this page is protected due to vandalism.	Please note: This talk page is known to be monitored by talk page watchers. This means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot respond to quickly is appreciated. Server time (): May 13, 2024 20:50 (UTC)

My talk page archives
• 2007  • 2008  • 2009  • 2010  • 2011  • 2012  • 2013  • 2014  • 2015  • 2016  • 2017  • 2018  • 2019  • 2020  • 2021  • 2022  • 2023

Please be calm

In the -Begging You- article nobody is spamming and we have reached a consensus that u arbitrarily are trying to broke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim FOR sure (talk • contribs) 03:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The consensus on the article talk page seems to be against the link - all posters to Talk:Begging You except for you appear to have been against the link. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I am not sure. John proposed deletion OR to be included as an external link. The link has been in the main text for months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim FOR sure (talk • contribs) 12:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear that John is against the link. While he initially suggested moving the link to that location - the last post by John, in reply to your assertion that "the link is neutral and positive for the project", was to say "I don't think so, per WP:ELNO". --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Misconduct and bias against external competing wiki pages

Your recent attempt to characterize a link to a competing wiki provider as "linkspam" is an obvious abuse of your position as an administrator. This destructive conduct does an overall disservice to Wikipedia, even when considering your removal of true linkspam. Wikipedia may have an agenda to censor their competitors, but please, at least be honest about the rationale of a removal. Masking such an effort by referencing linkspam rules is intellectually dishonest and downgrades both the quality and utility of Wikipedia.

If you disagree, please read the linkspam rules yourself, and try to find a specific clause that corresponds. An external link to a neutral comparison wiki obviously complies with linkspam and your claim here stating "Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion" makes it evident that you're putting quite a spin on this. To claim that a comparison wiki maintained by a community of volunteers is a "promotion" is an obvious mischaracterization.

Your actions are shown to be driven by emotion. This is clear because after you destroyed a whole article comparison page using the rationale that a comparison page violates both wp:directory and wp:linkfarm, you destroyed it again after the community restored it in a way that complies with your personal interpretation of the rules (that is, with links and names removed). Your continual removals of compliant and useful information suitable to researchers demonstrates a compelling need to "win" what you're seeing as a "battle" against the community. This is evident from your secondary rationale from the re-removal, where you state that the content is "not notable" (which you later contradict). Please try to take a more cooperative approach. If you have another administrator do the secondary removals, it will add credibility to the merit of removal. --Jgombos (talk) 06:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

First, being an administrator is irrelevant; I'm an editor just as you are. In fact, the discussion about the table began prior to my becoming an admin, and your last post to the talk page was prior to my becoming an administrator. Claiming that it was an abuse of my position as an administrator is demonstrably false on multiple fronts.

Regarding the link, please read WP:ELNO #12. It's really quite clear. If you would like to discuss the link with others, feel free to refer to WP:DR - per dispute resolution methods listed at that page, I think the simplest route would be to start a discussion at WP:ELN, but other options exist. I commented last month about the link at Talk:Online post office#Wikia link, but as yet you have not replied.

You claim that "the community restored it". It was you that restored it; claiming it was done by the community is quite a spin. Rather than legitimately fix the issues, you maintain trivial marketing variations and fail to provide either a framework for inclusion criteria or a neutral source to establish specified companies as notable. Again, this is mentioned at Talk:Online post office#Wikia link. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistent removal and contradictory actions

Your initial stance against a comparison page on the grounds of wp:directory and wp:linkfarm expressed in Talk:Online_post_office is fair enough, in principle. You made it clear that comparison pages (like Comparison_of_webmail_providers) is not at Wikipedia standards when there are links to outside companies, and in the end the community accepted this. Then later when you discovered similar content outside of Wikipedia, you did a 180 degree reversal of your stance, proposing to violate the very rules you were enforcing to begin with. Please try to be more consistent. --Jgombos (talk) 06:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I have not changed my stance on any of this. Please read my replies more carefully. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Lib

Thanks for the heads-up. (I was pretty sure the bright-line 3RR wasn't crossed though. I had quite a number of edits that were responses to legitimate threads, but maybe you counted all of my edits in there yesterday.....?) In any case, yes, the reversions were getting pretty excessive. BigK HeX (talk) 11:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I appologize if you were below 3RR; I didn't review all the edits closely enough, so may have accidentally included edits to other threads in the counts. I was trying to warn all parties that appeared to be involved, so no one party could claim they were being singled out for whatever reasons. --- Barek (talk) - 14:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear sir

I am trying to repair an article that carries a NPOV warning.

It is the POV-warriors who are warring, not I.

Keep in mind that the section as existing violates copyright law, attribution directives as per WP:MOS, WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Is It Raining Underground? (talk • contribs) 03:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It appears that you are the only user to have violated WP:3RR in a content dispute on that page.

However, regardless, your continued disruptive editing and ongoing uncivil behavior has resulted in a short term block. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 13:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Another opinion

Hey Barek. As a ships guy with a great deal of experience in spam issues, I wonder if you could take a look at this conversation. It may well be a over-optimistic, but I sense a possibility for rehabilitation may exist. Thanks. Haus^Talk 17:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I had been aware of the discussion at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#gCaptain.com and seen a couple posts at User talk:MER-C#Banning Of gCaptain, although I hadn't been following them closely; I hadn't realized until now the thread on your talk page too. My first thought is that the multiple threads needs to be consolidated, it's splintering into too many fragments and is seeming a bit like forum shopping.

Regardless of that, I'll take a look at the discussion that you linked to later today - I'm too busy in the real world at the moment, but should have time later tonight. --- Barek (talk) - 18:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks much. While I agree that the user has shot himself in the foot several times, for example your observation on forum shopping, etc... I think ignorantia juris may be a consideration here. Cheers. Haus^Talk 19:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Userpage Shield
		Technically it was my talk page, but thanks for reverting that troll's edit. The UtahraptorMy mistakes; I mean, er, contributions 03:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

^And thank you for cleaning up my talk page as well, dear Barek. :) Sincerely, Clementina talk 05:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)