User talk:IronDuke/Archive 5

Sandstein/Nableezy

Hi IronDuke. I would like to work on two things regarding what has happened to Nableezy. One is to file an appeal of Sandstein's decision which I will begin in my user space shortly. The second, concurrent to this, would be opening a User RfC on Sandstein regading his abuse of his admin powers. I have asked Gatoclass for some advice on how to proceed. I hope he responds soon. When I have drafts up in my user space, I will be contacting you for feedback. I hope you will co-sign both the appeal and the User RfC. Also, check out Nableezy's talk page to see what has happened most recently and why these steps are absolutely necessary. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 19:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Nableezy has decided to file an appeal at AE. Tiamut^talk 21:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. IronDuke 00:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. Heeded. Tiamut^talk 01:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Pretty amazing what pacifist Quakers can justify to themselves nowadays, eh? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

book

You ever read Joining the club: a history of Jews and Yale by Dan Oren? nableezy - 06:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't. Why do you ask? IronDuke 18:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The book popped into my head in another conversation, given your other interests thought it would make an interesting read. nableezy - 18:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I'm buried with work right now, but when I come up for air, I will take a look. IronDuke 18:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation with regard to Delicious carbuncle's claim of personal attacks

Hi, thanks for your suggestion. However you may be interested in taking some time to examine this search showing 106 ANI threads involving Delicious carbuncle. As this user has made a total of 14,000 WP edits, this is a remarkably high use of the ANI complaints process in some form or other. In comparison my count is 27 threads and I have made over 20,000 total edits. I would be up for mediation but I am not sure that DC would be a rational collaborator in such a process. Cheers Ash (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure those ANI threads are indicative of malfeasance on the part of DC. For example, I just improved my ANI count by one by posting in your thread, right? In any case, I see mediation as being vastly preferable to ANI (which is worse than useless and should probably be nuked from orbit). And in mediation, if DC were not able to conduct him/herself in a reasonable manner (and we're assuming DC will be reasonable, of course), that would simply strengthen your case. My 2 cents... Thanks for stopping by. IronDuke 16:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the ANI edit count is a coarse measure, it is indicative of heavy forum use for whatever reason. I will seriously consider the option if there are continued issues on either side. Cheers Ash (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is your English?

Hi ID, I wrote an article here, but you know my English, is not so great. If you have a time please do improve it. You are also welcome to add new Info. Best.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I see you started working on the article. May I please ask you to mind my hooks on DYK. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. This actually looks trickier than I thought. I should warn you, I may make some edits you don't like. Are you okay with that? IronDuke 23:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Nahum Shahaf

An article that you have been involved in editing, Nahum Shahaf, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nahum Shahaf. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ← George^talk 09:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: removing comments of banned user

Wikipedia policy is to leave other people's comments alone, except under the very particular circumstances listed at WP:TPO. Removing the comments of banned users is not listed here as a reason to alter someone else's comments, and frankly I don't see why it is necessary anyway. If the comments are violating a policy could you please point out which policy it is?

The reason I am restoring the comments is because I am following WP:TALK policy that advocates leaving people's comments alone unless absolutely necessary. Accusing me of "meatpuppeting" because I am trying to follow policy is odd and offensive.

"trust me when I tell you you don't want to become a part of it"? That sounds rather ominous. Factsontheground (talk) 12:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I hadn't seen that policy regarding reverting edits by banned users before, so apologies for reverting you.

However if the IP is a user evading a ban, then why don't you report him as a sockpuppet at WP:SPI so the issue can be resolved once and for all? Are you 100% sure that he is a banned user? Can I ask which banned user you suspect he is?

As to how I got to the page Munich (film), I have been reading many Mossad-related pages on Wikipedia in relation to the recent Dubai controversy, as I have contributed a fair amount to the Assassination of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh page. Nothing wrong with that, is there, I hope? Factsontheground (talk) 13:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Nahum Shahaf. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for stopping by. I appreciate your note, though I find it a little odd. I've already volunteered to an admin that I'm not going to remove the BLP vios from that talk page unless he agrees it's a problem. I'm also not sure why you're templating a long time user, rather than dropping and asking, "Hey, what's going on?" It's hard to have a dialogue with a template. IronDuke 12:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, everything I would have said is in the template. As a long time user, you should already be well aware of our policy on edit warring and refactoring talk page comments. I have never subscribed to the idea of WP:TEMPLAR, which is only an essay and is countered by WP:TTR. I made further remarks at the ANI thread on this issue, it's best to keep discussion of a single matter in a single place. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am indeed aware of policy, which is why I didn't need a template. A civil question would have more than sufficed. But I appreciate your replying, and have responded on ANI. IronDuke 22:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have posted on ANI, and seen no reply. I am taking that to mean that you have seen the error of your ways. I don't mean that in a combative sense, merely that, while you no doubt acted in good faith, you failed to take the time to understand the situation as it actually existed. No harm done, but I would appreciate your being a bit more circumspect in the future. Cheers. IronDuke 03:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Garlasco

Other than the claim of sockpuppetry, what's your concern with the edits being made by the IP to Marc Garlasco? Can you point me to where on the talk page the quote was deemed taken out of context or somesuch? —C.Fred (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi C. Usually I like to have these discussion on the relevant talk pages -- that way everyone can weigh in. Context is not the issue for me, lack of expertise is. See my comment here. IronDuke 01:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That was the part of the talk I was looking for! —C.Fred (talk) 01:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Typo.

Brewcrewer fixed a typo for you, but I had to revert as a violation of WP:TPO. Maybe go over to ANI and fix the typo yourself? (Dropping Brewcrewer some wikilove-thanks probably wouldn't hurt either.) ← George^talk 01:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a guideline, really, no need for reversion, is there? For the record, BC can fix my typos any old time he likes. IronDuke 01:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's so sweet. May I fix your content errors any time I like? nableezy - 02:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the verb you are looking for is "can," not "may." But by all means: Bring. It. IronDuke 02:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't care if other people fix my typos. Just wanted to avoid the possible wikidrama of having another editor edit your comments, in an AN/I case about you editing the comments of others. Anyways, glad he had your permission. Cheers. ← George^talk 02:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re Cloud Connection & Joe Stork

I deleted their comments because they were discussing another article and another users behaviour. That talk page is for discussing improvements to that article. If you want do discuss another article take it to that talkpage, if you wish to discuss another users behaviour go to their talk page. Would prefer that you could accept that it it can be deleted on grounds that it's drifting into personal attack. Thanx. Misarxist (talk) 04:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by "personal attack." I think the conversation was productive, and relates to related article. No good reason to delete it. Thanks for your understanding. IronDuke 23:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, IronDuke. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 01:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Jayjg ^(talk) 01:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JVL

Care to join in the conversation? How do you find JVL to be a RS? Unomi (talk) 02:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

stork

any problems? nableezy - 17:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have many, why do you ask? <Pause for laughter.> Seriously, it's mainly fine, though I think the bit about people at HRW being on one side most definitely applies specifically to JS, and I think we could quote it a bit, don't you? On a personal note, I'm going to be mad at you if you get yourself permanently banned from this topic area. Which I know will weigh heavily on your conscience. IronDuke 23:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think me being banned would be best for all involved. I think the part on HRW being on one side could be in here, but it belongs in the HRW article. This is still supposedly a bio of Stork, I dont see the point of a general criticism of HRW being included in that. nableezy - 05:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're right (about quote, not being banned -- that'd be good for you, maybe, not others...) IronDuke 20:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

I appreciate your comments at AN/I. I'm considering the best way to bring abusive admin actions to the attention of the community, especially because this is not my first questionable encounter with said admin. Anyway, don't mean to get you involved - just wanted to say thanks! Breein1007 (talk) 01:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I wish I had some sage advice to give you, but calling what you're proposing an uphill battle implies you can win it. Nevertheless, I wish you well in your endeavors, and will pitch in if I see something worth commenting on. IronDuke 01:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't have to put up with abuse on your talk page, I don't understand why they weren't blocked. Did you take it to ANI? Dougweller (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think I did IIRC. An admin did (lightly) admonish the offender, but s/he continued to post here. I've found that ANI is a good way to get a random result, which is why I did not post there, and probably wouldn't if it happened again. IronDuke 21:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last time this happened to me (someone told me to get lost from their talk page and then kept posting to mine even though I was deleting his post), I asked for some help at ANI as I was off to bed and despite his being a very experienced editor he was blocked for 48 hours. And I didn't find your reply snippy at all. Dougweller (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If it happens again, I may go ring you up. IronDuke 22:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I always enjoy reading your posts, and this was no exception. Nice work. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IronDuke 02:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

as it happens...

You can warn RR if you think there's a need, but if you do, please be as cool/neutral as pye about it. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I would never make such a warning in a case like this -- he would not take it well from me, and I wouldn't blame him for reacting negatively if I made the warning. It would fall to a neutral admin (you?) to do the honors. IronDuke 14:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I don't think a warning from me is called for here, I think (as you put it) "he got the message" and if he didn't, there are more eyes on this now, he will be warned if need be. So far as I can tell, most if not all of the admins watching this know both editors have been at least mildly untowards. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed cease-fire

Thank you for your message. It sounds like a reasonable plan. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much... IronDuke 23:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - in reply to your question per e-mail, the user may certainly abide by your ceasefire, which I think would be a good idea, but they may not "sign up" for it or otherwise edit pages related to that ceasefire as long as they are under a topic ban. Sandstein 04:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the reply. IronDuke 02:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lemrick Nelson.

Hi, just wanted you to know I've nominated your recent article, Lemrick Nelson, for DYK. Cheers! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, WW. Much appreciated. IronDuke 02:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just don't say "I told you so"

Please see the diffs from today at Leo Frank, 2:54 am to 11:38 am and my last note at the Talk page in "Appeals section," the last paragraph. If it turns out he did rewrite that quote, if he doesnt back it up, I think that's grounds for a restriction on editing this article. -- LaNaranja (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok, he backed it up, in a way. -- LaNaranja (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in a way. I commend you for your gentleness with him, it is more than I can muster. IronDuke 23:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP editing on Helen Thomas

While I concur that the IP editor isn't giving clear information on removal of sourced material and should be bringing his/her concerns to the talk page, I don't understand why you're chastising the person specifically for being an IP editor? Especially your last message, which said "please sign in." I thought that WP has a firm policy that says, as long as someone is editing in good faith (which I believe the IP is doing) that IP edits have the same validity as edits by confirmed users? Wouldn't it be better to revert strictly because it's a controversial change that needs discussing, rather than implying that the IP editor "isn't actually doing work?" Did I miss something? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You did, but it's my fault. There's an issue I'm having with certain IP's following me and reverting me. It's being looked at. IronDuke 23:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would presume this refers to me, but it's a little hard to tell from the dialogue. I am not following you around Wikipedia (God forbid!) and I have commented on no other page that you are on. My arguments for change are not motivated by a personal gripe with you; I put forward those arguments simply because I think the page needs improvement (as should be evidenced by the fact that I put forth those arguments long before you were on the page.If anyone is following anyone, it would be you following me).

Also, Qwyxirian, when you say that I am not giving clear information on removal of sourced material, in which case(s) was this? I certainly attempt to; my apologies to you if I have not been doing so. This may be the result of the fact that I am often writing my edit summaries in direct response to Ironduke, where there is a large history on the talk page. In either case, I shall try to do better.

But Ironduke is right that there are issues you are unaware of (though one of those issues is not, as you point out, that I am an IP editor). For your information, I will try to explain the history in an unbiased way:

When I first made a change to the Helen Thomas page, I failed to leave an explanation for the change in the edit summary. I was wrong and ignorant in this regard and I do apologise. I was, however, at pains to explain my decisions on the talk page, and had numerous discussions with other eds for a long time before I made such changes. When the discussion lapsed and there were no longer any objections being made, I made a change. However, as I was not directing people to the talk page in my edit summaries, Ironduke sent me a message that my edits were unhelpful. However, as he gave no specifics and did not raise any objections to me on the talk page, I levelled the same charge at him. This particular conversation deteriorated into an argument about authority, and whether or not Ironduke's authority was relevant in regards to editing the page (he took the pro view and I took the negative).

On the actual talk page, Ironduke asked for a summary of the various points I had made in support of the change, which I gave. After much back-and-forth, Ironduke came to the conclusion that I had nothing really of value to offer and ceased argument with me. He has since posted a few times, to argue again for this conclusion. His argument for his conclusion is essentially that I am not bringing in new reliable sources, and that I can thus have very little (if anything) to offer. In fact, given that I have so little to offer, he has had a lot of patience with me and given me far more time and attention than I deserve. But at this stage he is done with me.

I, on the other hand, think there is a place for discussion of proper procedure and proper application of sources in an NPOV manner. I think there is something to the claim that, if source A says x, and not p, one should not be allowed to source A to support p. Ironduke considers this 'philosophical nouse' (my term; but he's taken it, presumably in parody) and says such a contribution is of no value unless one is merely reporting that a reliable source makes this claim. And, if there is a source, the source must be specific to the case -- 'A' 'x' and 'p' have to specifically be the 'A' 'x' and 'p' in question; a generalisation that says all such arguments are invalid is of no consequence.

I objected to Ironduke that if we cannot discuss the proper application of reliable sources then one could simply apply reliable sources in a POV way and this would undermine the fundamental value of Wikepedia. I also think that Ironduke's criterion for the use of sources (that if wikipedia makes a mistake one must find a source that says this specific mistake ought to be corrected) is ludicrously strong and would cause no end of problems if adopted. I further think that his criterion for the use of sources is at odds with his suggestion that we should not give any credence to how sources are applied. Lastly, I think that Ironduke's abandonment of the argument while still reverting any changes I make amounts to an unacceptable belief in his own authority.

I would expect that all of the above is what Ironduke is referring to when he says that you've missed something that would cause/justify his comments about me as an IP user. I realise the above isn't entirely NPOV as I've given more time to my arguments than to Duke's, but that is partially because it's easier for me to frame my arguments; I perceive there to be more holes in what Duke says, so I've kind of got to work my words around those holes when I give Duke's argument. I realise I have failed. But I hope that Duke will agree that, for whatever other issues there are, the above is accurate -- obviously, he will disagree with my arguments, but that they are my arguments (which is all that I claim, or all that I mean to claim here) is hopefully not something in dispute. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 03:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Lemrick Nelson

Hello! Your submission of Lemrick Nelson at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Lemrick Nelson

On August 7, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lemrick Nelson, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

socking an exceptions

I am not welcome at a page you have commented on, but I would like to raise a question. You wrote that an IP who abandoned their account is violating SOCK. Nothing in that policy requires a person who had registered an account to log in for any edits they make on WP in the future. I think the IP should reveal what their prior account was unless there is some privacy issue, but he or she is certainly under no obligation to do so. The IP is not violating SOCK as far as I can tell. Could you tell me what in that policy leads you to say that he or she is violating SOCK? nableezy - 03:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sock policy. "The default position on Wikipedia is that editors who register should edit using one account only." This user has not made a claim to privacy, only that they were burdened by their watchlist. Not a good enough reason. IronDuke 03:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

account. An IP is not an account. I think we share the position that to edit here one should have to make an account, but that isnt the current policy. And I cant see what in the current policy says that if somebody abandons an account they may never return. nableezy - 03:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Oh come on, Nab... seriously? An IP still counts, trust me. You can't abandon your acount, then pop up on a dynamic, difficult to block IP range with multiple numbers, in controversial areas. Surely you can see the wisdom in this. IronDuke 03:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure you can return, but you should say what your old account was unless there is compelling reason not to. I see no reason. IronDuke 03:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see the wisdom in it, I just dont think the policy says it isnt allowed. I would be happy if every article were semi'd and IPs could only make comments on talk pages or even ig anonymous editing itself was not allowed. I think that for the most part IPs are users who are either a. banned or b. annoying trolls. That said, there are a number of IPs, maybe not so much in the topic area I spend most of time, that do good work. For one such example. Ceedjee, an editor that I *think* most of us on either "side" like and respect, scrambled the password to his account but still occasionally returns to edit as an IP. I dont see anything wrong with that, even if I didnt know the IP was Ceedjee. There are people who do not want this place to occupy such a big part of my time and decide that one of the ways to do that is to abandon having an account. The policy does not prohibit that. nableezy - 03:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Ceedjee and I have had some unpleasant dealings, so that's maybe not the best example for me. But that aside, he'll admit to using that account, right? This is the key: accountability (hey, look, I made a pun). The policy is clear in spirit (and pretty much in letter, too): do not use more than one account unless you really need to, and divulge those accounts (unless there is a RL issue). Since we don't have that, the IP doesn't have a leg to stand on, policy-wise. S/he must disclose any previous account(s) or desist. IronDuke 03:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I was not aware. Apparently I have not dug deep enough into your contributions. Ill make sure to remedy that. But yes, I think Ceedjee would answer if you asked what the account was. I dont know how you say the IP must disclose the prior accounts. WP:SOCK specifically says under acceptable uses the following:

Clean start under a new name: If you decide to make a fresh start and do not wish to be connected to a previous account, you can simply discontinue the old account(s) and create a new one that becomes the only account you use. Discontinuing the old account means it will not be used again; it should note on its user page that it is inactive—for example, with the {{retired}} tag—to prevent the switch being seen as an attempt to sock puppet. A clean start is permitted only if there are no active bans, blocks or sanctions in place against your old account.
You are not obliged to reveal previous accounts; however, it is strongly recommended that you inform the Arbitration Committee (in strictest confidence if you wish) of the existence of a previous account or accounts prior to seeking out adminship or similar functionary positions. Failure to do so may be considered deceptive, and as such be poorly received by the Wikipedia community.

If the IP actually did abandon the account then they are not obligated to reveal what that account was, at least under the policy as it stands. nableezy - 03:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It also says

"Alternative accounts should not be used to avoid scrutiny; mislead or deceive other editors; edit project discussions (e.g. policy debates and Arbitration proceedings); make disruptive edits with one account and normal edits with another; distort consensus; stir up controversy; or circumvent sanctions or policy."

This user has been. If s/he wants to email arbcom, tell them the account name, have a checkuser run/make an edit with the old account, and arbcom signs off on it, you'll hear no more from me about it. But right now, the only reason being advanced for concealing the identity of the master account is whim. And I do not accept that, and neither should you. Surely you've had some experience scraping off IP's that pop up out of nowhere to plague you or someone you respect -- does that make this place more fun for you? Help Wikipedia? I don't know why you're backing these disruptive IP's. Better uses of your time abound. IronDuke 04:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I wasnt clear enough. I think the IP should reveal the account. I also think it would be better if IP editing were disallowed. But the bit about informing ArbCom was if the account wishes to seek "out adminship or similar functionary positions". The part you are quoting is about simultaneous use, and if the abandoned account really is years old a checkuser would be useless. An IP cant control the length of their DHCP lease so I dont think you can argue that they are intentionally using multiple IPs. I am not backing "disruptive IPs", in fact I have no idea if that IP has been disruptive as I havent looked at any of the edits being discussed. Better uses are surely around, including leaving this place, but you should know by now I like to win. Even more than that, I like to see you lose. But, back to my serious tone, strictly as an argument dealing with a hypothetical user instead of this particular IP, I dont think IPs who had edited with an account but have abandoned that account are required to reveal their prior accounts. Again, I think they should, but I dont think they have to under current policy. nableezy - 04:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think policy would demand that you reveal it without pressing reason not to, especially when you are going into controversial areas. In fact, I think that last part is key. Tempers flare already there, the last thing that’s needed is people who may well be banned, or using bad hand accounts, stirring the pot. Best to take a harder line than you are advocating. What’s gained is vastly more important than what is lost. I'll also add that it would be nice to see you mention to some of these IP's you defend that you think they're wrong. Have you? IronDuke 23:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dont disagree on what is "best", or rather "better", I just dont think the policy as it stands takes the line you, or I, would like it to take. I dont believe I have actually defended any IPs and I have no interest in stepping into any more disputes, either to defend or castigate some user/IP, I seem to find plenty on my own. Like I said, I dont know which article or talk page this specific IP was editing nor do I have any intention on looking to see what the actual dispute is about. I just wanted to discuss with you the specific point on whether or not the policy requires revealing abandoned accounts. nableezy - 23:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. IIRC, there was an IP you defended on Marc Garlasco, who was not making good contributions, I thought. But to your larger point, I think WP policy almost always follows practice. Thus, blocks are preventative, not punitive, per policy, yet almost every block on an established user is punitive. WP is not the news, and yet we have a link to current events prominently on our front page. So, I have very low tolerance for disruptive IP's who have clearly edited here under another account, and I think I'm within the letter of policy there -- I know I'm within the spirit of it, and even if I were still wrong on all that, let us therefore both strive to make this policy, by our actions if nothing else. IronDuke 00:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think that is a fair description of the events at that page. An editor using a dynamic IP, all in the same range on the same ISP in the same geographic area, had their edits reverted, by your good self among others, with edit summaries that pretty much just said "rv IP" or "obvious sock". I objected to that. Do you know how many times I think somebody is an "obvious sock"? But I dont just revert their edits, I open an SPI and wait for them to be blocked, then I revert their edits. What I wrote then was (you made m go to the archives, memory too foggy to be of any use):

No, IronDuke is flat wrong. There is absolutely no requirement to register an account and while that may not be wise as it stands now you should not be discounting a user because they use an IP address. And many users have no control over their current IP address so your problems with using multiple IPs are unfounded. If the user says they are the same actual person their is no issue. They cant use multiple IPs to evade rules on edit-warring, but you cannot continue treating the IP editor as somehow less of an editor here. The reversions because it is an IP need to stop.

and:

ID, if you have evidence that this is either a banned or topic-banned user present it in the appropriate venue.

Eventually one account was blocked as a sock, but that does not make all the reversion that came prior to the blocking proper. I really have not gone through all your conflicts, Ive only really dug into I-P articles, so I dont know much, or rather anything, about Gnetwerker and any history, and if it appeared that I was "supporting" somebody who has socked to harass you I apologize. That was not my intention. My point, then and now, is that if you think somebody is a sock, or even if you know that somebody is a sock, you should open an SPI or contact some admin another way. What you should not do is revert any edit they make, at least until the sock is blocked. As my man Omar said, there are rules to this here game. One of those is IPs can edit. If you would like to propose a ban on IP editing I will gladly vote yes, and I dont even believe in voting. But until that becomes the policy of this website I dont think we can make such demands from an IP as requiring them to create an account or reveal abandoned accounts. nableezy - 01:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize, though it's appreciated. But gnetwerker's a good case in point: he used multiple IP's, then sucked in good faith editors like yourself (and some not so good faith editors) to harass me. That's part of why I take a bit of a jaundiced view. And that particular situation is too complicated for me to simply file a CU. And even when it's not related to me, it's not as though you can simply go to CU and say "hey, user xxx.yyy.zzz might be a sock." Even when it's obvious. So, I use the duck test. If I didn't, if we didn't, we could easily be overwhelmed and derailed by trolls. It's bad enough already. So let's not vote, let's just act. Yeah? IronDuke 02:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPA on an article talk page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Resolved

– User:Cla68 has been meatpuppeting for banned users User:gnetwerker and User:Herschelkrustofsky. He has been/will be spoken to about this, and it is my expectation that there will be no further harassment from him on this or any other issue.

[1] If I remember correctly, you've been editing Wikipedia for some time now. If so, you should know already that you aren't allowed to personalize content disputes or attack other editors on article talk pages. Reserve those comments for the dispute resolution process, which begins and ends on the editor's talk page, but still adhere to WP:NPA. I've noticed that when it comes to that topic area, you often seem to let your emotions get the better of you. Perhaps you might consider giving up editing that topic for awhile, like say six months? Cla68 (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you think I should have handled it? IronDuke 23:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, let's belay that last question for a moment. How did you happen upon this article, and my participation in it? Thanks. IronDuke 23:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a talk page stalker, I'm mighty curious about the potential answers, especially to the latter question. As far as I know, the only two places the Leo Frank case are currently discussed are Wikipedia and forums where the subjects tend to revolve around conspiracy theories, white supremacy, etc. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the latter may well be the case. It would be good -- indeed, essential -- for Cla68 to shed some further light. IronDuke 03:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To question my motives for warning you about it is more of the same attitude, IMO, you were expressing in that NPA. You too Brewcrew, to mention "white supremecy forums" and then ask how I knew about the article is dirty pool. Don't do it. Again, you both should know better. The way you should have handled it? You should have taken up the issue with the editor on his/her talk page, with direct language, but wording that addressed the behavior you found fault with. I'll cross-post this to Brewcrewer's talk page so it can serve as a warning to him/her also. Cla68 (talk) 04:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no: that won't approach good enough. I say again, how did you come to be interested in this particular topic? A straight answer, please. IronDuke 04:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'm going to take your refusal/silence on this subject as an admission that you are (possibly very much) in the wrong here. I have no desire to prolong this interaction so, going forward, I'm going to overlook this post of yours, and what may have prompted it, with the expectation that you will not come calling at my talk page, or follow me to pages you have no obvious interest in. I will take your continued silence as consent. IronDuke 16:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IronDuke, I think that this behavior on the part of Cla68 may be a disruptive pattern. I've started a thread on his talk page that you may want to contribute to? Although if you don't wish to possibly stir up more trouble with this editor, it is perfectly understood. Regards, Bill Huffman (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bill, thanks very much for the offer. I think, at this point, that Cla68 understands what he did was wrong or, failing that, extremely unwise, and has moved on. I wouldn't want to tempt him to pursue me further, but I wish you luck, and thanks again. IronDuke 19:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Cla68 says here [2] that you were lucky not to have been banned in an arbcom case. I looked at it and it doesn't even appear that you were involved in the case? Bill Huffman (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is an odd contention for him to have made, to say the least. I was not a party, nor did I edit in the topic area the parties were brought up on. I did comment on the case in workshop, I felt the atmosphere was getting poisonous and unhelpful, and I feared we'd lose some of our best editors on both sides of the debate -- in that I was proved right. I think Cla68 may be still be upset that I disagreed with him... I'm actually more or less mystified. IronDuke 16:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I too am mystified why Cla68 makes false accusations against others, especially when they are so easily shown to be false! Bill Huffman (talk) 21:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

welcome

back. happy to see your mother came up with the bail money ;) --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. Quick post... were you hovering over my page, anxiously awaiting my return? IronDuke 23:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was. Am. Is. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to know people noticed I was gone. IronDuke 17:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions to PhilKnight

Each voter is allowed to ask one question up to 75 words long. You asked two questions, too long. Rather than refactor your questions or separate them, I moved both intact to the talk page. Feel free to post a single 75 word question to the question page, even if it is redundant with one you've already asked. Phil can copy and paste his answer if he likes. You may want to point him to this comment if you do that. Jehochman ^Talk 09:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asking me to refactor would have been sufficient, rather than deleting my question wholesale. IronDuke 02:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed section

Since the section "NPA on an article talk page" does read like a personal attack to me, or presumably to anyone at all that doesn't have context, I've removed it. I've also written ArbCom as you suggest. If they answer in a way that suggests that your section should be allowed to remain, I'll gladly restore it. Otherwise I suggest you leave it removed until the matter is resolved. Thanks for your understanding and cooperation as we endeavor to keep this a civil and friendly environment. ++Lar: t/c 14:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS, write me if you would like me to forward you a copy of what I sent to ArbCom for your records. ++Lar: t/c 15:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]