Archives

2016 - Q4 • Q3 • Q2 • Q1 2015 • 2014 2013 - Q4 • Q3 • Q2 • Q1 2012 - Q4 • Q3 • Q2 • Q1 2011 - Q4 • Q3 • Q2 • Q1 2010 - Q4 • Q3 • Q2 • Q1 2009 • 2008 • 2007

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Can you revoke User:JohnLloydScharf's talk page access? He's just using it to continue to argue the thing he got banned for. --Tarage (talk) 01:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I'll just ask another admin to do it. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 02:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. If we see any more of it, I think it will be time to seek a site ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per this edit for StanTheMan87 - thanks Boing -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 12:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done by the wonderful BethNaught, thank you anyways -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 12:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Considering Profile101 has been using IPs to personally attack editors who have been involved with them, and what with their edits containing more aggressive language as time goes on, would it be a good idea to propose a community ban, or set up a long term abuser page? I decided to ask you for advice, as you are familiar with this user's behaviour. Thanks, --Zero^talk 13:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I generally don't think it's worth doing any of that - it takes up people's time, gives the vandal recognition, and achieves nothing practical. My view is that just reverting and blocking each IP as they appear is as effective as anything. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - thanks for your input. :-) --Zero^talk 14:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Revert and DENY; path of least community resources and recognition. Anything other than a gray response could give him a sense of prestige. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Anna Frodesiak - definitely the best thing to do. --Zero^talk 07:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I am wondering why article about Teo Boban was not deleted. I am the author and creator of the article and Teo Boban, who is my brother, asked me if I can delete that page. The page was created out of joke and I am shocked that it is still online after more than a year. I am also surprised that everybody can put inaccurate informations on wikipedia without getting deleted in a few days, it is very unprofessional. There is no reason for Teo Boban to have a wikipedia page because he is NOT famous person and majority of information were made up, inaccurate and without any resources. Please delete this page, if you are not able to do that please advise me on what to do next in order to delete it. I really didn't know that it's this hard to delete fake page from wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafael fernandez3624 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The reason it was not deleted is that you had simply tagged it as a request to delete by the author (WP:G7), and that is not applicable for an article that's a year old and has had other editors working on it. If you had tagged it with WP:G3 (hoax) or actually made it clear on the talk page that the article was a fake, then it would have been deleted promptly. Now that you have confessed, I have deleted the article. Please don't do anything like that again. (As for fake articles remaining for a long time, that's one of the big risks of an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit" and it's a major concern that a lot of us share - but the Wikimedia Foundation won't have it any other way.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Request unblock of Martinevans123. Thank you. (don't worry, you're not in trouble) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:28, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others"

I was respectful in my disagreement with MjolnirPants and he ordered my to believe and obey rather than question and dispute.

You are wrong to call my statement about MjolnirPants a "personal attack" rather than an accusation. I stand by my accusation.

I am the one who attempted respectful discourse; MjolnirPants wouldn't tolerate that. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm stunned that you really appear to believe that your hyperbolic approach to MjolnirPants was respectful. You can be sure that if I see what I judge to be a breach of Wikipedia:ADMINCOND from you again, there will be action taken. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the ANI disscussion I seen eariler. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 18:53, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse BSZ's actions here. Begoon ^talk 19:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You accused me of a personal attack against another user.

I did not "personally attack" that user; rather I accused that user of abusive behavior and in particular of bullying. I stand by my accusation.

If my accusation of abusive behavior and in particular of bullying is a "personal attack", then why is your accusation against me not likewise a "personal attack". Is there such a thing as _accusing_ without _personally attacking_ when you are the one who does it, but not when I am the one who does it?

I insist on honesty in this: I have as much right as you to assert a truthful accusation when that is necessary to defend myself. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]