Chidel

Right to privacy under English common law

Hello. I'd be interested to know what earlier cases are authority for the statement that there is no common law right to privacy in English law? Francium12 (talk) 21:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The case itself says, "It is well-known that in English law there is no right to privacy, and accordingly there is no right of action for breach of a person’s privacy." Chidel (talk) 22:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

How about "the case is the leading authority for the statment". I study law and you NEVER cite ancient cases unless engaging in judicial activism. See Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd Francium12 (talk) 22:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Scary. Chidel (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Douglas v Hello!

You might wish to consider withdrawing the nomination of Douglas v Hello! for deletion, now the article has been expanded a little :-) Francium12 (talk) 12:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

why?

Do we have some past I don't know about? It seems you have been saying some harsh things and digging into the past on me with some sort of vendetta. I know we disagree on certain things but why the acidity? I see you are new to wikipedia but people disagree around here all the time without getting upset. I assure you I'm not upset... just trying to make a better article, that's all. I will stand my ground but if I said something to make you upset I do apologize. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you even trying to be civil? You have reverted pretty much the same things I have, though you have one other person on your side of the issue, yet you post two warning items on my talk page like I'm the only one. I'll talk to a mediator and see if maybe he can help us out here but I still don't know where all this animosity is coming from. You also seem to have a good working knowledge of wiki for only being a member here since June. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Ownership

No need to get testy. Re-read Wikipedia:Consensus : "When two or more editors cannot reach an agreement by editing, consensus is sought on article talk pages". As User:Chrishomingtang told you, in the case of a GA, FA of FL reviews, "it is conventional for reviewers to list issues [on the review page], so that the nominators can try to deal with them." You should go through the featured list candidates page to see how the process works. Continuing to make major edits (including the removal of sources) while ignoring the review and/or refusing to take part in reviews or discussions as you did is counter-productive. Now, since you refuse to follow conventions and list your issues with the article on the review, I'll try to address your edit summaries, but we will get nowhere, and certainly won't be able to improve the article unless you accept to participate in a regular review/discussion process. --Don Lope (talk) 11:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The FL review process does not explain your knee-jerk reversions of the article that is not a featured candidate. And aside from that, please show me the policy that prohibits normal editing of an article that is a featured candidate. Chidel (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Featured list candidates. Nominators are supposed to modify the article in response to reviewers. Now how can a review progress if the candidate list/article keeps being modified by editors who don't participate to the review ? As for the USO article, you made some edits I didn't agree with and I reverted them writing "these changes should be discussed". I probably shouldn't have made the revert and just ask for the discussion, but then you probably shouldn't have edited the page again as you knew I had asked for a discussion. The page will be at FLC sometime soon, and if you want we'll discuss it there. For the moment I have addressed your edits at the Wimbledon review. --Don Lope (talk) 20:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I have done absolutely nothing wrong. And as I suspected, there is no rule prohibiting the editing of an article that has been nominated for featured status. If you don't like the absence of such a rule, then maybe you should suggest one at the appropriate forum. Declaring that "I intend in the near future to nominate such-and-such article for featured status" does not entitle you to revert every edit made to the article, before the nomination or after. Chidel (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not a matter of having a rule or not. If an FLC is being modified by editors who ignore the review, it becomes disruptive for that review, because suddenly the reviewers and nominators who were working on a particular version of the page, sometimes studying the text word by word, find themselves with a completely different version. Do you understand that ? --Don Lope (talk) 20:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course I understand the problem for articles that have actually been nominated for featured status. But you'll just have to live with it. Nominating an article does not entitle you to exercise ownership over it or revert any and all edits made to it. Do you understand that? If not, maybe we should move this discussion to WP:AN or another appropriate forum. Chidel (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it. I'll have to live with what ? If it's with the fact anybody can make any edit I have no problem with that. I said I was wrong to revert you on the US Open article (which was by the way at FLC during your first edit), and I was probably wrong to do it too on the Wimbledon article, even though I was just trying to have a stable page during the review. My only problem was with the fact you kept ignoring the calls for discussion, despite being asked to join the review several times before you actually did it. And why are you threatening me of WP:AN suddenly ? Can't we have a civil discussion ? --Don Lope (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Stop exercising ownership of articles and stop knee jerk reverting my edits. Reinstate my edits to the US Open article, which you admit should not have been reverted. Then, we can have a productive and loving relationship. Chidel (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Come on, one message you threaten me, the next you tell me what to do ? Seriously : I admit my mistakes (I should have contacted you directly instead of reverting your edits), but you haven't been exactly cooperative when it comes to discussing major changes. Do what you want with the USO article - but since we still disagree on the nature of the changes we have to open a discussion on the talk page too. I'll address your comments on The Championships' review later. --Don Lope (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep up the Good Work

User Fyunclick's edits are contrary to the outside sources...sources such as ESPN, the World Almanac, the Encyclopedia Britannica, and the Roland Garros website all list the French pre-1925 champions. Fyunclick has gone so far as to claim the tournament started in 1925, and blanked the pre-1925 champions. Don't be discouraged by his bad behavior...continue to report it and note why what he is doing is contrary to Wikipedia, which requires that articles reflect pluralistic points of view and mutliple, major independent sources. Fyunclick is clearly wrong, yet has shown no inclination to compromise, admit mistakes, or the like. Thus, is it up to others to point out his behavior, which in the long term damages not just Wikipedia but the education of those who use it.Ryoung122 00:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Who are you?

Hello. You are suspected of being USer:Tennis expert returned. Do you care to confirm or deny this? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Really doesn't matter. This account is useless because it is blocked indefinitely in violation of policy by YellowMonkey at the instigation (through a private e-mail) of The Rambling Man. The Wikimedia ombudsman has been contacted about this, and we'll see what happens. Best wishes. Chidel (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

A curious answer. Were you not TE, I'd expect you to say "who?" William M. Connolley (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for not meeting your expectations. But this discussion is useless so long as this account remains useless. Chidel (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Chidel (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

1) The blocking administrator, YellowMonkey, blocked my account without providing notice (prior or after the fact) of any kind, in violation of the Wikipedia blocking policy. 2) The block was for allegedly using open proxies. However, the Wikipedia policy on this subject specifically says, "Open or anonymising proxies ... may be blocked from editing for any period at any time. While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked. No restrictions are placed on reading Wikipedia through an open or anonymous proxy." Only an IP account that was confirmed to have been an open proxy should have been blocked, not my registered account. 3) None of my edits have been disruptive or have even been alleged to be disruptive. And no sockpuppeting has occurred, as administrator The Rambling Man [conceded on 27 July on Fyunck(click)'s discussion page]: "Well, as far as I know, and having discussed the matter privately with a couple of 'crats and Arbcom members, and as a result of some investigations (including direct contact with him) we are pretty sure that this isn't Tennis expert. ... It may be worth talking it over with User:John Vandenberg if you still have serious concerns." 4) This issue has been discussed on ANI (among other places), where The Rambling Man specifically suggested that I request an unblock here. Please refer to that discussion. Thanks! Chidel (talk) 03:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This does not deal substantively with the reason for the block, which is that this account appears, quite clearly, to be a a secondary account which does not conform to the rules for such accounts. This is true regardless of the actual activity by this account. Also, wikipedia is not legal proceedings and you aren't going to get off the hook simply because the blocking administrator didn't jump through some hoop. I find no compelling reason to unblock you, because you have not addressed the reason you were blocked. Jayron32 05:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I won't decline this while the ANI discussion is ongoing, however I will note:

1. Warning is not a prerequisite for blocking, particularly in cases of sockpuppetry (which is noted in the block policy, in the "Education and Warnings" section)
2. Open proxies may be used for reading, yes, however for security reasons open proxies are hard-blocked on sight, and users may not edit while connected through an open proxy. That's why the word "reading" is italicized there; that's the only allowed use of open proxies on Wikimedia projects. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about a "warning". I said "notice". As you will see, there is not now and never has been a blocking notice on this discussion page, which specifically violates the Wikipedia blocking policy. As for open proxies, the Wikipedia policy does not say that open proxies may be used only for "reading". In fact, the policy specifically says "may be used" without qualification, and certainly editing is a "use". The reference to "reading" is there simply to say that there is never a prohibition against using open proxies to read articles. Finally, the policy says nothing about blocking a registered user for using an open proxy. If you believe your interpretations to be correct, perhaps you should pursue an amendment of the policy to reflect your views. Regards. Chidel (talk) 05:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Chidel (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Now the basis for the block has shifted/changed, I see. This is a primary account. This is not a secondary account. As I quoted earlier, The Rambling Man [said on 27 July on Fyunck(click)'s discussion page]: "Well, as far as I know, and having discussed the matter privately with a couple of 'crats and Arbcom members, and as a result of some investigations (including direct contact with him) we are pretty sure that this isn't Tennis expert. ... It may be worth talking it over with User:John Vandenberg if you still have serious concerns." Please unblock. Chidel (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You're blocked for your use of open proxies, and there's no cause at all to unblock, Tennis Expert or Mickey Mouse or whoever. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

It should be noted that not being Tennis Expert does not mean that you are not using multiple accounts and/or IP addresses in an abusive manner. You are currently running through a plethora of open proxy IPs in an attempt to dodge this block, as evidenced by this discussion at WP:ANI. That seems to be the exact reason you were blocked in the first place, as the block log states that your block was for "sock on open proxies", i.e. the use of open proxies to violate WP:SOCK. That you, as of 22:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC) on the IP 89.108.146.125 were still doing this does not bode well for getting yourself unblocked. --Jayron32 04:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Chidel (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

It should be noted that the block was in violation of policy from the very beginning. There is no policy that prohibits a registered user from using an open proxy. Nor is there a policy that allows a registered user to be blocked for using an open proxy. Finally, there is no evidence whatsoever of socking. So, all the varying excuses (yes, they vary all over the place) given for initiating the block and then declining to unblock make no sense whatsoever. When the next administrator acts, please first read the ANI thread cited in my initial unblock request and applicable policies and then cite a relevant policy in your decision. Chidel (talk) 02:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Per comment below. Three unblock requests used up; page to be protected now. — Daniel Case (talk) 04:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Actually, there is a policy that prevents registerred users from using open proxies. See Wikipedia:Open proxies, "When a Checkuser detects that an account has been using open proxies, this information may be considered when evaluating suspicions of sock puppetry or other editing abuses. If there is an appearance that an account has been using open proxies to circumvent policy, the account may be blocked." When you make a claim about not being part of policy, you should probably actually read the policy in question. Toodles! --Jayron32 02:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)