User talk:Dronkle/Archives/2010/September

Jewish Internet Defense Force

Peter

The JIDF are not an organisation I agree with. They are not an organisation you agree with. They are, unfortunately, an organisation some living people are members of, with the crucial words there being living people. Comments like this, this and this are completely unacceptable. Libeling a subject, outing a subject and being repeatedly rude to and about a subject is not acceptable. We have received OTRS complaints about this, and you can consider this your main warning - next time it's an ANI thread seeking to have you thrown off the damn article completely. Understood? Ironholds (talk) 05:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

"why people keep rejecting your rfas" aww, is ickle petey annoyed I was wude to him?    ^{←   ZScarpia   14:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)} Look, the other user's behaviour does not excuse your own; "but mum, he started it!" is something I expect to hear from a five year old, not a long term editor with more letters in his postnominals than his name. Ironholds (talk) 10:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I was alerted to this discussion, and must echo Ironholds' sentiments. Your comments are doing nothing to aid the situation; they are only making it worse. I strongly suggest you cease interaction with this person altogether. The fact that the subject is engaging in disruptive editing gives you absolutely no excuse to engage them like you currently are doing. Please stop, or pass the issue onto another board, like WP:SPI or WP:AN. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 10:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• And for reference, you couldn't hit a raw nerve on me if you tried :P. Indeed, the reason for my highly patronising tone there was that to come at me with "OMG THIS IS WHY YOU FAIL RFAS" in response to a message which was neither 1) overly uncivil or 2) related to CSD in any way, shape or form (the two things which cripple my RfAs) I've obviously hit a nerve on you. Maybe when you recover you'll note the admin endorsing my warning above and consider not throwing civility out of the window when you get rid of AGF. Ironholds (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

In the case of obnoxious. pov-pushing, coi-ignoring, self-promoting trolls who have been using sockpuppets to disrupt Wikipedia for years then WP:IAR trumps WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Said troll is about to be community banned anyway which makes dealing with him ans his sock and meat puppets a lot easier.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Peter, you are absolutely wrong. WP:IAR does not justify your vicious personal attacks. This behavior is completely unacceptable for Wikipedia. Stop it immediately.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Peter, I've replied to your question at User talk:EdJohnston#My language about Einsteindonut on ANI and elsewhere. WP:IAR is not a justification in this case. The threat against Wikipedia by the apparent socks who support the JIDF is no more credible now that it was before. You are adding fuel to their quest for drama, and run the risk of being blocked yourself. Please remove the comment you left at ANI that was cited below by Off2riorob. EdJohnston (talk) 17:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful if everybody rushing to come down like a ton of bricks on an editor who has almost no record of exasperation over the years, for a momentary lapse, would, after rapping him or her over the knuckles, step back and wonder what occasioned the outburst, and start to consider why people who endeavour to represent a global and balanced perspective on a critically difficult area of this encyclopedia find themselves dragged into edit-conflicts, dealing with obvious sockpuppets, meatpuppets, and nationalist activists, with almost no support by outside editors to relieve them of the burden of trying to maintain minimal standards of decency, fairness, and NPOV. The area has several dozen activists, doing their job for one side (no objection to that of course), and only a handful of editors stepping in to see that the systemic bias does not get totally out of hand. In several recent cases, any attempt to identify socks and gaming has only appears to be met with extended discussion drifting to inconclusiveness and an administrative stepback from an obvious sanction: or worse still, a courtesy of the benefit of the doubt to the disruptive, while the original plaintiffs, who are effectively working singly get a warning, or an innuendo to the effect that they are not behaving properly. Either police that area more effectively, or change the rules so that it can be edited by people who have a proven record of article building in non-controversial areas, before they are allowed to venture into sections of the encyclopedia that are a total fucking mess of strategic gaming and poorly written rubbish. I can understand the general, and often expressed reluctance by administrators to get involved, who steer clear of these areas because adjudicating there is tiresome to the point of hopelessness, and the best are invariably subjected to taunts of partiality. But as it is, there is a certain dereliction of oversight that only favours poor editors with almost no knowledge of what they are editing, but a huge passion for ensuring their favourite activist website links get into articles. Peter lost it for a moment. You have time to tell him that. Well, spend some more time looking at what he has to cope with, and either ensure that good editors are given support for sensible edits, or change the rules so that good editors from all sides can work with more efficiency and respect for each other than is otherwise the case.Nishidani (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Peter, I just saw all this stuff about the Jewish Internet Defense League. It's hard to follow what's what, but if you need any help, please don't hesitate to ask. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

A quick note of support as well, FWIW. Some at the ANI debate seem to be falling for the "hey, let's give him a chance" line. Maybe that is fair and noble in general terms, but knowing at least a little more of the history on this than most of those offering to be reasonable, I'm not sure. And I guess I know way less than you do. Unfortunately people who just take a casual glance - including our dear leader - just see one person being seemingly polite and measured, and one person snapping briefly and leap to conclusions. N-HH talk/edits 17:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record 1.

Just for the record 2

As you know, this won't be the end of it, but I think you can rely on wikipedians, certainly after this, to act more preemptively. It's painful to foresee things so clearly, but to fish for, provoke, and then exploit overreactions was precisely the man's gameplan here, and it's best just to keep a cool head. I'm sure the understandable outburst that got you a rap off the knuckles in the preceding section will be read more empathetically, in the hindsight of what then happened. Regards Nishidani (talk) 12:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I wonder if you could clarify this for me. Where and how? If you prefer to do it by email feel free. Obviously this is a serious issue. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 17:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The following series of Tweets are the evidence.

Just an FYI: Anyone who actively tries to endanger me or anyone close to me, endangers themselves and anyone close to them. 5:44 PM Aug 26th via web

If I wasn't me, I wouldn't want to mess with me... You never know when a guy like me might just snap :) 5:46 PM Aug 26th via web

anyway, i haven't been back to the UK since '93. i broke the rules then, too. was kicked out of my hotel. the memories. 5:46 PM Aug 26th via web

The Clash - London Calling ♫ http://blip.fm/~vdorv 5:51 PM Aug 26th via Blip.fm

"When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose..." ♫ http://blip.fm/~vevip 12:39 PM Aug 27th via Blip.fm

mention

I have mentioned your edit on Jimmy's talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 14:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

OTRS again

An additional warning, again based on OTRS. It is absolutely clear who you're talking about here. Suggesting that reliable sources be created, influenced or swayed so that you can include information in an article is unprofessional, inappropriate and blockable. Ironholds (talk) 23:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries

Go well.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Would you take a look at this?

Regarding this Afd, I thought I would look to you for advice. I have also left messages on Crotalus's and Xymmax's talk pages.

Before the page was deleted, Smatprt (talk · contribs) copied the page and saved in on his talk page. He then, under the guise of creating another draft of the Shakespeare authorship question (as per the directive stemming from this decision, into the draft pasted part of the Oxfordian article that contained similar information.

He then created a new article in the mainspace, Oxfordian Theory - Parallels with Shakespeare's Plays, with the edit summary of "forking play portion from draft3, adding in mainstream dismissal to opening para and several lead graphs to maintain NPOV". However, a comparison with his archived copy of the deleted article shows that it was not forked from the talk page draft, but pasted almost verbatim from his archived version.

His action comes at a particularly inopportune time, since we are supposedly engaged in mediation about the SAQ. I posted a protest on his talk page, giving my reasons and asking him to comply with the AfD result, which he deleted as a "personal attack".

Can you advise me on what I should do, if anything? I had hoped the mediation would solve our differences, but it has yet to come about and I now wonder if it will. I realise this is a tedious subject for most people, but any advice you can offer I would appreciate. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Wagner GA

Huzza!!--Smerus (talk) 11:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thoroughly merited. I enjoyed reviewing it for GA and expect to see it at FA in due course. I forgot to say (as GA reviewers are meant to do) that you might yourself consider reviewing another GA candidate. Also – on a purely selfish level – I have Gabriel Fauré at peer review here, and if you or Smerus would like to comment, it would be most welcome. All the best – Tim riley (talk) 13:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Peter, looking at Tim Riley's Fauré discussion, I see we could have problems at PR or FA validating some of the images in the Wagner article - I am completely out of my depth in this swimming pool, how would we go about it? E.g.the postcard photo of Wagner's birthpace was taken about 1885 - so the photographer could I suppose have been born around 1860 and died after 1940 (i.e. within 70 years) - does that make it doubtful? Best, --Smerus (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I guess the postcard should be OK as it's 97 years after publication, but perhpas better to ask. At the last resort there is a photo of my own on Commons File:Wagnerposterbruhl.JPG which shows the site of the house and the annoncement of an intended memorial there. I have had some fun with Gesamtkunstwerk tracking down where exactly Wagner used it - the authorities don't seem to be in agreenent. --Smerus (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Wagner/Wikipedia 0.8

Peter, I 100% agree with you but regrettably given the timescale I don't think I will be able to contribute much to the clean-up. (I am pillar-to-post from now to end October). However you should certainly I think make these views known to the 0.8 page, perhaps tidying up and nominating Siegfried. Best regards ---Smerus (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)