User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2008/09

Block of User:JAF1970

I received email from him claiming he was still blocked. His email to me was timestamped 0451 UTC so a 24 hours block at 04:13, 1 September 2008 should have ended. Any idea what's going on here? DMacks (talk) 15:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They were autoblocked (see Special:IPBlockList), I've cleared the autoblocks. –xeno (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Wikipedia

Hey, I noticed your comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Persistent proposals#Proposal: Move the main page to Portal:Wikipedia and replied to it, but I don't know if you saw the message, or just didn't reply because I was rather harsh...could you take a look at least, and let me know what you think? Thanks. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 01:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to watch it, that's why. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK update

Hi again King of Hearts. I noticed you were online, and I was wondering if you have any experience with updating DYK. Meaning, moving the hooks from T:DYK/N to T:DYK. If you can do that, I can handle the rest of the updating (talk page credits, user talk page credits, archiving, ect). Its about an hours and 30 mon. delayed. Any help would be appreciated. If you can't, or if you have no experience updating it, then that's fine, I'll try to find another admin to do it. -- RyRy (talk) 05:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, User:Gatoclass has it done. :-) Thanks anyway. But for future reference, do you know or have any experience with updating DYK? -- RyRy Public (talk) 06:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I could handle these updates, though I don't do so often. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback request.

Hi there. I've been around for a few months now, and dealing with vandals would be much simpler with the rollback feature (undoing multiple edits is a pain and a half). I was wondering if you would grant me the ability? I would be happy to answer any questions you have, of course. (I picked you randomly from the category of admins who are happy to consider such requests). Prince of Canada^{t | c} 06:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Enjoy! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you muchly! Prince of Canada^{t | c} 05:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battery PR

Hello, I've left comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Battery (electricity)/archive2. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll try to work on them. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block of Scjessey

This[1] looks like a mistake in response to a bad faith 3RR report. The editor you blocked, User:Scjessey, was doing run-of-the-mill article patrol work on Barack Obama and although he technically did make four edits to the article in question they were to three different parts of the article, and all were correct, modest, and uncontroversial edits. In no way was this edit warring - this kind of article maintenance keeps article stability and has been normal practice at the Obama and other high-volume articles.

Scjessey and others have been the subject of repeated bad faith administrative actions by trolls, sockpuppets, and tendentious editors, and CENSEI's report almost certainly falls in that category. There has been severe wikigaming, with some problem editors taking aim at the more established editors on the article. CENSEI has been a problem editor on the Obama article and throughout Wikipedia. This kind of gaming should not be allowed to stand because it empowers trolling editors, and destabilizes the project by embroiling the legitimate editors in administrative process.

Scjessey is not about to edit war. I suggest you unblock, and also leave a note indicating that the edits preceding the block should not be construed in the future as evidence of editing misbehavior. I would rather discuss this with you directly than take this to AN/I or the Obama article probation notice board because there have been so many over-the-top administrative complaints (I am currently the subject of one) cluttering up the boards. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask you to WP:AGF in why I did what I did. There are a handful of editors who are keeping any other editor from making any kind of contribution to this article. The reason that the article is under probation right now is because of edit warring from Scjessey, amongst others. Not all of his edits were “housekeeping” he was rolling back the good faith contributions of other editors with no discussion. CENSEI (talk) 00:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Technically, the editor violated 3RR in my opinion. 3RR is supposed to be an "electric fence". If there's a special understanding that at certain articles, people are allowed to go over 3 reverts per 24 hours under certain circumstances, then maybe there should be a template or poll or something letting people know about that, at the top of the article talk page, so that everyone can equally take advantage of that situation. King of Hearts' action may be correct in order to avoid any possibility of WP:OWN or unequal enforcement for different political views. In my opinion, it's up to King of Hearts' discretion whether to block in this situation, or to issue a warning and no block, or to declare that it will not be treated as a 3RR violation due to mitigating circumstances, or to take some other action; and in my opinion it's up to King of Hearts' decretion whether to decide to modify the decision in response to the above comment (which makes a good point in my opinion) or not to do so. People doing reverts should keep count of their reverts to avoid exceeding 3RR. Thirty-one hours for a second-offense 3RR violation is a very typical block. I agree with CENSEI that the edits being reverted by Scjessey appeared to be good-faith edits. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link re article probation: Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation Coppertwig (talk) 00:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that was discretion it was a mistake of discretion to punish (this is punishment under the circumstance, nothing preventive) an editor on a technicality for his good faith wikignoming efforts, doing the right thing in a way a lot of other eitors do. The issue is not that the reverted edits were in good faith - 80% of the bad edits are coming from inexperienced editors who make simple good faith mistakes, and ought to be reverted rather than discussed. We need watchful editors to do more than 3 uncontroversial reverts per day to keep the article stable. If this gives ammunition to tendentious editors to take aim at the legitimate ones we'll have to modify the terms of article probation accordingly. We can invite KingofHearts to reverse / unblock before taking this to AN/I, but it should not be used against Scjessey in future review of his edit history - which is sure to come. Wikidemon (talk) 01:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why you think it was punitive, not preventive. If Scjessey was exerting too much control over the article, reverting changes that other editors were trying to make (and I don't have an opinion as to whether it was "too much" or not) then this block prevents Scjessey from making such reverts for 31 hours, allowing other editors freedom to edit the article during that time. This is enforcement of the normal 3RR rule that applies to every page. I think the article probation is intended to tighten such restrictions, not loosen them. Scjessey is free to make an unblock request, promising to wait before doing further reverts on that article. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scjessey is not exerting too much control over the article. If anyone thought his maintenance edits were too aggressive all they had to do is tell him so. The "freedom" you talk about is simply a freedom to make mistakes, which get reverted. They must be reverted at a high rate because there are a high number of unproductive edits. The article probation arose from serious editing abuses, tendentious editing and incivility by POV editors, trolls, sockpuppets, etc., not from routine article maintenance. I've asked Scjessey to make that promise, but again, what he was doing needs to be done, and the 3RR report is not on the level.Wikidemon (talk) 01:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad block

The block you gave me was removed after review, as it was determined that I had not been edit warring (which is, after all, what the three-revert rule is designed to prevent). I would urge you to take a little more time and look a little deeper into these reports before applying blocks in future. As an editor of considerable experience and good standing, I was both surprised and annoyed at being given a block, particularly because the reporting editor is a known problem editor (agenda-based editing) with a significant block history, who himself had just previously been blocked for edit warring and incivility. I am also disappointed that you essentially ignored the comments and protestations by other editors above. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the block. I thought that you had a history of edit warring from your block log (the previous 12-hour block by Josiah Rowe). I'll try to be more careful next time. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your apology. I can see that you are a busy administrator, and the way CENSEI misleadingly framed my edits it probably appeared to be a good block. Sorry about all the activity from the creepy stalker below. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, there was no "review" of Scjessey's block, an admin friendly to Scjessey was found and that admin unblocked him. I was blocked for edit warring, not incivility. Scjessey violated 3RR, whatever reason or excuse he uses, he did make more then 3 content reverts in one day, if he wont be held to this standard why the hell should anyone else expect follow th rules? CENSEI (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After Wikidemon's initial complaint, more editors have expressed their opinions. They seem to have a consensus that the block was unjust. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And all of the editord have friendly working relationships with Scjessey and it would seem to bias their opinion. Coppertwig, see above, did not seem to share the opinion that the block was unwarranted. CENSEI (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More wikigaming, I see. Perhaps you should check this out and see how much of a problem CENSEI is. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I mean it Scjessey, your days of unopposed article ownership are done. Step over the line, and I will be the first one to report you. Oh, and please stop talking about me in the third person ... its creepy. CENSEI (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:LA Dodgers.svg

Thanks for uploading Image:LA Dodgers.svg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 07:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your behaviour in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Korean cultural claims (2nd nomination)

Hello, King of Hearts. I was surprised to see your behaviour in the discussion.

Just after my vote, Caspian Blue wrote:

"If the article has a validity, we don't need this second round of the deletion discussion and third party people say delete. Yes, the Japanese biggest forum 2channel in which you're deeply involved cooks up such bashing rumors such as uriginal. That is not even new.--Caspian blue (talk) 12:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)"

This sounds I am making rumors in 2ch forum, or have some relationship with rumors. That is not true. So I answered back. But you stroke out only my answer, and remained Caspian Blue's comment only. I think it is not fair. Caspian Blue's clams over 2ch can be found in other place in the discussion.

Please strike out such personal attack. I stroke out by myself, but Caspian Blue reverted.--Mochi (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been harassed by the meat/sockpuppets from 2channel for about one year. At WP:ANI, Mochi admitted that he had followed me for his amusement on a Korean bashing forum page at 2channel (the forum title is "Chosenjin's Wikipedia: Prevent Korean fabrication"). The problem is that he even does not think that his wiki-stalking me with such reason is no big deal. Many rumors on Korean origin theories are made up by the Japanese channel, which is already addressed on the article. I only stated about the "fact". One Japanese newbie reverted to Moch's false censorship, so Mochi just tried to make false accusations.--Caspian blue (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Hip Hop Is Dead Movement

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Hip Hop Is Dead Movement. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle (talk) 09:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]