User talk:HarryAlffa

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

Request reason:

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.

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

Request reason:

Decline reason:

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.

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

Request reason:

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).

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

---

Request reason:

No one's playing dumb? Really? It is not obvious that it is a logical fallacy to use a comparative count analysis to determine significance? If it was 0.3% of 1.234×10¹³ you would have to say that's a lot of use, and if it was 0.3% of 100 then you still couldn't discount it because of the low sample count. How many times did I have to repeat that on the talk page & RfC, and now here as well? And you say no one is playing dumb? Really? If they're not playing dumb, then they're not playing.
I have not called other editors stupid, I have arranged it so they demonstrated their lack of intellect, or offered evidence of it. Big difference. And if it's true that they are stupid ... well that's not my fault. And do you want me to lie about it?
For the good of Wikipedia's aim of creating a high quality encyclopaedia, it is everyone's duty to weed out, as you say, the stupid. How could it not be? It is doubtful that a group of average intelligence editors can give rise to an encyclopaedia much above mediocre, how much worse must it be with, to use your word, stupid editors?
Yes, others have claimed, but that's all they're doing. I have not claimed, I have offered evidence and given reasons, and come to conclusions, the other editors simply nay-say without reason. Yes there are few scientific uses, and Ruslik claimed the term was "unscientific" as if that ended it - but we are not writing a scientific text-book, and there are scientific uses - that is not disputed - but Ruslik then claimed[6] all the science using the term (including NASA, and a book from 2008 available from Amazon[7] by Richard W. Schmude Jr.[8] with this[9] cited in the Saturn article) were insignificant, which I rebutted[10], without reply.
So, against the use: "unscientific" - dismissed with evidence; "science evidence insignificant" - dismissed by examination; "must be a spelling/grammatical error" - dismissed by dint of publishing processes; "scientists use it at conferences" - dismissed by examining that statement; "amateur astronomers use it" - dismissed by the fact that amatuer astronomers use it; astrophysicists use it - dismissed by the fact that they are astrophysicists; "it's very old" - dismissed by the fact that it's been in use since Pluto was discovered means that it has staying power; "pointing out a very small number of examples of its use" - dismissed by 'scientists use it at conferences', how many hundreds were at these conferences?
The author Richard W. Schmude Jr. surely has the target audience for his book included in the target audience for Wikipedia. The publisher of the book is Springer Science+Business Media. So a third party source from a reliable publishing house, an active researcher as author, and we are going to say "we know better, that term shouldn't be used", really?
WP:Consensus demands that you dismiss the number of editors on either side of an argument, and evaluate the reasoning, with regard to Policy and your own native wit.
I don't think I have a winning argument. I have the only reasoned argument. So by

WP:Name

"The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists", and because it was criticised on talk page as widespread colloquial use, it must be the consensus that the alternative name is included.
YellowMonkey's block of me must be lifted as against Policy.
The other editors must be warned that their non-participation in the talk page & RfC while reverting the article is unacceptable, and further warned that they are operating against consensus as defined by WP:Consensus.

It seems from the logs, that blocking me was YellowMonkey's first action on Wikipedia that day. I wonder if the first thing he does is check his email. Hmm, sounds probable, check email, go to Wikipedia - block HarryAlffa. Causal chain there?
Of course it may be that you are frightened by YellowMonkey and the political power he talks about here[11]. Does he consider me on of the nobodies? Does he consider you one of the nobodies?

Decline reason:

You were blocked for disruptive editing, in that you were reverting edits at

Biography of a Living Person). So, I am forced to decline your unblock request. Please see also my comments below. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

---

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.

Your unblock request shows very clearly that you are unclear about how Wikipedia functions. I am unclear on how you could be so familiar with

Pasting the same comment to four different related noticeboards is not cool. In addition, stating that someone is "unable to listen to reason" can be construed as a personal attack -- especially when it's repeated all over the place. Pick a forum and stick with it, please. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt at further discussion ignored

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered,

This is a personal attack. You've been warned repeatedly about making them. I suggest you strike it or you could earn yourseslf another block. Auntie E. 16:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HarryAlffa. You have new messages at John's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I had to blank your statement at the RFAR you filed as it came to some 10000 words. It should be limited to 500 but even with generous leeway, this is way over the top. Please rewrite your request statement. Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 19:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And after further consideration and advice by an Arb, I've removed it entirely. If you wish to refile correctly I can give you some guidance, but I'd strongly suggest that you use other methods of dispute resolution first as without doing this your request is likely to be denied. If you need sources for these, see

talk) 14:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I have already reverted one edit to remove your very lengthy post to Jimbo's talkpage. May I suggest that you collapse the content, so that it doesn't put off readers - and Jimbo - by its massiveness? While I am sure that you feel that you can evidence all your particular claims, I would also suggest that you review the content (I realise you have already reviewed it many times before committing it) to ensure that your language is as civil and neutral as possible. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harry, I am going to collapse it since you seem to be offline. Please do not edit war to make it visible - if you want to discuss how you want it then please drop me a line. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that Jimbo is a "court of appeal", but your huge post on his talk page is not necessary. A reasonably short statement with a link to the page with the parties, statements, evidence, etc., is sufficient. There is no reason to add so much bulk to Jimbo's talk page, and I ask you to remove it. Thank you. —Finell (Talk) 20:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC) (To preserve the continuity of the conversation, I will watch for your reply, if any, here on your Talk page)[reply]

I've come to regard Wikipedia as the most corrupt society I've been involved in. No intended slight on LessHeard (who I have a high regard for) or Finell (who I've never met) - but if you do nothing else look at this[12] swept under the carpet with threats and closed with a propaganda attack. And this "Follow up" immediately below it on the same page[13]. HarryAlffa (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the above, and admit to being a little concerned over the attitude of Ckatz and Ruslik0 - in that I do not see any attempt at dispute resolution, or an acknowledgement that the disputed content had some verification. I also do not see any in your part either (and I am familiar with your viewpoint as regards truth and verifiability, which isn't as optimum as might be) and nor do I see the sources specifically supporting the entire content you were attempting to include, but the part about particle acceleration - which it was claimed as unsupported - does appear as well as some other material. The proper method was to have started a discussion with a view to incorporating that of the original and the new content as was supported. Per

WP:BRD

it might be argued that it was for you to initiate a discussion, but it may also be argued that removing the content without reference was also improper. As I see it, there is a case that content was being removed inappropriately and not discussed - thus precipitating an edit war, and that the other parties response was to concentrate on the editors character rather than the disputed content.

The question is, what do you want to do Harry? Do you wish to take the contested edits into dispute resolution, do you wish to start a RfC on the two editors, both, or do you wish to withdraw from editing the subject/Wikipedia. I can help, but only within the Wikipedia remit. This means that I would require from you conduct and attitude that is respectful, neutral, and acknowledging that you might not get all or much of what you desire. If you think it worthwhile to pursue this option, let me know. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The

Aurora

article was the culmination of wikistalking by Ruslik, Ckatz, Serendipodous & YellowMonkey. The first two only involved in that article, so the remit of the content of the article is really quite irrelevant at this point. If you look at the "massive edit" you will see the evidence of wikihounding across multiple namespaces and Wikiprojects. So any idea of proper procedure on article content has been killed off by these four. In other words your description of edit-war, which may be well supported by narrow evidence, in the big picture it is a pursuit of an editor by these, rather than the pursuit of improving the project.

The outright lies and deception by Ruslik & Ckatz in the ANI I raised has a direct bearing on my concern of the corrupt nature of Wikipedian society, one part being that lies & deception by admins are ignored & when a non-admin says "look at this - it's lies and deception - and here are the diffs to evidence it" - as I did - the non-admin - me - is accused of personal attacks or not assuming good faith. As the "IP24" said, "It's just that I too have endured baseless accusation by Ckatz.". This user is now User:24dot

The ANI was properly raised and justified by it's own content, but it was also a "toe in the water" before I raised the ArbCom request (see above on this page). It was a test of the corruption of Wikipedian admins - I half expected a cover-up and perhaps even another block from YellowMonkey, but the silence from other admins disappointed, and the cover-up by another was extremely disappointing. However, in a triumph of hope over experience, I do hope that my current view of endemic corruption and dishonesty of Wikipedians will be overturned.

Ruslik & Ckatz got defensive in the ANI, and their instinct was to immediately lie and deceive. Nothing was said of this. Such dishonesty from the Ckatz Cabal is what I've come to expect. I believe it would be irresponsible of the Project to allow them continued "access to the tools"

I think this extract will help some;

Ruslik & Ckatz on

Aurora

(Extract from wikihounding evidence, this is about the twelfth page in the hounding-series, from April 2009. They often turn up within the hour of my edits, and to pages they have never edited before to hound me)

On 27 August, 2009 I corrected the auroral mechanisms section[14] with an edit summary of, “Correct confusion and contradiction. Copy-edit”, within 15 minutes Ruslik had reverted me[15], claiming in his edit summary, “You removed so much information that I ought to revert”. This brought the total number of edits he made to the article in it's entire history to 2, both reversions. He again shows an inherent inability to analyse or even comprehend the material.

I was in the process of putting together references for my contribution, but I gave up, because frankly, what the fuck was the point? Instead I was confident, or at least hopeful, that with the involvement of the Wikiproject Physics, someone would spot this and undo Ruslik. My faith was misplaced.

On 3rd October I tried again with pretty much the same edit[16], within eight hours Ckatz had reverted[17] with an edit summary, “restore more encyclopedic text”. Unbelievable! I in turn undid him[18] with an edit summary of, “Restore corrections. No wikihounding please.”. About 15 minutes later Ruslik undid me[19].

On 6^th October I undid Ruslik[20] with an edit summary, “Please. No group Wikihounding.”. Then made a minor change[21] with regard to his previous edit summary. Within 35 minutes Ruslik undid me[22], with an edit summary of, “You should learn classical electrodynamics before you make such changes”.

On 10^th October I undid Ruslik[23], then made a series of four edits adding references and one copy-edit. [24] [25] [26] [27] The next day Ruslik reverted me[28] with an edit summary of, “I do not agree with removal of information”.

The next day another user reverted Ruslik[29] with an edit summary of “don't remove cited mateial”. Ckatz then reverted[30] with an edit summary of, “It was reverted because the rewrite was not of the same quality as the previous version.”.

It is clear that Ckatz and Ruslik are determined to hound me, and will lie and deceive in their edit summaries in a vain attempt to justify the hounding.

(end of extract)

I think this should cause anyone more than a little concern.

Remember that this is one of a long series of examples - in other words I've quoted myself out of context. I think a reasonable conclusion is that both Ckatz & Ruslik are liars. Sorry if you think that is a personal attack - I think it is an accurate description. People seem to forget (judging by the policy quotes thrown around) that part of policy is common sense - if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. HarryAlffa (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, as you see it, you feel there is little point in attempting dispute resolution because the revert war on Aurora is an example of continuing following of your edits by a group of admins/editors, whose actions are designed to frustrate your attempts to contribute to the encyclopedia - and whose response to attempts to discuss these concerns are to concentrate comment upon your character rather than detailing any specific problem with the edit? Is that correct? Would you, if you wished to spend the effort, be able to evidence this behavior occurring over a length of time and across a breadth of articles? I am suggesting that if there is the likelihood of being able to produce such evidence that you might consider opening a Wikipedia:Request for comment/User conduct (providing there is also evidence that other people have also complained about similar issues). In any event, are you able and willing to provide examples of the alleged wikihounding other than the Aurora episode? If there is a reasonable indication that the admins are using their flags, or threatening to do so, in order to demotivate another editor from contributing to an area of the encyclopedia then I feel I should make civil enquiries as to why this would appear so. Let me know if you feel able to supply this information. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am indeed able to provide the evidence. I have it sitting here. I posted it Jimbo's page.

I'm puzzled as to the importance of other people making the same complaint. I must also supply evidence of this - if it is occurring? A group can wikihound one person, but not more than one? Am I missing something obvious here? HarryAlffa (talk) 15:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for comment/User conduct requires two different people to make the same type of complaint for it to proceed. This ensures that there appears to be a valid concern regarding repeated behaviour rather than one person make a premature or frivolous complaint - and it also allows people to make mistakes now and then without getting overly censured for it. However, since it appears that you are taking the ArbCom route then the matter is moot. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom. HarryAlffa (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Your recent additions to the aforementioned questionnaire are out of line. I suggest revising your queries to make them more civil. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without discussing the extreme impoliteness of your tone in the questions, they are not in line with the general format of candidate questions. I suggest you either discuss these issues personally with Ruslik0, or on the

Your recent defense of your questions [31] in ANI indicates that you still feel the questions were reasonable. They were not. They violated

• Harry, can I suggest that you keep your RfAr concerns and questions to candidates separate? General questions regarding potential problems with comprehension and neutrality, with examples, should be politely made - the idea is to demonstrate to other readers of potential concerns with respect to the candidate. As for the RfAr, this is where you can address serious concerns in respect of the other parties actions but again it will only be read if it is done in a civil manner. Being heard is the only way to have your concerns evaluated, so you are going to have to do what it takes to be heard - which is to appear civil in your commentary. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You, and others, are correct, I should not have "poisoned the well" as someone put it. I was so outraged at the prospect of Ruslik even thinking of applying for ArbCom that my desire to stop that sort of damage to the project outweighed all other concerns. I am still astonished that no friend of his has had a quiet word in his ear and told him not to stand. HarryAlffa (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two remaining points;

• His English skills are questionable on his candidacy page, and how about this talk page[32] (part of the Wikihounding be Ckatz & Ruslik);

"non-reasoning nay-saying is anti-Wikipedian" is not a good language.

— Ruslik

• Ruslik was confused be this question[33]

I have seen examples of poor usage of English from you frequently on Wikipedia, as can be seen from some of your answers on this page. You do not think that this lack of skill greatly hampers all communication by you?

— HarryAlffa

You will have to explain to me exactly how this violates each of the policies quoted at me here.

Given that you were confused by the use of

transitive property in this talk page[34]

, you do not think that you simply lack the intellectual ability to handle any case that would come to ArbCom, as it is certain that they will be more complex than that simple question?

— HarryAlffa

Again, given the truth of his confusion, this is a valid question. Please explain to me exactly why this violates each of the policies quoted at me here. HarryAlffa (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your original question, as written, also included:

Given that I am raising an ArbCom case against you, chiefly for Wikihounding[35], you do not think that such behaviour is incompatible with adminship, never mind ArbCom membership?

— HarryAlffa

You there presume that your not-yet-filed Arbcom case has been decided, in your favor, supporting your opinion that he's hounding you. That you are creating such a case does not create any such presumption of outcome. There has been no independent admin or community support for such a finding of hounding. You may believe so and file that case, but you are not entitled by that opinion to presume that those people are convicted already. This violates

WP:CIVIL

.

The "lack the intellectual ability" comment violated

WP:CIVIL

.

Fundamentally - we expect all contributors to treat all other contributors as human beings and with respect. Your first unrefactored questions clearly did not do so. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I suspected, complete nonsense. Your statement is so silly that I can't begin to tell you how wrong it is. You said, "You there presume that your not-yet-filed Arbcom case has been decided". I assure you that this was not the case - I would consider that to be a stupid assumption. I am not a stupid person. I would therefore ask that you assume good faith on my part, and withdraw everything on this page based on your mind-reading trick.

You quote out of context and misrepresent when you describe part of my questioning as the "lack the intellectual ability comment"

By the perverted interpretation of standards you are trying to apply to me, your accusation of me not treating others as human beings is a personal attack. If it wasn't so silly I would spend time thinking more on it, which may lead to concluding that it is a straight up personal attack.

Here's a few points for you to think on.

WP:NPA

are all policies written in mind for the writing of encyclopaedic articles.

Then let's consider the ArbCom an article. What then is this articles content?

Hmm, let's see … the ArbCom is an article, so what is the ArbCom made of? Why, members. So that means the content of the committee is it's members. So an election is a decision on the content of this article.

So.

Members are editors, so content is editors, so in order to write this article we must discuss the content.

We must discuss the editor who is to become part of the content.

You don't like that?

WP:NPA

are all policies written in mind for the writing of encyclopaedic articles.

But ArbCom is not an article. It is an election to decide which persons are to be members of that important committee.

We must discuss the editors who are to become members of the committee.

We cannot question articles about their content, nor can we ask the content questions, but we can ask the proposed contents of the ArbCom questions.

Is a certain level of intellectual ability pertinent to ArbCom membership? If you do not think so, how many of the present ArbCom do you consider stupid? Would a low intellect on ArbCom help or hinder? If there is evidence (a diff) of intellectual failings, does the candidate realise this failing? Can he explain it as something other than an intellectual failing? The questions were politely put. They were challenging, and they were meant to be, and anyone in the community (which includes me) has the right to ask candidates challenging questions on their past performance. There was no name calling, all questions were relevant to a quality of the candidate pertinent to his ability to perform on ArbCom. They were not deferential. Which may be the actual cause of the consternation you and others displayed.

Your threats of blocks I regard as an attempt to bully. Do not try to bully me.

Finally I would contrast the participation of admin's in this[36] ANI with the marshalling of forces which you participated in[37], and then came here. HarryAlffa (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harry, I suggest you find other areas of the 'pedia to work on for a while where those you're frustrated with aren't involved. There are many collegial and collaborative editors here (and others who aren't, sometimes because they've been bitten one too many time). My personal opinion on the language and communication issues you're raising is that they seem a bit petty. If you feel that the content dispute underlying the disagreement is valid, and don't desire a break (despite my kind suggestion), then try getting outside opinions with neutrally worded requests at the third opinion noticeboard

Hi, HarryAlffa. I noticed that you created another thread on

WP:ANI but you again forgot to notify the user. Again- don't worry as it's been taken care of. However I think you need to really try to keep this in mind. Thank you. Basket of Puppies 18:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

You are absolutely right. I really don't know how I could have forgotten this, well except that I've been wikihounded for so long that I expect my every edit to be reverted! No kidding actually. All joking aside, this definitely makes sense to me. HarryAlffa (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to offer any help I have with your AGF suggestions. Is there any way I can be of assistance?--Adam in MO Talk 21:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, rewrite it as I suggested. I have an ArbCom case to prepare, so don't have the time to do this. HarryAlffa (talk) 19:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I was looking through the ArbCom questions (for User:Bfigura/ACE2009) when I noticed a series of questions from you [38] (an example). To me, this comes across as a veiled personal attack, and I'd like to ask you to consider refactoring it. (To the best of my knowledge, I don't have any prior involvedment with you, or the editor in the question). Thanks in advance, --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HarryAlffa. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents[39] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GiantSnowman 21:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reset your block to indefinite. Note that this does not mean permanent - you are not community banned, and you can appeal with an unblock request here, ask someone to post an appeal to ANI, appeal to [email protected], or appeal by email to Arbcom (preferably in that order). As you have contributed positively at times in the past I can see the possibility of you doing so again in the future. But at this point, you show no sign of it. If you're just going to keep this behavior up, there's no point to having you continue to edit.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George, you are taking the role of the Arbitration Committee, all by your self. The community already decided that my ArbCom case page should stand, you step beyond your powers by "ruling" it disruptive[40].

My ArbCom elections participation referred to an ANI[41] in which I was admonished, yet my asking "any general concerns by the five days of silence from admins in this ANI" in a question to candidates is taken as, "purpose of causing trouble for people Harry has disagreed with", "veiled personal attack" and "some kind of agenda behind them". It's almost as if the admin community had some vestigial shame on how that ANI was handled, why else suppress it by removing the questions from the candidates pages?

I have been advised not to make edits to articles if I wish my ArbCom case page to be regarded as timeous, then you say I'm, "not even trying to build articles anymore". However I regarded ArbCom elections, and editing

If I was going to re-write the satire, Politeness Police I would satirise the admin behaviour it was aimed at by comparison to the mindset of the religious police of the Iranian state.

The

You can draw further parallels with conservative and liberal wings among admins, but no one likes an extremest.

If you don't like that comparison then compare them with the mindset of US soldiers at Abu Ghraib.

Over-the-top comparisons? Remember I'm talking about mindset here; but given the chance, how many admins would you expect to behave as abhorrently as the religious police? Now take that answer and multiply by three. If the product is greater than zero, then you must have thought of at least one admin who you would expect to abuse others human rights if they had real powers in the real world. Don't you think that these admins should have the tools gently removed from their hands?

Part of the

Finally I would say, all that is required for evil to flourish is for good Wikipedians to do nothing. HarryAlffa (talk) 18:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a consensus that your behavior rather firmly placed you outside our community standards. You seem to be defending your behavior and your right to conduct it.

You are free to write whatever you want, wherever you want in venues that will have you. There are several available for Wikipedia critics, much less creating your own blog or web page.

However - within Wikipedia, we have standards of behavior. Satire, humor, criticism, are all welcomed as part of that. Abusive and rude behavior are not. They demean all participants, degrade the quality of participation and communications. Had you merely been pushing the line a bit, you would still be editing. You appear, previously and still, to be openly defiant of Wikipedia's right to set such a line and enforce it.

Whether you feel this is right or not - that's our policy, to defend our community as a whole. There are plenty of internal critics who have never been subject to any administrative action. Plenty of them use humor and satire. I welcome and encourage them, it's a healthy part of the project.

What you did was beyond that.

If you chose to accept our community standards, to work within the community and within community standards of behavior, the block can end. If you chose to reject it, you place yourself outside the community by that action. The block is merely acknowledging your choice in that matter.

It is up to you. If you agree to change and can convince me or another admin, your block could end tomorrow. If your statements above are functionally your last word, then your status will remain unchanged. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've only just noticed this. Your actions remind me of the perverse actions of Loudoun Commonwealth’s Attorney Jim Plowman[46]. HarryAlffa (talk) 14:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harry, I've just reblocked you with talk-page access disabled, as that last comparison is so far over the top it's not funny. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Truth?

It's funny (peculiar) how many admins can come to all sorts of conclusions about my motivations etc. but no one in this ANI[47] can bring themselves to say that Ruslik told a number of untruths there.

Can anyone say that Ruslik's statement in that ANI, about my contribution[48] to the

you are trying to use a confusing terminology, which you invented yourself.

— Ruslik

TRUE

NOT TRUE

1. HarryAlffa (talk) 18:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have misrepresented me

While I will continue to help you in your efforts to edit various subjects, according to policy and consensus, I would appreciate it if you did not misquote me. I said, to the effect of, if you ignored your ArbCom page and edited elsewhere then the page might be redeleted, but if you continued to work upon it toward an eventual case then it should be okay. I did not say that you should not edit other areas while you prepared your case - and I am disappointed that you inferred that I did. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I couldn't quite remember precisely what you said, nor where you said it, so was careful not to directly attribute this to you. I understood you to be giving an opinion on the likely view taken by others, not that this was an instruction from you to me. But I remembered taking a very strict interpretation of what you said;

providing that you are working upon the Request when you are active on WP then it remains timely - it would only be a problem if you were editing and picking up new projects and allowing the potential evidence pages to languish in your userspace in the meantime. Any activity in regard to the Request, be it piecemeal or not, suffices.

The strictest interpretation I regarded they would take was, "a problem if you were editing and picking up new projects". I therefore felt inhibited from doing anything else. How does someone define "ignored"? If I edited elsewhere for five minutes? Five hours? I would expect someone to put the boot in under almost any pretext - as in this indefinite block, whose reasoning was arrived at after the decision to block was made. Hence the "review" of my contributions after I took issue with his reasoning on his claims of breaches of policy. HarryAlffa (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and allowing the... pages to languish in the meantime. It was not meant to be an either/or scenario - as ever, I qualify most everything I say. Nevermind, our comments here should clarify what was meant and what was understood.

So, what now? Do you intend to develop the ArbCom page while remaining blocked, or will you seek to formally request review of the block on the basis you will disengage from referring to the other parties of a potential RfAR outside of your preparing your case? Either way, it is likely to be expedient to make the choice known rather than remain in the limbo you now find yourself. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and allowing the... pages to languish in the meantime. Having your emphasis here reassures me that others will be inhibited by it.

This ANI[49] seems to be at the centre of things. I think it shows a corrupt core of admins refusing to sanction their own for lies and deceit. I'd like someone to explain to me why asking candidates about the 5 days of silence from admins in this ANI is different from the many other questions to candidates on their opinions on previous ArbCom decisions. HarryAlffa (talk) 15:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without going through all the other various questions to various candidates, I would suggest that the apparent impropriety of the question you posed was that it was deemed unlikely that you were interested in the answer from each candidate asked, insofar that it would determine if you would support or oppose on the basis of the response. I sense that it was felt that you were instead interested only in publicising the issues you have with various admins and editors. To be honest, it is not an interpretation that can be easily dismissed - since it follows you posting to Admin noticeboards, Jimbo's talkpage, and to ArbCom, content with a similar agenda. Even I am not going to commit myself to an opinion on whether it was a legitimate attempt to ascertain candidates position on such matters by means of an example, and I have and am prepared to extend good faith in regard to your concerns more than most people on this site.

So, the question remains - are you going to request unblock under conditions that you feel may be acceptable to the community, or are you going to continue to prepare your ArbCom case in your usertalk space? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the possibility of a corrupt core of admins is a problem worth asking candidates on. So if anybody else posted this exact question there wouldn't be a problem with it? Particularly, I imagine, if it were a well respected admin with an impeccable record positing it?

I read each of the candidates statements, and used that to judge if this question would be useful, look at the time between asking the candidates questions. Also look at the "ignore all evidence" question, this occurred to me as I was going along and it must be regarded as a general behavioural question when linked to the "5 days" question, plus this[50] shows it was not a "spam" question to all candidates, I did pay attention to their statements.

This is the question I posed to select candidates.

What general concerns do you think are raised by the 5 days of silence from the community's admins in this[51] ANI? Are there any other general concerns which arise from the ANI?

Do these quotes;

[52]

WP:AGF

does not require ignoring actual evidence...

— Jehochman

[53]

In the real world people are sanctioned for lying. It should be the same here. ...we can certainly sanction them for actively trying to be deceptive.

— Jehochman

ameliorate, add to or amplify concerns?

Do you agree with the substance of the Jehochman quotes?

If an essay WP:IGNORE ALL THE EVIDENCE were written, what concerns would be behind it, and what could be done about them?

If you can point me to another ANI where lies and deceit by two admins within an ANI were ignored by the other admins in attendance for somewhere close to 5 days, then I will ask exactly the same question of those select candidates, substituting this[54] with that example. Would that be acceptable?

Have you seen such examples of systemic corruption before? Or is this the only one? Of course to answer that you would also have to answer; can you say in all honesty that you think Ruslik did not lie in this[55] ANI? If you choose not to answer... is it because you believe it is the moral thing to do, or because of possible intimidation or repercussions on your good self? HarryAlffa (talk) 14:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add that in this ANI[56] Ckatz said he didn't want to hide this ANI[57], but that is exactly what has happened, perhaps his declaration was code for a request? An interpretation of "cover-up the corruption" is equally hard to dismiss as the interpretation of "publicizing issues" - it's a terrible thing to make things on-Wiki more publicly available, and anyway, how does "publicizing" an ANI in which I was admonished help me? HarryAlffa (talk) 14:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The truth is, admin abuse is often "ignored" by other admins; simply because taking action upon it often means a lot of work, a lot of heated discussion - often with accusations and counterclaims, with rarely a positive outcome. Sometimes the debate just winds down, or there is some form of words by which the abusive admin says "sorry" (usually only for being found out), or a long term adversarial relationship is started. Admins are generally happy to let someone else deal with it, and there are very few admins so secure in their history not to want to be seen as crusading. That is a pretty ugly thing to say, but it is the truth. This is one of the reasons why I am working toward having the community create a method of desysopping bad admins more easily, because it will be used by those most at risk from abusive admins and they won't mind doing the work.

However, my main point is that - like some of your content disputes - it is the perception of your attitude and of the intent of your interactions that drive other peoples responses. Whatever basis in process or good faith concern you have regarding cliques of abusive admins, the response you got was, "HarryAlffa is going after those admins he is supposed to be Requesting Arbitration over, again". Even if you were asking general questions, it was done in the same manner in which you wrote on Jimbo's talkpage, the admin Noticeboard, and the initial ArbCom "request". Even if you didn't use the names of the admins in this instance, the perception was that you were inferring those admins or would use any response to your general questions to use in your actions regarding those admins (and that was your intent). Sorry, Harry, but you may just have to bite the bullet and acknowledge that any action you take or question you ask will be viewed in the perception of your ongoing disputes with various parties. You will have to either accept these consequences of such actions, or agree to stop asking those questions (until the RfAR is over, at least).

The other thing is, as I am being even more honest than usual, that I don't believe there is a consipiracy of bad admins at work here. There are bad admins on Wikipedia, and some of them congregate around the same topics, but I do not see an organised grouping of them. There was a clique of abusive admins a few years back, and I am noting as one by one they are being stripped of their previous influence (as well as their sysop and other rights, and prestige). However, I do not see the conspiracy you do - at most I see a few admins reacting to pressure by supporting each other, not great but not the nefarious undertaking you seem to see. As such I am not sure why an editor or admin in good standing who does not perceive the same issues should ask the question. In my case, I won't because I see admin abuse being a question of lack of process in dealing with it on a community basis rather than how an Arb may consider an instance as being abusive - which is why my question to the candidates reflect my concern.

I thank you for your concern, but there is no potential intimidation or concerns about repercussions that has meant I have not dealt with the concerns raised; I have not considered them, is all. I have not because I am not interested in taking the role of (co)prosecutor of these claims, but as an advocate to allowing you to present the claims. I think you have a very good case that your concerns are ignored and your edits reverted without consideration of the content, simply because an attitude has hardened in regard to your manner of interacting. I think you have every right to ask why information you provided in article space was reverted in total, because of issues regarding your relationships with some editors, despite some, most or even all of it being supported by the references you provided, and I agree that the reasons given do not properly reflect the actuality. I am not minded to argue whether the references are good, or whether all the content you included was fully supported by those sources, because that is a matter of dispute resolution, but am minded to say you were not given the good faith assumption that was your due, and that relationships between you and some other editors have deteriorated to such an extent that ArbCom is necessary to resolve the disruption to the project it causes.

Ultimately, Harry, I am not interested in fighting your battles for you - I am interested in fighting for your right to fight your battles fairly and without hinderance for yourself. So, again, I ask, what do you intend to do about your RfAR? LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at this page. Jusdafax 02:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. On further examination, it appears you are under indef block. Ironic. Jusdafax 02:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you contributed to Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC and have not participated at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC or been directly informed this RfC has opened. Please accept my apologies if you have been informed of and/or participated in the RfC already.

This RfC has opened and your comments are welcome and encouraged. Please visit Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your upload of File:ASTRA - Airdrie Library Building Anderson Street roof dome site.JPG or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Another one of your uploads, File:ASTRA - Airdrie Library Building Anderson Street.JPG, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]