User talk:Diligent007

Welcome!

 * }

Edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. First Light (talk) 05:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * I was just coming here to leave the same message. Since you were adequately warned, you're last revert was after that warning, and you're actually up to 5 reverts in the past 24 hours, I'm going to report you to WP:3RRN. You will likely be blocked.  After your block, please come back to the article's talk page and discuss it there--you cannot just attempt to get your way by constant reverts.  Qwyrxian (talk) 06:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Notification of WP:AN/EW report
Hello Diligent007,

This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.

If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 06:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!)

Okay, that's done with
Now that Master of Puppets has chosen not to block you (which is fine--all that matters is that you don't keep edit warring), let's continue the discussion on the article talk page. So far, three different editors have said that the fact doesn't belong, so you've got a hard road to convince us that we're wrong. If you would like to get the input of other editors, we have a process called dispute resolution; probably the easiest step right now is WP:BLPN, which is the noticeboard for biographies of living people. I'd be happy to help you set up a discussion there. I know this may sound odd or self-serving, but, really, I just want to do what is best for the encyclopedia, and I know that when you first start editing Wikipedia, we have all of these policies and guidelines that don't match how anything else works on the internet (or really, in general), and so it's tough to learn how we decide what does and doesn't go into articles. I'm happy to help; you're also welcome to ignore that and ask others or work your way through the process on your own in case you prefer that. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring policy
Hi Diligent007, This comment by you, "I just edited the article, I never clicked on the undo button" indicates that you don't fully understand the edit-warring policy. Please read the links above - even if you didn't use the 'undo' button, you still reverted five times in a short period. You normally would have been blocked for that. Even if you had slightly changed the wording to reinsert the same material, it still would qualify as a "revert". Also, "3RR" does not mean that you are entitled to 3 reverts every 24 hours. You could be blocked the next time you add that information back against consensus, simply for edit-warring.

You might want to consider editing some non-controversial articles for a time, as an easier way of learning about how Wikipedia works. It can be quite daunting learning all of the policies here, and learning how to work with others ("consensus"). That process is much easier with articles where one doesn't have a strong emotional attachment to the outcome. regards, First Light (talk) 15:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Adminship for Qwyrxian
Please feel free to add your constructive comments at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Qwyrxian

He is nominated for Administrator position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.84.55.209 (talk) 10:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, you can't add comments yet--the RfA hasn't been transcluded (opened). Until such time as I or my nominator transcludes it (it will then show up on WP:RFA), please do not add anything to that page (same to the IP). Qwyrxian (talk) 10:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Just a minor note; I don't mind if you think I was out of line on the article, but I didn't call the admin a bad name; if you look back in at the archives for the 3RR report, which you can see at Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive163, and look at the very last comment there, it's signed by "m.o.p.", which, if you click on the link, will see that it was written by User:Master of Puppets. That is, the user's actual username is "Master of Puppets", just as yours is Diligent007.  Also, note that you are welcome to continue discussing the issue on Talk:Cheney Mason; several other editors have pointed out why including this doesn't meet WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE, but we could be wrong.  I'd also be happy to point you to the relevant noticeboards if you want to get more uninvolved opinions. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Please note--per WP:CANVAS, you may not go to the talk pages of people who you believe share an opinion about you to solicit comments on a process like RfA. If other editors want to give their opinion, they may do so, but specficially recruiting others is forbidden.  Qwyrxian (talk) 04:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Forbidden is probably too strong language, but I want to say that when it comes to the general principle Qwyrxian is correct. I opposed his adminship, but it's a bad idea to canvass for support for a particular point of view in a discussion. If you think a certain course of action is the right one, state your case in the appropriate forum and let that be it. Steven Walling  09:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Diligent007 does appear to be canvassing, given the nature of the posts he left on other people's talk pages, i.e. "your OPPORTUNITY to either oppose or support Qwyrxian in his big to become an administrator". On the other hand, I don't think it is very professional for Qwyrxian to go after Diligent007 personally. He should've informed a 3rd party and let the 3rd party deal with it. Even if he is poised to win this administrator nomination regardless of any circumstances, I consider his action to be damaging to his image as a candidate. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, I feel offended that he (Diligent007) didn't invite me. I am a pretty harsh critic of Qwyrxian as well. In fact, I've just admonished Qwyrxian in some recent posts . Way to slight your potential fellow opposers. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And because you were not invited, the process of nominating him would have been incomplete (and, in a way, tainted), and so my having informed you was a good thing, regardless of your prior dealings with him--I want to see what your impression of him was as to his nomination. Diligent007 (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

ANI Discussion
As you are ignoring the canvassing policy, I've taken the matter to the administrators board for further discussion. You can find that thread here. Dayewalker (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Writing "Go fuck yourself" in Japanese on Qwyrxian's talk page is unacceptable behaviour, Diligent007. You could be blocked for that type of behavior. Please read the material at WP:CANVASS as well. You were attempting to influence the outcome of the RFA discussion by notifying specific people who you thought would oppose the RFA, and this type of behaviour is considered disruptive, and is not permitted under the canvassing rule. A copy of this message appears on Qwyrxian's talk page. --Diannaa (talk) 18:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I meant to delete that part before posting on Wikipedia. I was just playing around on Google translation to see how it would look, and did not remove that last part when copying and pasting--it's my first time using that system (and had I known to read the Japanese lettering afterwards, I would have noticed that, but I didn't.) Diligent007 (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Your edits have been taken as canvassing because you posted to a skewed sample of editors, which is to say, editors you thought likely to be against that RfA. The policy is straightforward, ...canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. If you carry on with this highly disruptive behaviour, you'll be blocked from editing. In the meantime, owing to the disruption you've stirred up, I'm banning you from making further edits to Q's RfA discussion space. If you wish to appeal this, you may do so at ANI. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is a joke"
I saw this, and I'd want to apologize for being unclear in the message you quoted. In case you felt I somehow changed my mind in the message you quoted, it was truly a matter of miscommunication. In many ways, I agree that Wikipedia is a joke too with its wolf-packs and unqualified administrators and mediators. I have been subjected to ridiculous treatments by WP authorities as well, but then you should keep in mind that this is just an online website and not life/work. As a result, you should take a step back and not try to pretend this is some serious place that is run with perfect professionalism. However, in your case, you were pretty much caught red-handed for breaking policies (which are in fact subjected to change by anyone, including Mr. Smith's 12 year old crack-smoking grand-nephew). If you want to rumble in Wikipedia, you'd have to know how to wiki-lawyer or you'd be hounded relentlessly by wiki-lawyers.

Just a friendly advice. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for attempting to harass Qwyrxian and disrupt the RfA process. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * For creating a new account to evade this block, the block is now one month, reset from this timestamp. Courcelles 22:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * See Sockpuppet investigations/Diligent007. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for RfA warnings
Wow, I regret that you were blocked so quickly, because I wanted to know more about the key disputes which had occurred, without reading all the prior diff-link pages. First, thank you for taking the time to alert so many users, who also came and warned the rest of us, so more people were able to see the wide extent of fears in the WP community. I wish the RfA could have been extended, so then perhaps, more people could have changed their !votes based on the new concerns being raised. I always worry, "It takes 2 to tango" and there is no such thing as a WP:BATTLE without, at least, 2 sides in the war, where perhaps one side is merely "under siege" from the other. Above all, please do not feel frustrated, your views and others' concerns have been noted in:
 * Requests_for_adminship/Qwyrxian - closed 26 July 2011.

So, we can refer to the warnings posted there, if (when) future problems are raised. However, as you might know, it has been extremely difficult to "undo" an admin approval, where many people are trying to "be polite" and only mention problems in such vague ways, where most people cannot be dissuaded by such mild statements. In 2006, the Swedish Wikipedia changed to 1-year renewable terms (requiring a 75%-support re-vote to re-instate an admin), because it was so difficult to remove troublesome admins. Prior conflicts had led to ongoing resentments. Now, Swedish WP still has emergency removal of extreme admins, but 4 times per year (4 quarters), they re-elect from among their roughly 98 admins, while allowing new admins each week. Because the re-elections occur each quarter, then "every Swede" knows when to vote, to avoid someone sneaking through because people did not know about the re-RfA election. Many of us fear people from formerly "fascist" cultures who gain power and think they no longer need little-people consensus to do what they always wanted but were afraid to say honestly. The most dangerous seem to be the people who are most charming and most polite, like the old Japanese adage, where a person confiscates another's land and apologizes, "So sorry, this my garden now". Anyway, please know that your cautions have been heard, and many people have echoed your concerns, so you will return to an environment with eyes wide open. Thanks again for alerting the rest of us. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning
Thanks for the warning. I opposed that Q guy's nomination for adminship. He is such a loser.Phead128 (talk) 12:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)