User talk:Law/June 2009

DYK nomination of Hornsby Water Clock
Thank you for reviewing my submission. I've suggested an alternative hook on the DKY page which relies on information contained in one of the plaques. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter4Truth (talk • contribs) 10:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the bacon vodka
I would like to thank you for coming out and participating in my Request for Adminship, which closed unsuccessfully at  (48/8/6) based on my withdrawal. I withdrew because in my opinion I need to focus on problems with my content contributions before I can proceed with expanding my responsibilities. Overall I feel that the RfA has improved me as an editor and in turn some articles which in my eyes is successful. Thank you again for your support. Yours in bacon.--kelapstick (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Note
Thanks for your post this morning regarding what a problem Murphy has created here. He is unrelenting, he is dangerous for people, and I hope that explains why people react the way they do when he has a couple spare hours and feels the urge to stir up trouble. This was first done to me in a most vehement way, as it has been done to others, and it is a danger. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Gstkvwpkcweophdty14108844
You quite rightly deleted the above named user page, which was being used to create a hoax article. The deletion log entry is as follows:

11:54, 15 June 2009 Law (talk | contribs) deleted "User:Gstkvwpkcweophdty14108844" ‎ (Userspace is not for hoax articles).

The same hoax page is back now. I have put a warning message on the user's talk page, but perhaps you would care to take further action? JamesBWatson (talk) 09:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I created a sandbox for the user, although I'm not real hopeful it is going to come to any good use. Law type!  snype? 09:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You might be interested
Hi. I've seen your bacon-related articles on DYK and stuff. I thought you might be interested in WP:WikiCup/2010 Signups. It seems far away right now, but it starts in January. Just thought you might be interested. :-) Killiondude (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what it is but I signed up. Law type!  snype? 21:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't read what you wrote, but I agree with every word of it. >_> لenna  vecia  21:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel like what you just said may have changed my life for the better. Law type!  snype? 21:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sweet. To be honest, I didn't know what it was when I signed up. I still haven't read more into it (other than skimming some of the info). Killiondude (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I still don't get it, even after I read it. Is this some contest? Law type!  snype? 23:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not clear to me that it has anything to do with genuine bacon. I would delete as spam. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's exactly why I'm taking it to MfD. Law type!  snype? 23:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That is original research. It is not appropriate or logical to label something of questionable baconess as spam. لenna  vecia  17:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey
lol. I did see this one guy that I could block .. User:Jimbo Wales ... know anything about him? ....

Hey .. seriously Law, thank you for your help, support and advice. It's greatly appreciated. ;) — Ched : ?  03:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * All that guy does is yap and yap and yap on his talk page. Block him for using WP as a social networking site. You can start wrecking the place here if you like. Law type!  snype? 03:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL
LMAO .. somebody better eh? ;) — Ched : ?  06:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, seriously though - those top 4 files in my deletion log, how come they didn't turn into red links? — Ched : ?  06:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Unprotect/protect
Thank you for protecting my user talk page. Could you please switch that protection to my user page instead? Explanation at WP:ANI. TY. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Abby Winters
Hi, you added a line to this article, saying: On 16 June 2009 G Media offices in Melbourne were raided by Victoria Police 'as part of a wider operation named "Operation Refuge", which is a police investigation into the filming of underage models, as well as producing pornography in Victoria, which is illegal'.

The reference given is this, from the Herald Sun (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,27574,25641940-2862,00.htm)

Detectives raided five premises as part of Operation Refuge, seizing computers containing footage of women allegedly performing explicit sex acts, which are illegal to produce in Victoria. They are also investigating allegations that some of the models on the porn company's website are under age.

But this says nothing about what Operation Refuge actually is, and Googling it turns up nothing either. And the quote 'as well as producing pornography in Victoria, which is illegal' is almost certainly wrong. Some types of pornography, perhaps.

As such I propose deleting the text in italics, again Adell 1150 (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC).

You make two claims in the sentence you included:

"Operation Refuge" is a police investigation into the filming of underage models

producing pornography in Victoria is illegal

The article you cite for these says neither of those things. It says nothing at all about what 'Operation Refuge' is. Indeed I can't find anything anywhere about what 'Operation Refuge' is (can you?). For all we know, it might be an investigation into trafficking, or tax dodging, or (my personal bet) a figment of the journalist's imagination. Nor does the quote above say that producing pornography in Victoria is illegal. Adell 1150 (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. You reverted that sentence again. I'm going to put it back, and if you still feel strongly about this, I suggest we submit this to the mediation cabal. I'm posting this here because I don't think you've read the note I put on the talk page; you certainly haven't replied to it Adell 1150 (talk) 13:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Open up the thread and I will be happy to comment later. Please let them know that you are using forum activity as a reliable source. Thanks. Law type!  snype? 13:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Meantime, I'm going to revert the page so our mediator can see what we're talking about: please leave it for now, or at the very least till you've read and contributed to the mediation page. Thanks. Adell 1150 (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Gotta love…
…the fact that he asterisked out the Naughty Words in "F*ck you you stupid assh*le. This is the last time I add any of my time, energy or creativity to puss pile that is wikipedia". Otherwise, I might have thought he was being rude. – iride  scent  00:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I was actually impressed with that because it doesn't violate fuckin* civility policy when you use the asterisk. The user was indeffed for referring to Wikipedia as a 'puss pile.' I have no idea what that may be, so when in doubt, I block. Law type!  snype? 00:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Orientalshorthairs2.jpg assume a pile of pussies, right? (Christ those are creepy looking kittens) – iride  scent  00:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Have y'all considered offering an olive branch and explaining that the article may just need some improvement with references and that a prod tag doesn't mean it will be deleted? Just sayin'. No need to respond to cattiness with clawing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No I didn't consider that. Any editor who tells another to fuck off not once, but twice, deserves to be blocked. This has nothing to do with their contributions, but everything to do with how they handled the situation. This behavior could never be justified. Now I'm going to go back to Iri's wonderful still frame from the all-feline version of Deliverance. Law type!  snype? 01:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're probably right Law. You usually are. Thanks for your help on the food and sexuality article. I didn't do any work on it so far today. I guess I'm waiting for the muse to inspire me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Who's the muse? Law type!  snype? 03:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Your block
I don't think an admin should short-circuit discussion by blocking that like. I suggest that you reverse yourself and await the outcome of discussions. Please note that I certainly do not approve of destroying Wikipedia, I simply believe that your action was premature and should have awaited the outcome of discussions.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Block of Peter Damian
I don't know enough to make a judgement call on the goodness of this block, but can you re-do your block? Currently your blocking reason looks like you've blocked for harmless hyperbole. Whilst I know where the quote is taken from, many people looking at Wikipedia will see this as a fairly arbitrary block if the log is left as it is. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 13:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps something like "User made it clear he intends to disrupt and attempt to destroy Wikipedia, blocking to prevent disruption to the project" and a link to where he posted the WR rant on Wikipedia? There are people that will look for any fault in this block and it cannot look like it was due to on off hand comment that may have been hyperbole when it was in fact due to a very clear and precise announcement of a plan to attack Wikipedia. Chillum  14:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur with Chillum's suggestion Fritzpoll (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And how do you avoid these suggestions being characterized as post hoc rationalizations?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think one is less damaging in appearance to the project than the other. The alteration can be preceded with "Clarification:" to assuage the doubts of all but those who would never give Wikipedia any benefit of the doubt anyway. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So far, Law's block has been characterized (taking a bit out of context) as "arbitrary" and "damaging in appearance to the project:.  Got it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * How would one justify calling these suggestions being characterized as post hoc rationalizations? Everything said in the suggested summary is true. People change their wording on Wikipedia all the time. Chillum  14:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Good block. Wikipedia too often condones disruption by editors that clearly demonstrate they have no intention of participating helpfully.  R. Baley (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

See Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents KillerChihuahua?!? 15:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Opposition to the block over there seems to be running rather strong, suggest you unblock for now while the matter is further discussed since you did not have consensus for this to begin with. It's likely another admin will unblock if you do not, and that's not as desirable of an outcome as you doing it yourself. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't appear to be "rather strong" to me. لenna  vecia  18:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * At the time I posted (nearly four hours ago), it was, and given that the block was quite unilateral, an unblock and further discussion seemed wise. I still think that's a good option, but as time has gone on a lot more folks have come down in support of the block. It's fairly split at this point obviously, but there still is not consensus that the block was a good idea. In general I'm a big fan of opening up a discussion and achieving some rough consensus on matters like these, rather than simply making what will undoubtedly be a controversial block without any consulation. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, I agree with you. However, in some situations, there should really be less discussion. Not saying a block such as was carried out here leads to less discussion--if anything, it probably leads to more--but there has to be a point where the community decides enough chances have been given and more discussion is just a waste of time for all involved. It would be nice if the community as a whole would realize that. لenna  vecia  19:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

and it appears to me that this editor has been given numerous "second chances", and has ultimately found more blocks in further efforts. I think you were correct in your action to block. — Ched : ?  18:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Moral Support. Hey Law, just so you know, it doesn't appear that you are the first to block this user.  I looked through some of the other account names used by the editor in question:

Concern over adminstrative behavior
Per WP:ADMIN "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their administrative actions and to justify them when needed." There has been, in the past, wide agreement that it is inapropriate to "blockandrun" - make a highly controvercial block, and then peace from the discussion for an extended period of time.

You blocked Peter Damian at 13:10. You made your last edit after that at 13:30. Discussion over your block began at your talk page at 13:55, and on WP:ANI at 15:16. It is now 17:42. You have not responded to any concerns raised. Did you block and run? Regardless of your answer, are you open to adminstrative recall? Under what circumstances would you give up your buttons? Hipocrite (talk) 17:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * God forbid someone not spend all their time on Wikipedia. Check WP:AOR for his name. لenna  vecia  18:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Law is not in the category, but this talk of recall and button-giving-up is quite premature in my view. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I just want to know what hoops this one has set up. I don't intend to go farther than to ask. Hipocrite (talk) 19:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)