QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Tue 26th May 2009, 1:19am)
![*](style_images/brack/post_snapback.gif)
I don't know what possible hand-wringing could be going on. It's all non-controversial. That's what Jehochman said in his deletion edit summary May 23 for the David Boothroyd BLP talk page, which would have been the place where all the deletion arguments for it would have been, the first time it was RfD'd:
Er, no, the deletion arguments from the first time it was AFDed would be found
here. The speedy deletion of the talk page as non-controversial, once the article was deleted, was entirely appropriate, though it probably should have been tagged as a G6 rather than a G8.
You can take issue with the A7 deletion of the article itself, which was probably pretty borderline. But there's no attempt whatsoever to hide deletion arguments, which are all still undeleted.
Ah. Well, I wonder what there was to see. The old Dbiv talk pages have all kinds of abuse of admin powers by Dbiv in revert wars: Heres a good section with all the old themes we're all too familiar with on WR and it all happened at the end of 2005!
==3RR==
You have also broken the spirit of 3RR and blatantly abused your admin powers by reverting to your preferred POV version with your revert button. Please do not preach to me or pontificate with your sermons. --84.64.102.234 12:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
:The rollback function is no different to editing a previous version of the page. What I have done is perfectly acceptable. Do not revert George_Galloway again. David | Talk 12:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
::I will revert as I see fit. I am an editor, just as you are. We both have equal rights here. Have fun editing Councellor. --84.64.102.234 12:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
:Thanks for your nice message (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) :You are abusing your powers again. This is a content dispute that you are engaged in, not vandalism, not disruption, not any other violation of policy. You have violated 3RR yourself, yet you have the gall to threaten to block an IP address who is in disagreement with your content. This is about the content and quality of an article, do not block those you are in disagreement with, and do not violate 3RR. As an Admin, you should know that in your sleep. --84.68.83.110 12:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
::WP:IAR. David | Talk 13:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
:::The Admins fallback response to abuse of power. (Ref Lord_Acton) - I rest my case. --84.68.83.110 13:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
::::What it means is that the rules are only there to facilitate the writing of an encyclopaedia. To the extent that they start acting against that goal, they must be forgotten. Your attempt to remove sourced and highly relevant information from George_Galloway is not acting in the interests of writing a better encyclopaedia. You need to learn how to co-operate with other editors. David | Talk 13:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree with you. I am attempting to write an encyclopaedia as well, as you are. We have a disagreement about content, and your content was not "sourced and highly relevant", it was your POV. I disagreed with that and it was within the boundaries of the WP policy that I could edit that material.I can co-operate with anyone, as long as the terms of that co-operation are equal - in other words you do not resort to your blocking powers just because you have them and disagree with a contributor. That is exactly what you have just done. --84.68.83.110 13:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
:Your assertion that my version is POV is ludicrous. The analysis of Respect's general election performance is from the Nuffield study in their introduction. The placing in the 1986 NEC ballot is a fact based on the election results. The vote of no confidence from the CLP is a fact. The rest of the edit is likewise entirely factual. Your blanket reverting was disruptive and resulted in you being blocked. You have never argued for your edits, just reverted. David | Talk 17:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
::The Nuffield Study might be factual, but is irrelevant to this article. You are pushing your POV. It only appeared after my revert of your earlier intervention - something I have equal authority to do as you. Your blanket counter reverting was disruptive and disappointing behaviour from an "admin". You then cunningly added small edits plus your reverts to avoid 3RR - much more disappointing. You are "gaming the system", contrary to policy. Your block of whatever IP it was is also contrary to policy. Please explain and justify the reasons for the block. This is a content dispute, you are an involved "admin", you should not be blocking. You have violated 3RR several times. You have attempted to avoid this by "gaming the system". You have abused your "powers". You have attempted to invoke WP:IAR when challenged - what a joke. This is about the content of the article - I will be reviewing shortly. --84.66.251.169 18:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
:::I await the occasion when you enter into discussion about the edits, as it is now nearly 8 hours since they were made. But please do not try to pretend that all the anon IPs in the 84.6*.*.* range are not the same person. Disingenuousness only works if it is plausible. David | Talk 18:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
::::I have discussed the edits, it is you that has not. I have never claimed to be anyone else, my edits will support that. As I said before, I have no control over my IP, it seems to change randomly. The only disingenuity here is on your part. --84.66.251.169 18:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
:::::You have never discussed the substance of the edits. Meanwhile why not try getting an account instead of being an anon? David | Talk 18:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
::::::You have also studiously avoided answering my questions, like a true politician. --84.66.251.169 18:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
:::::::I refer you to WP:NPA, which you have actually broken several times, often in edit summaries. You haven't actually asked me any questions, which is why I have not answered them. I have no desire to continue this conversation anyway since it doesn't seem to be getting you anywhere. David | Talk 18:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC) Please stop quoting policy to me that I have not broken - (please provide diffs to prove otherwise). I have not violated WP:NPA or any other policy. You, however, have violated several policies, 3RR and blocking amongst them in pursuit of your POV. For an "admin" that is pretty poor form. You ask me ''Why not get an account?'' I have observed this snakepit from the outside for long enough thanks. Some key words spring to mind: *Power *Corruption *Control *Vanity *Cliques *Cabal *Dictatorship *Madness I have no desire to fall into the pit and be poisoned. Best wishes. --84.66.251.169 18:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
:My first question was ''Please explain and justify the reasons for the block'' (see earlier) --84.66.251.169 18:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
You continue to abuse your "admin" powers by blocking someone you are in a content dispute with. Please stop. Please provide evidence of my violation of WP:NPA - you cannot. Please provide evidence of any other alleged transgressions against policy - you cannot. Please provide justification for your block of whatever Ip I had last time - you cannot. Please behave like a normal person and stop this ridiculous agenda. Best wishes again. --84.68.167.228 19:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
==Truce==
This is ridiculous, let's call a halt. Let the record stand and we can thrash things out on the proper channels. --84.68.167.228 19:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
== Featured article for December 25th ==
I noticed you have listed yourself in Category:Atheist_Wikipedians. That said, you will probably be interested in my suggested featured article for December 25th: Omnipotence_paradox. The other suggestion being supported by others for that date is Christmas, although Raul654 has historically been against featuring articles on the same day as their anniversary/holiday. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-28 08:12
== Conflict of interest == Could you please clarify whether you are currently a councillor, and at what point you were aproached by or approached indigo public affairs.
:None of your business. David | Talk 10:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC) [ (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) added by Milton ]
== One simple question == Are you aware of the Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule? AlistairMcMillan 01:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
:Nevermind, looking at your talk page I see you are. AlistairMcMillan 01:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC) You've been blocked for 24 hours for breaking the three revert rule on {{Article|George Galloway}}. * 1st revert: 21:34, 1 December 2005 * 2nd revert: 22:32, 1 December 2005 * 3rd revert: 00:36, 2 December 2005 * 4th revert: 00:52, 2 December 2005 AlistairMcMillan 01:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC) :* 1st revert: 10:21, 27 November 2005 :* 2nd revert: 22:16, 27 November 2005 :* 3rd revert: 22:27, 27 November 2005 :* 4th revert: 22:46, 27 November 2005 :* 5th revert: 22:55, 27 November 2005 : Do you have any respect for the rules here? AlistairMcMillan 05:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
::Per WP:IAR I have more respect for the facts and for fair articles than for the rules. You appear to have broken one by blocking someone you were involved in a dispute with, which is a misuse of admin privileges. You've also made a personal attack. In any case if you wanted to know what community consensus is on George_Galloway, why not file an RFC in the politics section? David | Talk 09:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
:::Clearly no repect for the rules, I just wasted time posting this on WP:AN/3RR (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)
:::I see you beat me to it Alistair. David, you blocked me a few days ago while you were in dispute with me. Your pontification is a tad rich. --84.68.228.215 09:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
::::I blocked you for disruptive editing and after warning you. Neither applies in this case, and as I have just verified, I did not actually break the 3RR because the third and fourth 'reverts' were not reverting to the same version. David | Talk 09:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
:::::Wikilawyering, hiding behind WP:IAR when necessary and lobbing in a spurious mini edit whilst reverting to avoid 3RR are disappointing behaviour for an Admin. The "disruptive editing" you refer to is just a widely used Admin ploy to win disputes, I see it all the time. And please, do not try to classify this as a "personal attack", another typical Admin tactic, because there is nothing personal in these observations. It is endemic amongst Admins on this endeavour. WP:TINC --84.67.198.173 09:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
:::Consensus on George Galloway is quite clear. Please point to any other editor on the Talk page who supports your insistence that Saddam needs to be mentioned in the first paragraph of George Galloway. As far as I can see, you are in favour and DanielM, JamesMLane, GrahamN, Fergie and myself all oppose it. 1 to 5 seems pretty damn clear to me. AlistairMcMillan 09:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
::::Don't forget me (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) which makes it 1 to 6. No idea why my IP keeps switching and, no, I will not get an account - see my comments on the snakepit above. --84.67.198.173 09:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I dunno who 84.67.198.173 was, but I hope they started over, too. (IMG: