User talk:Turian/Archives/2010/April

Stan Simmons

I'm in the process of starting an ANI report on Stan Simmons (talk · contribs). Stand by. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll just keep reverting his vandalism. –Turian (talk) 20:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Shortened Link —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Turian, a bit of advice, disengage from his talk page for the duration of the block. Don't be pulled into redundant arguments. Hazardous Matt (talk) 21:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I know what I am doing. I've been around the ol' vandal block (no pun intended) for a while now. –Turian (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Just offering from my own experience. Your mileage may vary. Hazardous Matt (talk) 21:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Result of the 3RR case

Please see the result of WP:AN3#User:Turian reported by User:Scorpion0422 (Result: Stale). Though no block was issued this time, it was only a fluke due to the timing. Be aware that adding a spoiler is not exempt from the 3RR rule. If you think that brand-new editors are messing with an article due to an upcoming event, report it at WP:ANI. Then admins can do whatever is necessary, and you won't be risking a block. EdJohnston (talk) 05:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, reverting vandalism is definitely an exemption from 3RR. –Turian (talk) 09:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not vandalism; it's a content dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I see that you added a new comment to the 3RR case. I have replied there. EdJohnston (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

List of World Heavyweight Champions (WWE)

First off, overlink states that tables are an exception to the overlink rule and that each column should be able to stand on its own. I should know, afterall I've gotten about 10 or so FLs. I also expanded that article to standards a few months ago. Sorting is also an FL requirment.--WillC 09:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I did say provide a link. I'm not going to search for it. –Turian (talk) 09:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Overlink#Repeated links: "tables, in which each row should be able to stand on its own.", the rest is consensus. The only reason the WWE Title list has not been expanded, was due to few editors and the fact one editor had ownership issues with WWE Title lists. WHC List and ECW Title list were the lucky few I had the time to update.--WillC 09:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to keep it. Although, it does look rather awful. And I don't care how many FLs you have done. –Turian (talk) 09:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The FL list was to show that you can take my word as fact rather than heresy. A difference of opinion I guess, I don't think unlinked and unsorted text looks good, I believe it looks rather unprofessional. But I go by what the FL criteria is, since it is an FL. Otherwise, it would fail.--WillC 09:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The header looks bunched up and horrible. The coloring of only one section instead of the entire row looks extremely horrible. The links, which you can find in 20 other places on the page, make it looks horrible. In essence, the section looks horrible and unprofessional. –Turian (talk) 09:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Though by personal opinion you think it looks horrible and unprofessional, it follows all guidelines and criteria of the FLC. Afro (Blah Blah Here) ^{- Afkatk} 10:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The color scheme follows WP:Colors and the headers are WP:PW agreed formating. Add in that the MoS says tables should be linked entirely and the FLC process as approved of all of this.--WillC 10:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Just because the guidelines say it is right doesn't mean it looks great. It looks childish, ill-construed, and unprofessional. I'll let you keep it though, as I don't want to waste my time trying to change the guideline. –Turian (talk) 10:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Well that is just your opinion, at times I've agreed with such an opinion. But these guidelines have went through various discussions to establish a wide consensus. You would be in the minority.--WillC 21:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Minority does not equal wrong, worse, or ill-informed. –Turian (talk) 22:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Ronn Torossian

Mosmof is engaged in another of his wars and I notice you battle with him. Can you assist ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs) 20:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not here to be recruiting into matters I don't care about. –Turian (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

List of WWE champions

Per MOS:BOLD "Use italics, not boldface, for emphasis in article text.", and I quote from Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of TNA World Tag Team Champions for the Row being colored: per WP:COLORS, colored cells should have accompanying symbols (e.g. * ^ †) for accessibility reasons." by a FLRC Reviewer himself, and he lists List of New Jersey Nets head coaches as an example. Afro (Blah Blah Here) ^{- Afkatk} 22:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Article text ≠ text in tables. Also, I don't give a flying flip about the symbol, but the coloring looks awful. If it is what the norm is, it looks awful. So who do I go to in order to point the finger? –Turian (talk) 23:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

We're just following guidelines dude, so I have no idea who you point the finger to, you can always try to change the guidelines if you disagree, though I don't know where you go to do that. Afro (Blah Blah Here) ^{- Afkatk} 23:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Dwayne

This doesn't fit nicely into the thread on Dwayne's talk page now, so I thought I'd say it here. I apologise for implying you were not familiar with Dwayne's repeated requests. I was mistaken. That's all. :-) --Deskana (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I butted heads with him a little while back, and his page has been on my watchlist ever since. I don't get involved too often, but I just thought I would show it from my point of view. –Turian (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter

Delivered: 17:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

Discussion

Hi Turian,

Do you want me to review this unblock request as is? Or do you want to remove it, rewrite it, and then put it back up? This whole thing appears to have spiraled out of control, and I don't think this unblock request, as it stands now, unspirals it. I doubt there is an admin on this site that would unblock based on this request, so it would be a better use of your time to redraft it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Reworded. –Turian (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This whole situation, starting yesterday, was (IMHO) handled less than optimally by several people. To be honest, mostly by you, Turian, but also including others to a lesser degree. My concern is that I assume if you're unblocked, you're just going to go back to arguing with the people you've been arguing with previously. I'd like the opportunity to discuss this with you, without the block hanging over your head, but first I'd like your assurance that you won't interact with anyone you've been arguing with the last day or so for the duration of this block, even if you think this is their fault and not your. To be honest, I think the "48 hours to get some sunshine" isn't a bad idea, but I understand that being forced to get some sunshine is seldom a relaxing experience. meanwhile, let me check in with Nihonjoe. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Not to make it sound like an excuse, but being on this side of the fence is rather disadvantageous. That's like asking someone not to flinch or move when you punch them, and if they do, you punch them again and again until they sit still. It's a little harder than one might think. I can ignore them for two days, I started doing that before I was even blocked. –Turian (talk) 19:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with that analogy. Still, as Nihonjoe has given me a cautious OK, and you've agreed to my condition, and since you've been a productive editor that I would hate to lose, I'm unblocking on the condition that you go back to productive editing, and drop this particular issue for a couple of days. I'd like the opportunity to discuss it with you further when you feel like it. And obviously this isn't a carte blanche to resume fighting in 49 hours. OK, let me figure out the dotting of the i's and crossing of the t's, I don't do this very often. It'll be a few minutes. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with you being unblocked, Turian, but you need to tone things way down. You are pretty much out of control here. You need to take several steps back. You are overanalyzing things and missing the big picture. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I assure you that I am not. I am not some child who doesn't understand anything beyond the tip of his nose. I believe I was unjustly blocked by you. A block by you was absolutely unnecessary. –Turian (talk) 19:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Luckily, we're all going to go edit articles for a while and talk about this later. Turian, let me know if there is still an autoblock, i think i got them all but I'm semi-hopeless about this kind of thing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I can talk whenever, now even. And there is no autoblock. –Turian (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, I was kind of hiding behind that excuse. The truth is, I need to get offline myself soon. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, a summary from my perspective (done pretty fast from memory, no fact checking, no diffs, some of it is blatant looking into someone else's head and ascribing motives, and could be off on details):

• You closed a discussion (fine)
• Someone objected (not fine, consensus was pretty clear, but still, not obviously wrong)
• You restored the close, and somewhere (not quite sure when) the term vandalism started getting thrown about. Could have been handled better.
• ANI thread started by the person who undid your close
• People generally agree with your close, but pointed out that it was unhelpful to call it vandalism. Unfortunately, of those people, one or two sounded a little patronizing, probably unintentionally. Now, I happen to agree with them that you shouldn't call good faith efforts "vandalism", even if they are doing more harm than good. As you yourself realized when it was thrown back in your face later, calling someone a vandal is guaranteed to piss them off, and if it actually is done in good faith, it's unfair.
• You replied too defensively. It wasn't a red herring, it was a different aspect of the same subject. Right about here, I think you stopped "listening" to them , and it would have been useful if they had noticed you weren't listening and dropped it for another day.
• You traded insults with several people, on your pages and theirs.
• Things started to calm down, but there's still the occasional bicker.
• You were blocked. In my own humble opinion, not a useful block, but I do understand it; there was no way to know you'd dropped the subject.
• You made a series of unproductive unblock requests. By now, you're pissed, and there's not much that can be fixed.
• Daniel declines another unblock request, after having "procedurally" declined one. This could have been handled better, but I don't think it was strictly against any rule. Multiple declines by one admin aren't the norm, and can backfire, but I understand he didn't think the first one "counted".
• You deleted his decline (and the comment of another user). Bad decision, even if you thought you were in the right.
• Nihonjoe unblocked figuring this isn't helping anymore (my attitude now, BTW), having not seen your removal. It then gets pointed out to him.
• You start arguing with MRG, when it would have been wiser to keep your head down.
• Nihonjoe feels you acted in bad faith deleting the unblock request, feels tricked, feels that your further arguing indicates you are going to resume things, and reblocks. I don't think this was a trick, so much as not thinking consequences thru. But I certainly don't think this was an unfair block.

Everybody always doing what they thought was right. From my outside perspective, no one here is power mad, or a troll, or a vandal, or anything. Just (per usual) things getting a little worse each time, until they spiral out of control, because no one wants to de-escalate, and everyone escalates a little or a lot.

You say in a couple of places that you don't tolerate fools easily, and you're brusque. But at the same time, at some point you should have noticed that everyone you were coming in contact with was disagreeing with you. Rather than fight half a dozen other people, next time consider walking away (which you did, just kind of late), and realize that when many people are telling you the same thing, it's quite likely that they have a point, even if you don't see it. We can't all be brusque and assume it's the other guy's responsibility to back down or walk away.

Sorry to pontificate and run, but I have to go be productive in real life, or else I'm going to end up with a lot more free time to edit Wikipedia. I'll check in tonight or tomorrow AM. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The main problem stems from opening a closed discussion where consensus was very clear. He then reported me for edit warring (which as you can see, I did no such thing). When people started agreeing with him is the moment where I stopped taking it seriously. Maybe not the best thing to do, but if we are going to make a federal case over such things, then we are politicking for the sake of politicking. Then, a few editors jumped in casting judgment as if they were a part of the situation. I welcome outside voices when they are beneficial, but users such as jaes had no reason to do what they did. Someone in return called me a vandal, and then everything went to hell pretty fast.

I still take the position that both blocks were absolutely unnecessary, and I am considering opening a report on it (but I am not sure I really want to even waste the time to). A two hour break is pretty long, especially when I was editing during that time. Hopefully you can see why I believe it was used to punish and to satiate the mad reasoning of the masses (read as a "few editors"). Then, Daniel decided to be absolutely unhelpful. Closing one request because of "incivility" and the next because of a misinterpretation of wording. Both of these reasons are troubling to me, as they ignore the issue at hand.

Obviously, by then I felt cornered. The most troubling person in the entire series of events is MRG. She basically threatened to "wheel war" with whomever decided to unblock me (the block for removing an unblock request by the inappropriate actions of an administrator is completely outrageous). I ended the entire series of events by ignoring the situation, and found myself blocked. –Turian (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

And saying I am "beyond out of control" is beyond out of line and inappropriate from an administrator. –Turian (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that it came to this, but I will say that closing before time, even when consensus is clear is not always a great idea, it is a fairly bad idea to do so as a person who has !voted in the discussion. Next time just keep calm, make sure that the parties in the discussion aren't talking past each other. Best Regards, Unomi (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

While I trust Floquenbeam could straighten this out, he is evidently gone for the day so I'll note that I'm afraid you have misunderstood me. I said, "You may still, of course, regard the unblocking as reasonable, but I felt you should be made aware that you have inadvertently been drawn into a "wheel" situation." I was pointing out to him that he may not have been aware that he was reversing another admin's decision, not threatening to wheel war with him. I even acknowledged that he might prefer to allow the unblocking to stand. User:Nihonjoe is an admin, a bureaucrat and a fellow OTRS volunteer, and I fully trust he knows what he's doing. I have not blocked you or declined any unblock request of yours, and I had no intentions of blocking you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't really care if he was Jesus–his actions are still out of line. And while you were helpful in the beginning, the majority of you later edits did nothing but feed the flames. Your comments here still tell me that you think I should remain blocked, despite my trying to reason with you. –Turian (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Err, no. Turian, MRG strikes me as trying to be helpful. Please take a few minutes and reread the discussion since it started on ANI. Unomi (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

As I said, her comments at the beginning were helpful. But her edits to Nihonjoe's talk page were anything but. –Turian (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I interpreted the action at Nihonjoe's talk page much the same way MRG says above; it wasn't a threat, and I don't think it was an attempt to get you blocked; it was giving him info he didn't have. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

From my point of view though, it does seem like that. It could just be myself being paranoid, but it was like kicking me when I was already down. –Turian (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

[Comment removed] –Turian (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

See, here's another example of an unhelpful edit. A wise person would realize that Turian is unlikely to consider anything you say, so the only point in posting here would be trying to get a rise out of him. Surely that isn't the goal? An excellent idea, Turian, would be to not respond. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm just going to remove and ignore it. –Turian (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I should have followed my first instinct and not started to discuss this today. What some interpret as "several people all giving the same advice, therefore you should consider it" can also be taken as "I'm being ganged up on". I suspect everyone has digested as much feedback from other people as they are likely to, at least for today? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It does look like that is the case. It normally goes without saying (and that is unfortunate), that you are an excellent editor, Turian, and you have contributed much to this project. Your edits speak for themselves, and they speak well of you. I only posted at the noticeboard because I genuinely hoped you would hear what I was saying, as an outside party. That obviously didn't go as I had intended, and I regret that and apologize... I hope that you and Flo are able to discuss some of this, and I really do wish you the best (and have meant that sincerely every time I've said it). jæs (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'll echo jæs here, my comments at ANI were an attempt to keep you out of trouble. You're a good editor and seeing complaints about you at that noticeboard was a disappointment, especially since there seemed to be some truth to them. I'm used to seeing you help make things better around here. Sorry if you got the wrong impression. -- Atama頭 00:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Elvis

Thanks for adding all original artists for consistency! Raggedyland (talk) 04:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my talk page. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem. –Turian (talk) 02:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring at American Idol (season 9)

Hello Turian. Please see WP:AN3#User:Turian reported by User:Aspects (Result: ). You appear to have made five reverts in 24 hours. You may be able to avoid sanctions if you will undo your last change, and agree to stay off the article for three days. EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I am not "warring" with other users. I have already explained the reasons for the reverts, but it is apparent that means nothing. –Turian (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:EW#Exceptions to 3RR, and tell me which exception covers your reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

All you are doing is looking at the number of reverts I made, not the content. I don't care if it is an exception or not. If it is violating the American Idol MoS, then I will restore the old. If the information is absolutely incorrect, then I will remove it. My goal is to get accurate information onto the article. If you are going to block me for that, then you are going to block me for improving the wiki. –Turian (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to block anyone in this article. The edits Turian made were simple and sporadic, definitely not edit warring. From what I understand edit warring needs an ulterior motive, and I'm not finding one in Turian's case. He's not pinpointing a specific user, he's not pinpointing a specific edit, he's brusk and uncomplimentary but not belligerent. He has engaged me in talks on the article, even going so far as to accept a compromise situation when one was proposed. By the way Ed, it's not Turian's job to prove he's innocent, it's the accusers job to demonstrate Turian's guilt. Wrong article. You really should change the section title, especially if it's a wikilink. Padillah (talk) 18:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)