User talk:Homey~enwiki

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

Alleged violation was for single restoration of an original research tag that was *not* in the earliest reverts. Other content not reverted in final instance See [1] Identical complaint made by Pecher was dismissed earlier as "bad faith".

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2= Alleged violation was for single restoration of an original research tag that was *not* in the earliest reverts. Other content not reverted in final instance See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Homeontherange_reported_by_User:Zeq_Talk] Identical complaint made by Pecher was dismissed earlier as "bad faith". |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1= Alleged violation was for single restoration of an original research tag that was *not* in the earliest reverts. Other content not reverted in final instance See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Homeontherange_reported_by_User:Zeq_Talk] Identical complaint made by Pecher was dismissed earlier as "bad faith". |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1= Alleged violation was for single restoration of an original research tag that was *not* in the earliest reverts. Other content not reverted in final instance See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Homeontherange_reported_by_User:Zeq_Talk] Identical complaint made by Pecher was dismissed earlier as "bad faith". |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Thanks for visiting my Talk: page.

If you are considering posting something to me, please:

*Post new messages to the bottom of my talk page.
*Use headlines when starting new talk topics.
*Comment about the content of a specific article on the Talk: page of that article, and not here.
*Do not make personal attacks.

Comments which fail to follow the four rules above may be immediately archived or deleted.

Thanks again for visiting.

archive1 archive2 archive3

Moshe

It's irrelevant whether you used the block time to revert or not: "sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute", period. That's the exact wording of the blocking policy and the basics of adminship. Pecher ^Talk 12:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The second sentence (quoted above) gives an interpretation of the first and must be followed to the letter. It doesn't say admins may block if he dosn't use the block to their advantage; it says admins must never block those with whom they are involved in a content dispute. Your references to the first sentence, while disregarding the second one are inappropriate. Pecher ^Talk 12:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

GLF/Sussexman/Christchurch

Hallo Homey,

I have just posted the following as a follow-up on User talk:Edchilvers. I am confident that Sussexman and Christchurch are the same contributor, probably GLF.

The clincher is Sussexman's interest in a specific area of New South Wales in Australia - I was intrigued to see that he has started and contributed to articles about funny little places like Cessnock, New South Wales, Maitland, New South Wales, Gloucester, New South Wales - and a particular interest in the area's coal industry (South Maitland coalfields; John Scholey; Charles Upfold). Sussexman mentioned to another editor that he had a family connection with the region. Guess who else has a family connection to this insignificant little corner of south-eastern Australia? Guess who has a family connection to coal-mining? Guess whose coal-mine manager great-uncle emigrated to Kurri Kurri (a suburb of Cessnock, New South Wales)? Here's the great-uncle from New South Wales. Click on the Details link at the bottom right hand, and guess who pops up?

GLF is descended from John Upfold and also related to Charles Upfold and John Scholey.

In a curious circularity, a contributor to the John Scholey piece and creator of the Charles Upfold article is Christchurch - yet another contributor whose primary areas of interest appear focused on (a) coal-mining in the same bit of New South Wales, and (b) right-wing fringe politics.

Psalm 7:15 refers. -- Humansdorpie 15:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC).

Another conspiracy theorist. Countless people in Britain have relations and family in Australia, justy as they have in the USA. My family had two large properties out there, which I visited several times in my youth. The districts are not "funny little places" but rich with local history. I have no idea who Christchurch is but can he not be have an interest in similar areas/subjects? What are you trying to prove here? Sussexman 07:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No Homey it is not a probation violation

Feel free to report it I look forward to ArbCom review of this article as well. Zeq 15:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR on Apartheid

Hello Homey, I should inform you that you are in danger of a 3RR violation on Israeli apartheid (phrase).- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You are also in danger of a different 3RR violation on Jewish Defense League.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up.-Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The guy just put it in the category like one hour ago, I asked him to remove both of them.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq's editing

In my opinion your complaint about Zeq's editing was essentially the pot calling the kettle black. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

In my view the main difference is that you are an administrator with many years of experience on Wikipedia, and really should know much better. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Apartheid outside of South Africa

Hmm, don't you think it is kinda odd that almost all of the recent votes to this afd are from editors that have not edited the article before, nor other articles in the wider subject area?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Right of course, 20 or so editors who neither of us have ever encountered before on any single article that relates to the afd suddenly just happened to find the article and decided that our arguments were so egregious that they had to support the deletion. Is that what you mean?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Give me a break, I didn't give your email out to anyone. Why don't you write another RFC to accuse me of it, to try to drum up support.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Homey, please respond to allegations, however unfair they may be, rather than removing them. Removing them only antagonises people and makes them wonder if you "have something to hide". I'm not speculating at this point on whether you do or don't. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 20:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Sam, I responded to the allegations on Moshe's talk page prior to removing them from mine. The allegations are false and I suggested Moshe email the people who have participated in the AFD and ask them if I've emailed them about it. As for Moshe's latest comment, given his baseless speculation about me he shouldn't be complaining. PKB.Homey 21:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

(copying text from User talk:Samuel Blanning to keep the conversation in one place)

Sam - check Moshe's talk page. I responded to him there prior to removing his offensive allegation from my page. Homey 21:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Sam, here are the responses I posted to Moshe's page regarding his allegations. I did so prior to removing them from my page. Do you have a problem if I remove his personal attack from my page now?Homey 21:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Do I have a problem with it? Not particularly, it would be ridiculous to say that I have a problem with what you do with your talk page when it only involves me peripherally, but I think that editors like Moshe may have a problem that they don't need to have. If you'd copied your reply to your talk page or just left a note to that effect it would look a lot better than removing it entirely. You're an admin - its accepted that people will say nasty things about you which may be unjustified, and people won't think any less if they remain on your talk page. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:

I didn't see the article that he made, so I only know what you told me. It sounds like you only made it obvious when you reacted so strongly to it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't saying he did it by accident. Anyways I don't think I really want to get involved.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

On another matter

GoldDragon's back. If you have the time, could you look over the disputes at Howard Moscoe, Christine Elliott, John Snobelen and Rob Davis (Ontario politician). CJCurrie 04:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Poll

Sorry, moves of protected pages should only be done when there is a solid consensus about that. It looked like it yesterday evening, but I had my doubts and I had indicated it was conditional. I could have been strict at that time and insisted that there would be first a poll. I will modify my comment, to see what comes out of the poll and act again accordingly. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand your argument. However, the block was after a new bout of edit warring, and protection locks the content from that moment, without endorsement. The argument to bring it back to a specific historial state can equally be applied to any of the many other revisions, and various editors have various preferences. As such, it can only be done with strong consensus. That was not fully clear yesterday, and so I did that conditionally, and this morning, I saw there is no consensus, but rather a whole range of opinions about various names. For now, I am going to leave the article in the current state untill there is consensus about a change. And I realise, that consensus will be extremely difficult to reach. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

hi

I follwed some links and ended reading your contributions and talks. Just wanted to say hi and well done --Thameen 19:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq

Hi, I've examined some of your recent actions. I won't comment on your actual editing on this occasion (I haven't looked at them in detail) but one thing that particularly concerns me is this sequence:

• 18:47, 29 May 2006 Homeontherange blocked Zeq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) with an expiry time of 24 hours (vandalism of Israeli apartheid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article)
• 18:50, 29 May 2006 Homeontherange unblocked Zeq (Actually, this should go to Arbcomm)

• 21:34, 29 May 2006 PinchasC (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked Homeontherange with an expiry time of 24 hours (3rr violation on Apartheid (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views))

• 03:31, 30 May 2006 Homeontherange blocked Zeq with an expiry time of indefinite (tendentious editing in Israeli apartheid (phrase) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as per AdminCommittee probation and discussion with Fred Bauder.)
• 03:41, 30 May 2006 Homeontherange unblocked Zeq (will reapply block tomorrow afternoon)

At the time of the first block you were very involved in editing the article (which is now Israeli apartheid (epithet) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)). The edit that prompted the block [2] looks like a very clear content dispute; Zeq gave a pretty full explanation in the edit summary so, even if it was a bad edit, it was hardly vandalism.

As shown above, the same day your own edits on a related article seem to have become so problematic as to lead to edit warring occasioning a 3RR block by PinchasC.

The second block by you above against the same editor, Zeq, for editing on the same article, is especially worrying to me.

I suppose maybe what I'd like to suggest is could you try to avoid using your direct blocking powers in cases involving Zeq? Especially where you are editing in very much the same area, I think, it makes me worry that you're getting to involved and merging the lines of administration and editing. The block for edit warring suggests to me that you may be allowing your best judgement to be influenced by your obvious passion about the subject. --Tony Sidaway 20:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes Tony, I agree with you and I regret blocking Zeq myself. I have gone to the Admin notice page instead over the past few days. Homey 20:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Neo Nazi

Why did you accuse this editor as being a 'neo nazi". His edit pattern shows he is interested in subjects involving African Americans: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=70.29.185.180 .

You must understand that I don't want any neo-Nazi posting on my talk page but I must first make due diligence to find who is (or what is) the poster. If indeed he is neo Nazi I thank you for removing the comment. Zeq 05:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Understood. How do you know his affiliation ? Zeq 06:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You will be surprized but I'll trust you on that. Thanks. Zeq

Your dash board

is clearly not the issue. Nither is "your function here" Zeq 13:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

More apartheid

You might also be interested in dealing with constant removal of the link to the Apartheid_(disambiguation) page from the Apartheid proper page. Bertilvidet 17:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism

I thought you know better than accusing other people of vandalism. Please refrain from creating articles to further a political agenda; Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Pecher ^Talk 18:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

This disambiguation page violates WP:DAB, and there is no reason to adverise it. It's absolutely improbable that people reading History of South Africa in the apartheid era were actually looking for the phrase "Israeli apartheid". Pecher ^Talk 18:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

To let you know

Just thought I'd let you know, someone brought you up at WP:AN/3RR. Hope it works out, Chuck^(contrib) 08:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR

The report was not spurious, and should be up to an univolved admin to decide. Regardless of the outcome, you may want to reconsider your approach to editing, as persistent edit warring is not acceptable. Pecher ^Talk 12:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

No, removal of tags most certainly cannot be considered vandalism, as it does not constitute a deliberate attempt to impair the quality of Wikipedia. On the other hand, baseless accusations of vandalism are considered personal attacks and indicate a failure to assume good faith. Pecher ^Talk 12:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Coroebus

replied on my talkpage --Coroebus 13:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Wide range conflict

I have seen it. I will consider. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the question has become now how to solve this whole series of issues. I think there is a need for a single centralised discussion on this. Because the fractioned discussion as at the moment is not going to work. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR complaint re Apartheid_outside_of_South Africa

Hi. User:Zeq has reported you for a breach of wikipedias three revert rule with respect to the above article. It is not clear whether your edits are a direct breach of that rule (see the discussion there), but in any case, they are perhaps not the best way of going forward with the article. Please try and discuss your edits on the talk page and arrive at a conclusion before reverting changes. Cheers. Kcordina ^Talk 15:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for 3RR. FeloniousMonk 16:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Homeontherange appears to have become fixated on the metaphorical use of the term "Apartheid" in certain strains of political discourse to describe situations outside South Africa, to the point where it's disrupting Wikipedia. His involvement in disciplinary actions against users with whom he's disputed content on these and closely-related subjects has raised eyebrows[3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. He's created a number of articles[9], [10], [11], [12], [13], some of rather questionable value, which use the phrase in more-or-less novel ways, seemingly in order to justify the existence of Apartheid (disambiguation), which became the subject of contentious and time-consuming AfD's[14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. He solicited[20] and joined in a vacuous report about a content dispute related to a link to the disambiguation page from History of South Africa in the apartheid era on WP:AN. He’s been blocked several times in recent months for 3RR violations[21], and now has earned another block, again related to this very same set of issues. I think it's time he take a few steps back from this subject and gain some perspective on the way he's been impacting Wikipedia.Timothy Usher 18:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)