User talk:Wolfkeeper

Hi, please click here if you want to leave a new message

Heterogeneous

Hi, now that Heterogeneous is a disambiguation page, could you clean up the links that now point to the disambig per WP:FIXDABLINKS? Thanks, --JaGa^talk 10:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for Edit warring against consensus on Policy pages. 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 below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

The administrator SarekOfVulcan appears to be harassing me and is abusing his administrator bit. The principle of the wikipedia is that making bold changes to policy is acceptable, and the proposed change I made to the deletion policy is completely inline with the other policies of the Wikipedia and the general way that this policy is actually used in AFDs, even before any previous changes. The edit was not a repeat of any previous edits I have made, nor is it in any way disruptive.

Decline reason:

Blaming SarekofVulcan will not get your block lifted early. Please write an unblock request that discusses your behavior, not the actions of other editors. You may want to read the guide to appealing blocks for pointers. TNXMan 01:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

The principle of the wikipedia is that making bold changes to policy is acceptable, and the proposed change I made to the deletion policy is completely inline with the other policies of the Wikipedia and the general way that this policy is actually used in AFDs, even before any previous changes. The edit was not a repeat of any previous edits I have made, nor is it in any way disruptive. Blocking people for long periods based simply on having had a stable account in the Wikipedia is unjust and simply encourages people to abandon accounts.

Decline reason:

No evidence the user understands that they actually did anything wrong, and no promise to cease said behaviour if unblocked. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Note: These 8 edits, are probably what need to be explained.

HTH, I'm only posting this because I think your latest unblock request is probably not what they're wanting from you (ie, something conciliatory). -- Quiddity (talk) 01:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a bad block. I simply haven't done 3 reverts in 24 hours, and while you can be blocked for less than that the edit I was apparently blocked on wasn't even a revert according to the 3rr policy. A revert is when you return the page to an earlier state. This wasn't such an edit, it was considerably different. It's also significant that SarekofVulcan reverted the edit, that means he used his administrative powers as well as his editing in a particular situation. He can only do one or the other. SarekofVulcan is clearly well out of order, and this is going to have to come up on ANI. People have lost their adminstrator bits for this kind of thing.- Wolfkeeper 01:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring isn't limited to 3 reverts spaced over 24 hours each, and neither is a revert strictly defined as a specific restoration of an earlier version of a page. It is also defined as an action which reverses the actions of other editors in whole or in part. Please see WP:REVERT.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

In case I wasn't clear above, 3rr isn't strictly limited by time; it's a bright line rule. Slow edit warring, like what you were doing, still violates the policy.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I know that, but the final edit I was apparently blocked for was different to the previous edits. And I don't buy this 'slow edit warring' theory. On that basis I would never be allowed to edit any page more than once, and even a single edit can count as 3RR. Which is ridiculous, we expect a bit of give and take. And the other really, really, really bad thing is that the person edit warring me was actually Sarek, he was the one doing most of the reverts. And then he blocked me. He's not allowed to do that. Otherwise he can pop up on any of my edits anywhere in the Wikipedia and revert me and then block me, which is actually what he did here. He can't deliberately make an edit war with me and then block me, people have lost their administrator bits for less than that before.- Wolfkeeper 02:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

<-- Wolf, you referenced an RFC. Where was that? Dlohcierekim 02:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Proposal--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Sarek. Don't agree with Wolf's interpretation, I'm afraid. Dlohcierekim 02:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That's OK, you can ban anyone you disagree with, because you're an administrator!!!! That's right isn't it? And if an administrator breaks the rules, as here, nothings happens. If a user doesn't actually break any rule, then they get banned! I wasn't actually 3RR, I had not been warned on this page, and I was edit warred and then banned by an admin. How is that not corrupt?- Wolfkeeper 03:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The point of 3RR is that it's supposed to damp out changes to pages, not that it's supposed to allow admins to chose the 'right' version. I was not rapidly editing pages, making changes to pages is the normal way consensus forms. This slow edit warring idea is a heap of shit.- Wolfkeeper 03:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Word articles

Sarek wrote "Policy pages", and never mentioned 3RR, so presumably the block was also for the editing at Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Sorry, but there it is. (being rude to everyone for the last 3 days, in talkpages and editsummaries, probably didn't help).

One positive step, might be to make an honest attempt at getting back to the actual discussion topic, in a polite way. E.g. I left you a long answer at WT:NOTDIC#Let the bots roll!, that I'm still interested in your thoughts on. Really!

The reality is that many editors agree with each other, about something to do with "notable words", and they're probably not all idiots! It takes a courageous person to stick to their beliefs, but it takes an even more courageous person to admit that perhaps their beliefs, were only opinions..

My gums hurt like heck (not quite at hell-scape levels). First cavity-fillings in my life, today. So take everything I write today with a grain of salt. And floss regularly. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

There's probably no way to define what notable means in this context. The Encyclopedia Britannica actually has very few words in it. Apart from any logical/encyclopedic reasons for it, they don't want to write the same topic multiple times in different languages, so they translate the encyclopedia from English into multiple languages. Clearly any content that doesn't translate would be a significant problem for them, so they deliberately avoid non translatable articles which rules out articles written to describe multiple meanings of words. That also means they have little lexicography, except in linguistic articles.

I had a look at your table, and the big problem with it is that it concentrates on knowledge and information; the difference between encyclopedias and dictionaries are largely to do with presentation and organization (depth will vary between particular reference works so it's not an inherent difference, but is nearly always deeper in encyclopedias). By arranging the information in encyclopedic form it becomes portable between languages, because concepts are far, far more general than words.

So saying that an article can be about a word should be totally wrong. At most it should be about a meaning of a word, otherwise taken to its logical conclusion it's just an essay-style dictionary entry (which actually many people are quite happy with for many articles, but taken to the logical conclusion everywhere in the wiki you to end up with the wikipedia being an essay style dictionary instead of an encyclopedia). I mean, if the topic is the word, then the article has to cover all aspects of that word, which will include every meaning. So if we take the meaning but even then... one article per meaning, if taken to its logical conclusion turns back into a dictionary but with an entry per definition/usage rather than an entry per word, but it comes to the same thing, you're just laying it out very slightly differently, but it's exactly the same- you end up with an encyclopedic dictionary in fact.

So you don't really have much choice. Articles on words, if allowed, and if taken to the logical conclusion ends up with badness; it's no longer an encyclopedia, it's either a dictionary or an encyclopedic dictionary. Or a mixture... I'll come to that in a minute.

And I think we have to assume that the Wikipedia, over time, is very definitely going to take everything to its absolute logical conclusion, people will just keep adding and polishing and growing until each article covers the topic, and probably then some more on top. There doesn't seem to be an end point.

Mixing things... that's what people are trying to do, but if you try to do a mix it doesn't work out well at all. The issues are that the content has to go somewhere, and it groups more easily conceptually than by word... but then you've got both going on so where do you draw the line between word and thing??? You just don't know. Does most of the stuff about salad go in rocket or under eruca sativa, or both, or elsewhere? You could try to come up with some arbitrary scheme and put cross references everywhere, but then it's arbitrary. In an encyclopedia you do sometimes get this problem a bit, but it's much, much easier to know where to put things. As I understand it, encyclopedias were invented to solve this exact problem in fact. By grouping things by logical conceptual type, the organisational sorting is much more stable.

I think that people must have tried to expand dictionaries and just failed. You end up with loads of content forks or you end up not knowing what the right place is. This is also why general-purpose encyclopedic dictionaries if you've ever read one are a bit clumsy. They're sort of better than a dictionary, but you keep getting sent off to other articles (synonyms in particular are very problematic).

So an Encyclopedia cum dictionary cum encyclopedic dictionary really doesn't hang together. You have to pick one but then you're a rules nazi and everyone hates you. :-)

But 5P is clear, it says that the wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and Benoit says that encyclopedia articles are translatable, and translatable rules out word articles really pretty much, there might be the odd one that survives translation into any language, but that's going to be rare indeed.

And, unfortunately that's also the problem with favorite stuff, lexicography, in encyclopedia articles, as it refers to the words, so the words don't translate ;-(. Dictionaries/encyclopedic dictionaries do include lexicography though.

I honestly don't really see any way out. The best thing is just to keep dictionaries and encyclopedia completely separate in different wikis and link between them. I did wonder whether the wikis could be merged, with different articles for words than encyclopedia articles, but it doesn't seem to help, the policies need to be completely different and we can already link between the two (with a few minor issues with soft redirects that hopefully the system guys will sort out eventually). I also wondered whether doing stuff like sticking (word) on the end like football (word) had mileage, but again you end up with duplicating the Wiktionaries policies, and they have problems as well with their policies that are, if anything, worse than the Wikipedia's.- Wolfkeeper 07:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The policy issues are probably also why we don't have any FA quality word articles; they automagically fail a whole slew of encyclopedic policies!- Wolfkeeper 06:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I had a look at feeeeshboys stuff but he's not understood the primary points at all, it's about how things are laid out, the mapping to words is still there in encyclopedia, but the information is arranged by concept, not word. And in an encyclopedia even a thing, is really a concept. The article London is about the idea of the place called London, which hopefully has relationships to the real stuff on the ground. It's not about the word London.- Wolfkeeper 07:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Brief comments, more in the morning:

1. Has the Encyclopedia Britannica ever been "translated"? Pointers, please.

There's spanish and french language versions on their website.- Wolfkeeper 17:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Most of the example articles listed at the main rfc, have interwiki links, and some have many: E.g. Fourth Estate, American (word), Craic, Fuck, Negro, Nigger, Secularity, Thou, Akata, Chemistry (etymology), Cunt, Grok, History of the term Vlach, Humbug, Idle, Infidel, Jew (word), Man (word), Milord, No (word), Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious, Yankee.

1. Negro and Niger are synonyms. Thou is a pronoun, none of the pronouns should have their own articles in a proper encyclopedia. American (word) is good example of a problematic article, there almost certainly should be an article at American (which is after all a noun) that covers the idea of things belonging to the American continent. If you do that then the American (word) article probably merges into it.- Wolfkeeper 17:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

1. If you could separate and clarify your arguments (perhaps in the table), that might help clarify the disagreement. – Currently the majority of your information above, seems to hinge upon the single sentence written by Bejoint. – However you also briefly touch upon the rocket/rocket point again (here, I think you're using a very confusing example, as nobody has ever suggested that the word rocket[ship] is in any way connected to the Eruca sativa plant's common name. (Have they?) The words have different etymologies given in wiktionary: rocca vs eruca).

1. They both have the same word root I think, I think Eruca Sativa grows quickly, and there's been a long etymological association of rocket with speed. I'm pretty sure that eruca is corruption of rocca, it's very suspicious, I think they're word fossils. People think that rockets are a new thing, but they're 800 years old.- Wolfkeeper 17:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

More in the morning. (Note for observers: The table Wolfkeeper is referring to is here and was mentioned by me at ANI) -- Quiddity (talk) 07:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Before cast anymore aspersions, you might want to read the WP:ANI discussion. Dlohcierekim 03:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Socking

Please don't do it again.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

In fact I reserve the right under WP:IAR to have and use socks, but I certainly haven't/won't use them to vote multiple times or give a generally false impression or otherwise be a wp:dick with them.- Wolfkeeper 07:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

IAR doesn't apply to using them to evade sanctions.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it doesn't so I have extended the block to 2 weeks. If you do it again you can expect and even longer block. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't evading I was complaining about nazi admins. Fortunately, it's clear you are nazi admins, so you've extended the bans, and have neatly proved the point.- Wolfkeeper 17:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you please stop equating Wikipedia administrators with my relatives' murderers? Thanks. —David Levy 17:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

What would you prefer? Fascistic?- Wolfkeeper 17:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer that you cease the personal attacks. —David Levy 17:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer it if admins didn't claim the right to revert and then suspend users, but apparently this form of admin abuse is currently perfectly acceptable, so perhaps you'll forgive me, but i doubt it.- Wolfkeeper 18:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

permanent link to evidence of socking

I'd say if he socks again, OR if he returns from the block and resumes the previous behaviour, the block should be extended to indef. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You've already used socks to give a generally false impression - the false impression that there is another editor with your extreme views towards articles on words, and the false impression that you were someone else defending yourself at ANI. I've sought editing restrictions at WP:AN, if you wish to comment you may post a statement here and it will be copied over. –xeno^talk 14:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

This is simply a bad faith mischaracterisation, many other editors do indeed share my views on this, I used that sock because people were and are wikistalking me, and this includes admins, and when I created that sock, it was not illegal. Xeno's edits are a perfect example of the kind of malicious crap I have had to, and still do put up with.- Wolfkeeper 17:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

See [1]. –xeno^talk 17:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

None of those edits were intended to give a false impression in any way. And I was genuinely being stalked.- Wolfkeeper 17:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Pretending to be a separate user railing against the inequities of your block was not intended to give a false impression? What about the double-participation in Talk:Git (slang)? –xeno^talk 17:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

What about it, I made a single edit on the talk page? If I'd really been up to no good,do you think I would have stopped at one edit?- Wolfkeeper 18:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You don't see why that's inappropriate? To use an undisclosed sock to make it appear that your position has greater support than it actually does? What of the ANI thread where you defended yourself so vociferously? –xeno^talk 18:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, no. This is about people following me around and revert warring me, repeatedly, over a long period. When I used BigBodBad I actually got comments on my talk page thanking me for doing stuff. Basically, the Wolfkeeper account experiences long-term, low grade harassment.- Wolfkeeper 18:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Out of the 4 editors who contacted you on your sock's talk page, three were critical of your changes. Rather than blaming others, claim wikistalking, etc., perhaps you might look inwards, to see why you are encountering such opposition to your edits. Have you considered the possibility that your view with respect to words-as-articles does not align with that of the greater community? Have you considered directing your efforts to other areas of interest, where you might encounter less opposition? –xeno^talk 18:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Wolfkeeper, what you're describing is disguising the pattern in your contribution history in order to avoid the scrutiny of others. That's besides you using the sock to make your position appear to have more support than it really does and to evade a block. Those are all inappropriate uses of an alternate account, and until you understand and address that your unblock requests will continue to be declined.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Uh huh. You were basically wikistalking and revert warring many of my edits. Perhaps you should acknowledge that and do something about it.- Wolfkeeper 18:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, if I had any intention of doing that, I would have made a fuck of a lot better job of it.- Wolfkeeper 17:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

What you've done is called "using alternate accounts to feign consensus", and the only reason you haven't been banned outright is that you don't seem to have a habit of it. Sure, you can ignore all rules, but you also have to deal with the consequences of doing so. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Really, I feigned consensus? Doesn't look like there's a lot of consensus anywhere.- Wolfkeeper 17:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

If I had actually feigned consensus you would have banned me completely. This is just trumped up nonsense.- Wolfkeeper 17:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The only thing I'm guilty of is disagreeing with an admin. Fortunately in the kafkaesque world of Wikipedia, that is a banning offense.- Wolfkeeper 17:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you attempting to claim that you did not use an alternate account to pose as an uninvolved third party when you were editing WP:ANI#Block of WolfKeeper by SarekOfVulcan? That's both block evasion and "consensus feigning". The only reason you haven't been banned completely for this is that you don't seem to have made a habit of it, and I didn't feel like making more than a cursory investigation. In other words, you're being given the benefit of the doubt here, and we're assuming good faith, which you're making quite difficult. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)