Talk:Baháʼu'lláh/Archive 5

message: Open proxies should be banned on sight and for good as per Wikipedia policy. I would encourage all admins who frequent this page to do just so, instead of tolerating the ongoing nonsense. If editors feel anonymity is a necessity or login is inconvenient, this is fine, but the use of open proxies is clearly against current policies. Refdoc 22:52, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open Proxy edits 

message: I have linked this page and Talk:Bahá'u'lláh's family on WP:RFC to attempt to elicit assiance from others to form a concensus which Martin/Amir/Nitro will accept.   Rick Boatright 17:04, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not holding my breath.  I think this should probably go directly to an arbitration.  Anything else is probably a waste of time.  Martin's been at this for over a month now, and every time someone new comes along and agrees that a modicum of respect for the sensibilities of Baha'is would not be anti-Wikipedia he accuses them of being Baha'is, sock-puppets, or stupid admins.  About 5 or six different admins have come along to try to stop the 3RR violations, and he hasn't taken any notice of them.  Why would he take any more notice if 3 or 4 more admins tell him his behaviour is out of order?  He hasn't even bothered to make any kind of sensible response to the current RfC on him, beyond one passing joke from one of his sock-puppets. PaulHammond 17:37, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
Well, I thought about that, but the RFA page was very clear about not skipping steps.  :-(  So,  I didn't skip steps.  I think this could be a VERY SHORT step.  Especially since the Nitram count is up to 14. Rick Boatright 18:06, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Well to be fair currently his main username is blocked for fourteen days for various bits of disruption so he cannot legitimately respond on the Wiki.  He'd have to email his response to me and I'd post it up.  He may also want to apply for help from the Advocates, and he can do this through me.  I always welcome, read and respond to legitimate (non-abusive) emails on the subject of Wikipedia, especially from blocked users. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:08, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC listed 

message: I didn't go to WP:AN in order to satisfy your demand that I raise the question on that board, but to see if there was consensus that your actions merited what was after all some pretty extreme action.  Nevertheless you'll no doubt be interested to know that so far WP:AN#User:Martin2000 seems to be pretty well unanimous that you're being a very naughty boy indeed.   Now please stop it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:08, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to Martin2000 on subject of Admin board consensus

message: Might it be an idea to start a page (such as Talk_Baha'u'llah\Photo_opinions - or however it should be syntaxed) that lists everyone's opinion on the photo. I'd suggest a format much like a vote (but not a vote) so that people can see what people think about it. Also it would be important to include any biases involved (such as I'm a Baha'i so would naturally prefer no photo etc). One section per user etc. Just an attempt to make a consensus more possible.
Having said that with the warring going on right now it might not work, but as this has come up a fair whack in my 3 months on wikipedia (and I imagine it will continue) it means that we can just provide a link rather than repeatedly discussing it. -- Tomhab 16:20, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo opinions 

message: I'm reverting once to the gentler warning.  A threat is unwikilike and is likely to provoke a reaction, whereas the warning will encourage editors to check the discussions.  A threat to revert within an hour is really not the kind of thing we want to see propagated in talk pages, let alone in html comments in article sources. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:21, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm for truth in commented sectionsGeni 20:35, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Anyone noticed that in the last 15 days there have been no photo deletions? Nice -- Tomhab 04:13, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation of [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]'s revert of [[User:Geni|Geni]]'s edit of 16 Apr, 18:04 UTC

message: It's been nearly a week now.  Shouldn't this page be unprotected?  PaulHammond 19:15, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
:You're right, I will unprotect. Gamaliel 21:16, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Time to unprotect