| Revision as of 22:44, 30 May 2007 editKittybrewster (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers45,052 edits →Blocked again, another COI violation← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:48, 30 May 2007 edit undoGiano II (talk | contribs)22,233 edits →Blocked again, another COI violation: This is enough to try the patience of a saintNext edit → | ||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
| :There is some discussion of this block at ANI, although the discussion hasn't really advanced very far, perhaps because Kittybrewster has not (yet?) posted an unblock request. ] 22:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | :There is some discussion of this block at ANI, although the discussion hasn't really advanced very far, perhaps because Kittybrewster has not (yet?) posted an unblock request. ] 22:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::What I think is that there is no such thing as ] but there is such a thing as an ] - because it is lowland rather than highland. Some Wikipedians however don't know the difference and preserve an article with the wrong title even though they have been advised differently. And the family or category embraces everybody and everything who / which chooses to acknowledge the family in any way, including people such as ] who chose to use it but was born a Parsons and ships, roads, places named after people with the name. That does '''not''' create a conflict of interest. Not all Arbuthnots re related. Does BHG bar herself from editing articles about Brown haired girls or women in general? Should she do so? Ridiculous. Should NewYorkBrad bar himself from editing articles on New York related subjects? Ludicrous. I think if BHG wants to argue that I am being disruptive then she should explain how and where the COI arises. I simply don't see it. I cannot appeal her appalling judgment. I simply don't understand her thinking in arriving at it. If I understood it, maybe I could respond to it. I would like to understand it with appropriate references to ]. Does BHG desist from editing articles named Smith (if her name is Smith)?? Or does she think I own the copyright of the Dictionary of National Biography? Oh, I do wish it were so. - ]<small>]</small> 22:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | ::What I think is that there is no such thing as ] but there is such a thing as an ] - because it is lowland rather than highland. Some Wikipedians however don't know the difference and preserve an article with the wrong title even though they have been advised differently. And the family or category embraces everybody and everything who / which chooses to acknowledge the family in any way, including people such as ] who chose to use it but was born a Parsons and ships, roads, places named after people with the name. That does '''not''' create a conflict of interest. Not all Arbuthnots re related. Does BHG bar herself from editing articles about Brown haired girls or women in general? Should she do so? Ridiculous. Should NewYorkBrad bar himself from editing articles on New York related subjects? Ludicrous. I think if BHG wants to argue that I am being disruptive then she should explain how and where the COI arises. I simply don't see it. I cannot appeal her appalling judgment. I simply don't understand her thinking in arriving at it. If I understood it, maybe I could respond to it. I would like to understand it with appropriate references to ]. Does BHG desist from editing articles named Smith (if her name is Smith)?? Or does she think I own the copyright of the Dictionary of National Biography? Oh, I do wish it were so. - ]<small>]</small> 22:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :::This is enough to try the patience of a saint - YOU are one of the chief editors of ] people are spending hours and hours trying to unravel the mess you have created. Now toy say there is no such thing as a page you have been heavily editing. Streuth! ] 22:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:48, 30 May 2007
Your block
I make no comment on the justification of your block. However, you may not be aware that it is possible to appeal against it. See details here Template:Unblock. When you are unblocked I am quite prepared to work with you and help you see the best way forward for your Arbuthnot pages. I understand this must be difficult for you but a solution does have to be found. Giano 08:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- To my mind the block was quite inappropriate. I have never seen a COI tag on an edit and although the cavalry officer shares my name he is incredibly distant and there is no COI at all. He is table I while I am Table L (see ). But I have no plans to appeal nor to use this account again. Because it has all become too personal and nothing is being done about the stalking and the incivility. I will return when MrDarcy returns. Do what you like with articles I have contributed to. I am not that fussed. - Kittybrewster (talk) 10:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Illegitimi non carborundum. I hope you return soon :-) Craigy (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- I too. Unfortunate, to say the least, that you have been bullied to the extent you have. I am preparing something on all this which I propose to place before Jimbo Wales. David Lauder 17:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps the arbcom would be more appropriate? SqueakBox 20:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello Kittybrewster. I too hope that you return soon. The actions of some editors towards you have been disgraceful. I find it hard to understand how you can stay so calm and polite despite this. Hopefully this will soon be over and you can focus on something constructive on Misplaced Pages again. Tryde 20:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I've replied to your email. Walton 13:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Blocked again, another COI violation
You have been blocked from editing for violating Misplaced Pages policy by (see explanation below). If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org.
After this edit of another article on a person identified as a member of you family (in breach of WP:COI), I have imposed a further block on you. You have been repeatedly warned to observe WP:COI, and you will be aware that your failure to do so has been widely criticised at WP:ANI and elsewhere (see, for example WP:ANI#Vendetta): it is therefore a form of disruptive editing
Because this follows so soon after a previous block for the same problem, I have set this block with a duration of 7 days. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- How the hell is it CoI to edit an article on someone with one's surname, who died 150 years ago! --Counter-revolutionary 17:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Because Kittybewster regards this person as a member of his own family, about whom he has craeted dozens of articles on non-notable people, relying in most cases on sources owned by KB. See my reply to the discussion at WP:ANI#User:Giano_II ignoring WP:CONSENSUS. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Does he regard him as a member of his family? I have seen Kittybrewster comment that he has no relation to certain Arbuthnots. If editing the article on someone with the same surname as one is CoI then, logically, it must be CoI for human beings to edit the Human being article...that, of course, would be a nonsense. --Counter-revolutionary 18:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Because Kittybewster regards this person as a member of his own family, about whom he has craeted dozens of articles on non-notable people, relying in most cases on sources owned by KB. See my reply to the discussion at WP:ANI#User:Giano_II ignoring WP:CONSENSUS. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Or for me to edit the Gary Weiss article, SqueakBox 18:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Why's that? It says on your user page your name is Richard! haha! --Counter-revolutionary 18:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Or for me to edit the Gary Weiss article, SqueakBox 18:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Kitty wasnt forced to say who he is, none of us are, his honesty shouldnt be held against him and I agree that this doesnt look like COI to me, SqueakBox 19:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Counter-revolutionary asks whether KB regards Thomas Arbuthnot as member of his family. Yes, because when he created the article, he categorised it under Category:Arbuthnot family; and the Arbuthnot family website agrees: www.arbuthnott.com/book9.htm. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- FWIW, until recently the category also included a battleship, a fictional character and a Canadian town — I think the category as Kittybrewster intended it was more a Category:Things with "Arbuthnot" in the article name than his family tree — iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Um, looking at that edit, how can it be a conflict of interest to refer to the DNB? (I am assuming that this particular fact is verified by the DNB, of course, and it would be useful to add a <references> tag too...) -- 21:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- There is some discussion of this block at ANI, although the discussion hasn't really advanced very far, perhaps because Kittybrewster has not (yet?) posted an unblock request. Newyorkbrad 22:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- What I think is that there is no such thing as Clan Arbuthnott but there is such a thing as an Arbuthnot family - because it is lowland rather than highland. Some Wikipedians however don't know the difference and preserve an article with the wrong title even though they have been advised differently. And the family or category embraces everybody and everything who / which chooses to acknowledge the family in any way, including people such as Malcolm Arbuthnot who chose to use it but was born a Parsons and ships, roads, places named after people with the name. That does not create a conflict of interest. Not all Arbuthnots re related. Does BHG bar herself from editing articles about Brown haired girls or women in general? Should she do so? Ridiculous. Should NewYorkBrad bar himself from editing articles on New York related subjects? Ludicrous. I think if BHG wants to argue that I am being disruptive then she should explain how and where the COI arises. I simply don't see it. I cannot appeal her appalling judgment. I simply don't understand her thinking in arriving at it. If I understood it, maybe I could respond to it. I would like to understand it with appropriate references to WP:COI. Does BHG desist from editing articles named Smith (if her name is Smith)?? Or does she think I own the copyright of the Dictionary of National Biography? Oh, I do wish it were so. - Kittybrewster (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- This is enough to try the patience of a saint - YOU are one of the chief editors of Clan Arbuthnot people are spending hours and hours trying to unravel the mess you have created. Now toy say there is no such thing as a page you have been heavily editing. Streuth! Giano 22:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- What I think is that there is no such thing as Clan Arbuthnott but there is such a thing as an Arbuthnot family - because it is lowland rather than highland. Some Wikipedians however don't know the difference and preserve an article with the wrong title even though they have been advised differently. And the family or category embraces everybody and everything who / which chooses to acknowledge the family in any way, including people such as Malcolm Arbuthnot who chose to use it but was born a Parsons and ships, roads, places named after people with the name. That does not create a conflict of interest. Not all Arbuthnots re related. Does BHG bar herself from editing articles about Brown haired girls or women in general? Should she do so? Ridiculous. Should NewYorkBrad bar himself from editing articles on New York related subjects? Ludicrous. I think if BHG wants to argue that I am being disruptive then she should explain how and where the COI arises. I simply don't see it. I cannot appeal her appalling judgment. I simply don't understand her thinking in arriving at it. If I understood it, maybe I could respond to it. I would like to understand it with appropriate references to WP:COI. Does BHG desist from editing articles named Smith (if her name is Smith)?? Or does she think I own the copyright of the Dictionary of National Biography? Oh, I do wish it were so. - Kittybrewster (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)