| Revision as of 00:11, 21 April 2011 editWikid77 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users67,096 edits →Notice of intent to take article to WP:ANI: new topic← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 17:29, 13 March 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (116 intermediate revisions by 27 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == |
== WP:ANI == | ||
| <!-- Template from Template:Welcomeg --> | |||
| {| style="background-color:#F5FFFA; padding:0;" cellpadding="0" | |||
| |style="border:1px solid #084080; background-color:#F5FFFA; vertical-align:top; color:#000000;"| | |||
| {| width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background-color:#F5FFFA; padding:0;" | |||
| | <div style="margin:0; background-color:#CEF2E0; border:1px solid #084080; text-align:left; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top:0.2em; padding-bottom:0.2em;">Hello, CodyJoeBibby! ] to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for ] to this 💕. If you decide that you need help, check out ''Getting Help'' below, ask me on ], or place '''{{tl|helpme}}''' on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to ] on talk pages by using four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) or by clicking ] if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the ] field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! ] (]) 15:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| {{Welcomeg/links}} | |||
| |} | |||
| |}<!--Template:Welcomeg--> | |||
| Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. Discussion ]. ''']]]''' 22:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == April 2011 == | |||
| ] Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you are reminded not to ] other editors, as you did on ]. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the ] to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-npa1 --> ] (]) 15:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Blocked == | ||
| Having read the number of diffs on ] where you gratuitously attack other editors, it is clear that you are not here to edit collegially and even admit that you don't care if you are banned for it, so I have granted your wish. ] 22:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ] Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to ] and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should ] by typing four ] ]s ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button ] located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-tilde --> --] (]) 16:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| I'll be back. ] (]) 13:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==Your recent edits== | |||
| ] Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to ] and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should ] by typing four ] ]s ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button ] located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-tilde --> --] (]) 15:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| My name is Legion. For we are many. ] (]) 15:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == April 2011 == | |||
| {{unblock reviewed | 1= My comments were fully justified. ] (]) 19:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC) | decline=In that case, your block is fully justified. I stand by it. —] (]) 19:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)}} | |||
| ] ] to Misplaced Pages. Please be aware of Misplaced Pages's policy that ''']''' must not include ]. Whenever you add possibly controversial statements about a living person to an article or any other Misplaced Pages page, as you did to ], you '''must include proper ]'''. If you don't know how to ], you may want to read ] for guidelines. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-biog1 -->] (]) 14:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| {{unblock reviewed| I was not given any reasonable chance to respond on AN/I to explain my case, thus basic principles of justice were breached. ] (]) 19:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)|decline=One of the guiding lights on Misplaced Pages is our policy of ]. You've demonstrated you are unable to abide by this policy with edits such as and and . --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 20:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)}} | |||
| ] Please '''stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content''' to articles or any other Misplaced Pages page, as you did at ]. Content of this nature could be regarded as ] and is in violation of ]. If you continue, you may be ] from editing Misplaced Pages. <!-- Template:uw-biog3 -->] (]) 15:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| {{unblock reviewed | 1= But this doesn't change the fact that an accused person should be allowed to explain their case before being condemned. My actions may have been wrong, but were a response to wrong actions from other editors. ] (]) 20:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC) | decline=This does not justify your incivility. I'm sure you know the expression two wrongs don't make a right. ] (]) 21:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)}} | |||
| ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]  according to the reverts you have made on ]. Users are expected to ] with others and avoid editing ].<br> | |||
| In particular, the ] states that: | |||
| # '''Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.''' | |||
| # '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.''' | |||
| If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's ] to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents ] among editors. You can post a request for help at an ] or seek ]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary ]. If you continue to edit war, you '''may be ] from editing without further notice.'''<!-- Template:uw-3rr -->] (]) 15:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| So the first wrong (committed by the pro-guilt cabal on the MoMK article) goes unpunished, but the second 'wrong' (some robust comments made by me) is very severely punished? Now that's interesting. ] (]) 21:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| I feel these warnings are unnecessary and an attempt to bully this editor. I was under the impression that all BLP concerns had been addressed, and that the multiple edits were people making sure that they were addressed correctly or making sure it was citing correctly. However, because it seems that TMCK is reverting into obstructionist form, I will not edit the content in dispute for at least a day or until all objections are addressed in the talk page (even though no objections have been raised, to my knowledge).] (]) 18:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| : |
:I suggest that you have a look at ], and come up with a more convincing unblock rationale. ''']]]''' 21:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
| You know SuperMarioMan, I'm not sure I really want any 'helpful' suggestions from you now that you've caused this disaster for me. But thanks anyway. Why you obsessively stalk me to this extent is something of an issue. If it continues, I think I'm going to need to call law enforcement. ] (]) 21:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :: Then I'll second the comments about ]. The time to discuss other editors (through the proper channels) has passed for you. If you intend to edit here, your next unblock needs to address your own behavior, not the edits of anyone else. ] (]) 21:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Further unblock requests == | |||
| ::Since LedRush reverted back in the same violations I'm not surprised by his comment here although stunned about his lack of knowledge when it comes to BLP.] (]) 19:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::I am sad that our brief love affair is over, and you are back to your personal attacks and obstructionist edits.] (]) 19:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| I have revoked talk-page access for this account while blocked, pending the resolution of your above mentioned possible legal action. Additional requests to be unblocked can be made by emailing unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org or by email to the arbitration committee. ] (]) 21:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Who said it's over? It's not over if you don't want it to be so let's enjoy our different views. Cheers, ] (]) 19:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :This is the second time an obviously off-hand joke has been contrued in the most ridiculous, literal sense to justify an otherwise overly harsh punishment. Cody can be very uncivil, and for that his 48 hour block was justified. But closing his talk page access over that last statement borders on the absurd. Just like his first block being justified by him not coming out and affirmatively saying that he wanted another editor to be alive was absurd.] (]) 16:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Funny though that he didn't make it into your "incivility list".] (]) 18:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Well, he reintroduced the language that was removed. Then, he deleted the objectionable info when people actually stated WHY they thought there was a BLP concern, rather than just claiming one as a pretext to delete something they didn't like. That is not a reversion, that is addressing the issues as they come up. 3RR and BLP warnings should not relate to these types of edits (edits responsive to others' stated issues with introduced texts).] (]) 19:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::Only people who repeatedly made personal attacks against me and/or threatened me made that list. Congratulations!] (]) 19:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :: |
::::If that would be true there would be no list.] (]) 19:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC) | ||
| :::::All evidence to the contary.] (]) 19:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Sure...!] (]) 19:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| I'm quite stunned by the level of bullying I've seen on this Misplaced Pages topic from various users including TMCK, FormerIP and SuperMarioMan. Extraordinary. Who put these people in charge of the article? It's a disaster for Misplaced Pages's credibility if a cabal of editors can censor an article to this extent.{{unsigned2|15:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)|CodyJoeBibby}} | |||
| {{od}} I agree with LedRush here - that is not a plausible legal threat. I've noticed some overreaction in the ] area in general on many occasions; perhaps it's just seen as being safer this way. ] 20:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| : Although I agree that the legal threat is thin, the person who should be taking action here is CJB. He can easily climb out of this hole by understanding the issues above. - ] (]) 00:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| : Misplaced Pages has some very strict rules when information about living people is added. You'll usually see editors using BLP when talking about these as the Misplaced Pages policy page on them is at ]. (Confusingly, editors use BLP to refer to the policy page and as shorthand to say living person. Usually the meaning is clear from the context though.) Even more so than other articles, information about living people needs to be notable and have reliable sources. It explicitly says to remove contentious information that is unsourced or poorly sourced. If there isn't concensus that the source is reliable (and in this case, there clearly is not), it should stay off the main page until the issues are resolved. Self-published sources are somewhat discouraged on Misplaced Pages, but under BLP, they are not allowed unless published by the subject of the information. So a blog by Albert Einstein that said Joe Snuffitelli wore a terrible toupee could not be used on Joe's page to say he wore a toupee or that it was a terrible toupee. | |||
| : Yes, Misplaced Pages has a lot of policies. If you haven't though, please take a moment and look at the ] policy. As much of the MoMK page falls under it, I think it might help you. BLP is taken EXTREMELY seriously on Misplaced Pages. It's not censorship, it's editors making sure that articles are where they should be. If something can't be adequately sourced, then yes, it won't get added to the article. It's up to those that want to add the information to find a good source for it. There are times that you can get folks to help, but claiming censorship and cabals doesn't encourage people to help you out. Just as you want others to assume you're acting in good faith (] as it's called around here)), you need to do the same about others. <b><font color="darkred">]</font></b> <font color="black">(])</font> 21:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::I kind of resent being spoken to as though I'm some kind of moron when it comes to possible libel/defamation issues about living persons. For your information, 'Ravensfire', I have a law degree from Oxford University, so i think I am considerably better informed about such issues than you will ever be. How do you like that? ] (]) 22:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you for your response. I still don't see the BLP issues (other than as it relates to mental health). Also, Cody made edits responsive to specific suggestions and comments on the talk page about this issue.] (]) 21:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::If it's about a living person, it's BLP. The Dempsey piece is a self-published source, which you can't use. The Oggi article has one yea, one nay on RSN, but even then we need something specific to tie it to the case. Saying a witness is hard of hearing is acceptable if it was something raised at the trial and/or affected the trial. If we start seeing multiple sources all independantly noting she is hard of hearing, the notability goes up. (Note the independant part - if 4 sources all comment on it, but based on the Oggi story, that's not independant) Innuendo should not be a part of a Misplaced Pages article, and without something to show that this is a notable issue, that's what this appears to be. <b><font color="darkred">]</font></b> <font color="black">(])</font> 21:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::(@ Cody) Ravensfire isn't being demeaning rather s/he is being very careful and actually doing you a great service. We have a distinct culture here and Ravensfire is being very careful to describe in detail ''for your benefit'' the way things work. I think every editor here wants you to stick around and are trying to keep you from making mistakes or getting blocked. We see your frustration and each remember what it was like to be new to the scene and are trying to help. Every person on this page cares enough about you to be here. I would just suggest that you slow down and take the time to read each of the links and ]s being posted as they are designed to help. {{=)|smile}}<br/><span style="text-shadow:#294 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 23:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I regret making that comment directed at Ravensfire. I didn't mean it. I feel like I've spent so many hours struggling against impossible odds to achieve justice. But what can one person do against an organised cabal? Nothing. ] (]) 23:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It isn't that organized and certainly not against you. Imagine Parliament without Robert's Rules of Order. :) As a newcomer, you just happened to wade into one of the most contentious articles in the place. It probably doesn't help that you are seeing experienced Wikipedians quibble with one another on your talk page as that is likely to create confusion. Remember that nothing that happens here on Misplaced Pages will really affect the outcome of the appeals process. It shouldn't anyway (saying that after seeing that an Italian judge asked people to read up on the subject...I guess sequestering isn't part of their process). Get some sleep and don't let any of this bother you tonight.<br/><span style="text-shadow:#294 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 23:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :: Honestly, it's extremely unlikely that he'd post anything that might look like a retraction when he doubtfully thinks he's done anything wrong. But in this case, this is ridiculous. Block him for the other posts, sure. But for NLT? That's crap. For whatever reason, he was venting about something that day and literally asking for a block. Cody does NOT like anyone that isn't pro-Knox as far as I can tell, so while SuperMarioMan meant well, it was probably like waving a red flag under a bull's nose. This is a really, really, REALLY marginal NLT call. Unlock the page. ] (]) 02:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Formatting on the talk pages - please indent your posts == | |||
| == '''The Olive Branch''': A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1) == | |||
| CodyJoeBibby, first, keep challenging people on talk pages when you disagree with them. That's usually how articles improve. People (me in this recent case) will hopefully respond and discuss, and eventually the article gets better from it. The discussions can get pretty long and invovled though, and some conventions have developed to help keep talk pages a bit more organized. The big one is indenting posts. Prefixing each paragraph with a colon (<nowiki>:</nowiki>) will indent the post. | |||
| : Like this | |||
| If you use multiple colons, the paragraph gets indented more. | |||
| :: Two colons | |||
| ::: Three colons | |||
| The convention is that when you respond to someone, you should indent your post one more than they did. This helps identify who you are responding to. If others responded to the same comment, put yours at the end of that "thread", like this. | |||
| : Post you want to respond to | |||
| :: but someone else did first | |||
| ::: then someone responded to that person | |||
| :::: and still more | |||
| :: You would respond here | |||
| The idea is that the indentations help identify who you are responding to and give some order to the thread. If the indentations get too long and push posts too far to the right for you to read easily, you can outdent your comment, to bring the thread all the way back to the left. I usually use the {{tl|od}} outdent template, putting <nowiki>{{od}}</nowiki> at the start of my post. This is what it looks like</br> | |||
| {{od}} With my comment here | |||
| Welcome to the first edition of ''The Olive Branch''. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in ] (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are ], but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to ]. | |||
| Let me know if this is confusing, and I'll be glad to help more. Hope you find this helpful! <b><font color="darkred">]</font></b> <font color="black">(])</font> 17:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| :I was just going to make this same comment. Thank you ravensfire. The lack of indenting is making following the conversations very difficult to follow.] (]) 18:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| In this issue: | |||
| * '''Background''': A brief overview of the DR ecosystem. | |||
| * '''Research''': The most recent DR data | |||
| * '''Survey results''': Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey | |||
| * '''Activity analysis''': Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums | |||
| * '''DR Noticeboard comparison''': How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August | |||
| * '''Discussion update''': Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate | |||
| * '''Proposal''': It's time to close the ]. Agree or disagree? | |||
| <div style="text-align:center; font-size:larger;">]</div> | |||
| --''The Olive Branch'' 18:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks Ravensfire. As you know I'm a n00b. I'll start doing that. | |||
| <!-- EdwardsBot 0345 --> | |||
| == Please be careful about this == | |||
| Cody, please be very careful using language like this: "If anyone wants to call him a liar on Misplaced Pages or anywhere else I'm sure his lawyers will be very interested. " There's a ] policy that is absolutely, 100% enforced. It doesn't say don't make legal threats, but that if an editor does, they will be blocked from editing. This is because you cannot edit with someone who uses threats of such action to intimidate other editors. If you wouldn't mind, please strike out that part of your comment. <b><font color="darkred">]</font></b> <font color="black">(])</font> 16:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :I have already read the policy and i believe my comments did not breach it since I myself did not threaten to do anything. I merely referred to hypothetical actions which third parties unconnected with myself might or might not take. You can't pin anything on me for that. However i have removed them entirely of my own volition. ] (]) 18:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::That was a smart thing to do. --] (]) 18:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::Would you mind not posting irrelevant comments to my talk page please John. If you have something to say then say it or don't post at all. ] (]) 18:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Sorry if I wasn't clear. What I intended you to understand was that you mustn't make legal threats like this again in the future. It will lead to an indefinite block, though not from me but from another admin. So removing them was a smart thing to do. Hope that is clearer. --] (]) 19:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :: Cody, to be blunt, my perception is that you're trying to use the threat of possible legal action to pressure other editors. That's pushing NLT - see the perceived legal threats section. Especially doing it on the article talk. If you think someone is pushing limits, you can leave a polite comment on their talk page. I do appreciate you removing the comments, even though you think they were acceptable. I think you've got good promise as an editor, and there is such a hard-line taken on NLT that not even coming near it is the best option. Thanks. <b><font color="darkred">]</font></b> <font color="black">(])</font> 19:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It's not clear at all John, since no threats were made. It seems like you're the one making threats. However no such references will be made in future by me. ] (]) 20:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Talk page edits == | |||
| ] Please do not ] legitimate talk page comments. Such edits are disruptive. If you would like to experiment, please use the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-tpv2 --> ] (]) 14:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :That was an occurrence of a page edit conflict and not an intentional act on Cody's part. I have seen this repeatedly in ] threads where admins appear to overstamp admins...it is a software glitch. Such threads are simply restored and we move on.<br/><span style="text-shadow:#294 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 14:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| if any further false accusations are made against me by this user i will take the matter up with administrators. ] (]) 14:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Per your denial on my talk page and here - is you deleting my comments and replacing it with yours, if by accident or on purpose. ] (]) 14:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::(edit conflict) Hipocrite is correct that your action took out his comment. I would suggest to both of you to calm down. Please read ] (Cody read this essay, please).<br/><span style="text-shadow:#294 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 14:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ] Please ] other editors, as you did on ]. If you continue, you may be ] from editing Misplaced Pages. <!-- Template:uw-npa3 --> ''']]]''' 21:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Agreed. Cody, you are way out of line. Someone may just as well ask you not to edit there again...and then ask you to go edit Spice Girls or something else designed to denigrate your editing abilities. Your career here on Misplaced Pages will be short-lived if you keep that up. You are beginning to exhaust the patience of those who are trying to help you.<br/><span style="text-shadow:#294 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 21:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::And . Seriously, now - this is getting tiresome. Do '''not''' leave further attacks or insults. Thanks. ''']]]''' 22:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::Do not threaten me, SuperMarioMan, and do not claim that i have insulted anyone or attacked anyone when i have not. Do not post on my talk page again. ] (]) 22:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Cody, these guys are right. You need to start editing more constructively and less aggressively. You are only doing your own arguments a disservice by engaging these other editors with personal attacks. Of course, I would like to see SuperMario warn some of the other instigators, instead of praising them, but that is how WP works. Some editors will instigate (or push your buttons), and when you react, others will block or ban you. The difference for you is, you don't even need the prodding or instigation sometimes. I promise you, your views will be better received when given civilly. The way you are heading, you will be rightfully blocked in a short time. The article will suffer for this.] (]) 22:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you for your input LedRush. Perhaps the Star Trek comment was out of line but it was hardly abusive or rude. It wasn't serious, I mean good grief. However I respect your opinion and will act accordingly. I assume similar warnings are being issued to the people who have been threatening or insulting to me today. ] (]) 22:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have warned Hipocrite, FormerIP and TMCk in the past, but because they see me as a biased editor, further formal warnings on their talk pages are unlikely to produce good results, and I intend to warn them in that regard only in response to egregious or continued attacks. It wouldn't be a bad idea for other editors, perceived to be more neutral than you or me, to make such warnings, especially to Hipocrite, which appears to be an SPA devoted almost entirely to personal attacks. ] (]) 23:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::I used to love referring to this site for information about anything from dinosaurs to golf balls, but it seems that some topics are controlled by nutters. God knows what the Holocaust or Israel/Palestine talk pages are like. Not to mention 9/11. ] (]) 23:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Personal attacks... == | |||
| You have been warned multiple times by multiple editors to avoid making ] and yet you persevere, such as in . Please, consider this your final warning; if you persist in this kind of behaviour, I'll have no choice but to report you to ]. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 14:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| I viewed my comment as an opinion not an attack but I am new to the Misplaced Pages community. I'll have to ensure I'm more familiar with the rules as I don't want any trouble. I have already apologised to one of the people I have differences with. I hope that will be an end to the matter. Respectfully, ] (]) 14:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, as far as I'm concerned, the matter is closed; please, just try to comment on the contributions and not the contributor and to avoid ''ad hominem'' and you'll be fine. Cheers. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 14:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Notice of intent to take article to WP:ANI == | |||
| Because of continued resistance to expanding the details in the Kercher article, and numerous users being frustrated, I am planning to take the article to the ] noticeboard to see what can be done. Your username will probably be mentioned, so I thought to ask, now, if you had time for this soon. Without revealing any of your personal plans, is there a "best time" for such a discussion, such as starting on a Thursday (for 7 days), but not on a Monday or such (or would you prefer to not enter the discussion)? At WP:ANI, shocking levels of personal attacks are permitted, so beware that people might be allowed to insult you there, but also, you can claim someone is purposely trying to derail progress, without that being considered a violation ] (such claims are only allowed within ] discussions and such). In my experience, talking with some people does no good, because they see discussions as weak resistance to be pushed aside by empty promises of better behavior. Kindness is ''always'' taken for weakness, and hence, stronger actions must be used with them. There is an essay of ], which can be used to merely show a person is unable to function, at a productive level (repeating the same off-topic policies) with other users, while not being "proven" to have evil behavior, but rather as causing ] (a ]) among the other editors trying to improve an article. This message is just a friendly notice, and if you wish to ignore the proposed WP:ANI discussion, then feel free to let this pass. -] 00:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 17:29, 13 March 2023
WP:ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Discussion here. SuperMarioMan 22:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Blocked
Having read the number of diffs on WP:ANI where you gratuitously attack other editors, it is clear that you are not here to edit collegially and even admit that you don't care if you are banned for it, so I have granted your wish. Black Kite (t) 22:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I'll be back. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
My name is Legion. For we are many. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
CodyJoeBibby (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
My comments were fully justified. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
In that case, your block is fully justified. I stand by it. —DoRD (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2011 (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.
CodyJoeBibby (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was not given any reasonable chance to respond on AN/I to explain my case, thus basic principles of justice were breached. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
One of the guiding lights on Misplaced Pages is our policy of civility. You've demonstrated you are unable to abide by this policy with edits such as this and this and this. --jpgordon 20:36, 29 October 2011 (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.
CodyJoeBibby (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
But this doesn't change the fact that an accused person should be allowed to explain their case before being condemned. My actions may have been wrong, but were a response to wrong actions from other editors. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This does not justify your incivility. I'm sure you know the expression two wrongs don't make a right. only (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2011 (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.
So the first wrong (committed by the pro-guilt cabal on the MoMK article) goes unpunished, but the second 'wrong' (some robust comments made by me) is very severely punished? Now that's interesting. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- I suggest that you have a look at WP:NOTTHEM, and come up with a more convincing unblock rationale. SuperMarioMan 21:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
You know SuperMarioMan, I'm not sure I really want any 'helpful' suggestions from you now that you've caused this disaster for me. But thanks anyway. Why you obsessively stalk me to this extent is something of an issue. If it continues, I think I'm going to need to call law enforcement. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- Then I'll second the comments about WP:NOTTHEM. The time to discuss other editors (through the proper channels) has passed for you. If you intend to edit here, your next unblock needs to address your own behavior, not the edits of anyone else. Dayewalker (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Further unblock requests
I have revoked talk-page access for this account while blocked, pending the resolution of your above mentioned possible legal action. Additional requests to be unblocked can be made by emailing unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org or by email to the arbitration committee. CIreland (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- This is the second time an obviously off-hand joke has been contrued in the most ridiculous, literal sense to justify an otherwise overly harsh punishment. Cody can be very uncivil, and for that his 48 hour block was justified. But closing his talk page access over that last statement borders on the absurd. Just like his first block being justified by him not coming out and affirmatively saying that he wanted another editor to be alive was absurd.LedRush (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Funny though that he didn't make it into your "incivility list".TMCk (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Only people who repeatedly made personal attacks against me and/or threatened me made that list. Congratulations!LedRush (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Funny though that he didn't make it into your "incivility list".TMCk (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- If that would be true there would be no list.TMCk (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- All evidence to the contary.LedRush (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- If that would be true there would be no list.TMCk (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Sure...!TMCk (talk) 19:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree with LedRush here - that is not a plausible legal threat. I've noticed some overreaction in the wp:nlt area in general on many occasions; perhaps it's just seen as being safer this way. pablo 20:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Although I agree that the legal threat is thin, the person who should be taking action here is CJB. He can easily climb out of this hole by understanding the issues above. - Glrx (talk) 00:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Honestly, it's extremely unlikely that he'd post anything that might look like a retraction when he doubtfully thinks he's done anything wrong. But in this case, this is ridiculous. Block him for the other posts, sure. But for NLT? That's crap. For whatever reason, he was venting about something that day and literally asking for a block. Cody does NOT like anyone that isn't pro-Knox as far as I can tell, so while SuperMarioMan meant well, it was probably like waving a red flag under a bull's nose. This is a really, really, REALLY marginal NLT call. Unlock the page. Ravensfire (talk) 02:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
- Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
- Research: The most recent DR data
- Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
- Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
- DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
- Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
- Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?
--The Olive Branch 18:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)