User talk:Clayoquot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

/Archive 1

[edit] Image:Oliver schroer.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Oliver schroer.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShadowHalo 06:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll work on it. Gosh, we're strict. Thanks for the heads-up. Kla'quot 06:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: DYK backlogged

I'm sorry, but I'm not all that familiar with the new method for updating. I'll give it a look, but you might get a faster response if you contact someone else. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• It appears to have become easier since I last did it. I am on the job. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

On 22 February 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Oliver Schroer, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 17:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop

Will you stop your bizarre behavior, please? People can see what the timestamps are. Your focus on me is starting to feel almost creepy. Your input into content is very welcome, but not this meta-attention to when and where and why I post. There's no need to respond to this, by the way; I'm not going to enter into a meta meta discussion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You put your comment above someone else's comment which got there first, which made it look to a casual observer, who doesn't carefully read timestamps, as if the other person's "I second this proposal" agreed with you. When I reordered the comments you reverted me twice without giving any reason. Now that's what I call bizarre behaviour. When I put in the meta-note saying the comments are in the wrong order, you deleted that without saying so in your edit summary. I expect that 24 hours from now, once you're out of 3RR range, you'll have deleted the meta-note again. You don't have to respond, by the way. Unless you choose to. Kla'quot 21:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

(Flame [1] from SlimVirgin removed)Kla'quot 04:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I can barely follow what you're talking about. What I apologized for has nothing to do with today. (I'm still waiting for your apology, by the way). What I ask of you is very simple: Don't put posts in a strange order, don't revert without explaining why, and don't delete my posts. For the benefit of the peanut gallery, we're talking about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:BLP_courtesy_deletion&action=history Kla'quot 22:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a constructive suggestion will help (or maybe not). When I put the posts in chronological order, I gave a reason. When you reverted me twice, you didn't give a reason. If you could have give a reason, any reason, for reverting, I would probably have accepted it. Reverting people without explanation is discourteous. Kla'quot 23:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I challenged you earlier, perhaps you'd not given SlimVirgin an opportunity to explain herself. It seems you've done so after all! Tewple.

[edit] An open conspiracy

Please look at this: [2] and read the time stamps too. And these comments I posted at SlimVirgin's user page asking her to come to my talk to discuss her lack of good faith: [3] and telling me that she owes me an apology: [4] When I went to check the diffs in that comment (the first one I posted on the Block on Political Grounds) I found it leading to a different diff than the one I thought I placed there (I put in the one wrong - I just checked) and so I replaced it with the first one I am posting above to you. And right afterward she just archived her user talk where my comments were posted asking her to apologize for calling me a "conspiracy theorist" based on the most spurious of evidence. (You can see my User:Talk if you want to know more.) But that's exactly the tactic.

It's abusive, it's intimidating, it uses muscle over consensus building, it's totally toxic, and yet everyone here stays quiet because they're afraid of being thought as some kind of crazy conspiracy theorist, because then they will be blocked.

The case for being blocked is prepared beforehand with snide comments casting credibility on the character of the person who will come to make the accusation of misconduct. And then the case can be made against them using diffs that capture those comments, and because other people are araid of violating WP:AGF, they just keep quiet. And though SlimVirgin will invoke the policy against you, she rarely abides by it. I mean see above: She just intimidated you into retracting your very legitimate point about the strangeness of her editing behaviour.

Because in the end, the thing is that all most people want to do is to edit. But you can't edit when people are being abusive and ignoring policy. You can if you POV matches their own, but not otherwise. And if these comments get me blocked, so be it. Like my user page says, if free-thought and passion are dead in Wikipedia, then let Tiamut die with them. Life will go on.

But ....

I would actually prefer to fight to correct what I see as an unacceptable abuse of power. So please read the diffs. If you agree that there are grounds for a report on Slim's behaviour, then maybe you can help me to do something about it. Tiamut 23:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tiamut. Well, I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one suffering. I knew I'm not the only one, but it's still nice to hear. I don't have time tonight to thoroughly evaluate your case, but I'll try to soon. Take care, Kla'quot 06:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's good for me to know that too. Look forward to hearing from you. Tiamut 22:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tiamut,

There is a tendency for people who work on the hot-button topics to form entrenched and polarized camps, agree with everyone in their camp, and disagree with the other side. I think polarized camps are counterproductive to dispute resolution and to the presentation of moderate viewpoints. However, it's human nature to form camps, and with our articles on the Arab-Israeli conflict, both sides have camps. It's pretty clear who is in whose camp.

Administrators must never block editors they are in conflict with. If I had my way, the definition of "who a person is in conflict with" would have a wide scope, so that nobody who consistently takes one side of the Arab-Israeli conflict blocks someone from the other side. Using a wide scope to define who you are in conflict with and may not block would, I think, help a great deal in improving relations. However, some people consider the scope to be narrow, so that anyone who is not actively editing a particular article can block an editor of that article. SlimVirgin obviously used a definition with a narrow scope, and as we cannot point to a policy that requires using a wider scope, she was technically working within the rules. So I would not say that the block was on political grounds, although I can understand why you'd feel that way.

When you were reported on AN/3RR, SlimVirgin had the choice of sanctioning you or of letting someone else handle it. If a more uninvolved administrator, such as Chick Bowen, had blocked you then I'm sure it would have felt less provocative to you and would perhaps have helped to de-escalate rather than escalate the situation. It would have been in everyone's best interests if a more uninvolved administrator had handled it. Probably SlimVirgin missed a chance to take the high road here; however taking the high road is something we can only ask of people, not require.

In the fallout from the block, I do get the impression that some of SlimVirgin's comments were subtly uncivil. She should not have subtly accused you of lying about how well you understood 3RR. I think you were trying to explain that, in the heat of an edit war, people sometimes break 3RR even though they understand the rule. The "no matter what conspiracy theories you try to weave" part was uncalled-for. The word "conspiracy" is harsh, particularly in the context of your dispute as it's a stereotype perpetuated by antisemites. I really like WP:AAGF, which states, "The first rule of WP:AGF: Don't talk about WP:AGF." Nobody should be calling anyone here a conspiracy theorist without a very solid reason. You were trying to demonstrate bias and perhaps groupthink, neither of which constitutes a conspiracy. Finally, her mention of your use of RFCU comes across as just trying to make you look bad. A more uninvolved admin would probably have stuck to the topic at hand, which was the 3RR violation.

Now, um, why did you title this section, "An open conspiracy", and why are you saying that "The case for being blocked is prepared beforehand"? I wouldn't call you a conspiracy theorist based only on what you've written here, but your allegations also don't help your own case.

So, from what I've seen, overall I think both of you could have handled the thing better. FWIW, I think it's water under the bridge. In the big scheme of things, your credibility as an editor is judged by many more things than this one incident. Does this help? Have I overlooked anything important? Kla'quot 07:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much Clayoquot for reasoning through the entire episode with me. I think you're right that it should be left alone for the time being. I guess I just got really upset by the way SlimVirgin interacted with me after the block and I wanted an acknowledgement from her that it was inappropriate. I didn't get it despite asking her for an apology for implying that I had lied for calling me a conspiracy theorist. I titled the entry "open conspiracy" partially as a reference to her accusations and also to make clear I wasn't doing anything behind her back, and that I was openly calling her on behaviour. I had already tried to do that at the Administrator's Board, but she just left the discussion and no one else stepped in to play mediator. And I guess because I've also seen how people's random comments in past diffs have been used to advocate for blocks against them that I got a little paranoid about SlimVirgin's acusations standing unanswered. I'm sorry if the slightly hysterical tone of my complaint placed you in an awkward position. I just thought a sympathetic ear might help me to gain some perspective, and it has. Thank you again. If you ever need a similar helping hand in the future, do not hesitate to ask. Happy editing! Tiamut 14:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I apologize.

Thank you for your constructive criticism. I knew I'd irked you, but not to the extent that I obviously did. That is not the way I would like to behave, or be perceived to behave. I owe you an apology. I'm sorry. Xiner (talk, email) 12:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Xiner. I'll take a look at your recent edits and might change my vote. You handle criticism graciously, which is great. Kla'quot 17:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to reconsider me. It was most unfortunate that I made a mistake last night. I've reversed the warning, this edit being the real culprit. I could tell you that this type of error is rare, but action speaks louder than words. I'll try to be even more careful from now on. Xiner (talk, email) 13:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Erasing a talkpage

Erasing a talkpage with valid warnings is considered vandalism. There is a message warning for that and is very commonly used to warn vandals not to do so. I have seen admins deliver the same warning and it stems from a policy that states a userpage along with the talkpage ultimately belong to Wikipedia and not the user. I am stretched for time this morning and will look for the reference tomorrow (I am hitting the road in two hours). If you doubt me still, ask a trusted fellow Wikipedian.

You may see the usual message template warnings here: Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace#Complete list of warnings. The substitute message I used is called Refactoring others' talk page comments and roots from uw-tpv1 (you can visit that page, click on that root message and see the warning).

In addition, here is a user talkpage where the admin specifically mentions in his block template message, a warning to the blockee not to erase his talkpage warnings: User talk:24.98.237.4.

I do not do anything contra Wikipedia policies and take my responsibilities as a RC Patrol member very seriously. Hope this aids your education. Cheers, Ronbo76 13:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, it appears that User talk:76.169.88.247's warnings have been rescinded this morning. I answered your message first before reviewing my Watchlist. Last night while on RC Patrol and reviewing the Recent Changes page, I noticed the deletion. If you look at that page, a deletion by an anonymous IP usually will draw review. Here is the diff as I saw it before issuing the warning: Blanked the page.

Please note: when a user specifically erases an article or talkpage without effecting progressive change, Wikipedia's server will note that the user "blanked the page". Blanking an article is another warning (test1 and test2 plus the delete1 and delete2). A user like me has to differentiate which is the best substitute message template to use. A blanking of valid messages should use the tpv template. CheersRonbo76 14:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ronbo, I'm sure you meant well. The policy on users removing warnings is one of those things that has generated a great deal of discussion over the past year. There's a tension between giving users discretion over their user space, and making counter-vandalism more expedient. The current policy, which may have changed recently, is that removing warnings is "frowned upon." Does that ever sound like compromise wording between Wikipedians who can't agree. I guess it's good to tell users that removing warnings is inappropriate, however it's not vandalism.

Anyway, it does happen that users, as happened in this case, are given warnings inappropriately and then remove them. So re-checking whether the original warning was incorrect, or whether there were other good-faith reasons to blank a page, is a good idea. Take care, and thanks for the great work you do. Kla'quot 17:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No, let's stay on track. I edit within Wikipedian policies and am on firm ground; ergo, no I'm sure you meant well as you put it. I too follow a lot of policy talkpages and know the discussions. I make great efforts to stay inbounds referenced policy/message templates.

At the time of the blanking, it was a valid warning erased by the user. For you to call it into question on my talkpage after reverting it on the user's talkpage without knowing policy is not a good thing. Granted, the warning got reversed. But, if you are not up on policy, you should not be doing reversions like that. Ronbo76 19:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we lighten up a bit? OK, there's the question of whether the user erased a valid warning from Xiner, and there's the question of how to approach users who blank warnings from their own talk pages. Let's sort out the first question first: Xiner and I both agree that the initial warning given by Xiner was never valid. It wasn't valid when it was given, nor when the user blanked it. Do you disagree with that? Kla'quot 19:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I am WP:COOL in editting. No, after the fact the determination you reference between another user now exists. It did not then when I performed my chores. Editting other user(s)' comments (sent as a URL) states generally editting others' comments is not allowed (my emphasis) from which stems the erasure template warning. Both it and Wikipedia:User page indicate as I initially told you that while a user's talkpage and userpage are theirs to edit, the pages ultimately are not theirs and remain the encyclopedic property of Wikipedia.

My point is that you could have made that determination. The history is, Grammy awards was vandalized. The person using IP 76.169.88.247 fixed most of the vandalism, and got for it a "please cite your sources" message from Xiner. The anon rightly blanked Xiner's nonsensical warning from his/her talk page, and got for that a notification from you that he/she has vandalized Wikipedia. And that's how the situation would have stayed if Xiner hadn't asked me, that morning, to evaluate his edits. Please consider whether you might have done something differently. As for current policy about users removing warnings, please review Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism. The URL you just cited is in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, which applies to talk pages for articles and projects, not user talk pages. Kla'quot 04:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I would not have done anything differently because at the time, my actions were correct. Ronbo76 07:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Hi Clayoquot. Thank you for not only the time you spent on my RfA, but the second chance you gave me. Rest assured that I heard every voice loud and clear during the discussion. I will strive to use the mop carefully and responsibly. I hope we can swipe the slate clean, but whatever the case, please don't hesitate to offer constructive criticism anytime. Xiner (talk, email) 00:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

As you may remember, there was discussion of moving the page. Although we appeared to have reached consensus there wasn't that many people who commented so I felt it better to get further discussion. So I've listed it as proposed move and in the Village Pump and have opened up an informal poll. You may want to clarify your view in the poll and/or subsequent discussion Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Requested move just for clarity. Cheers. Nil Einne 16:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

I appreciate your asking that helpful question in my RfA because it went to the very heart of the issue and gave me a chance to provide an answer that, in hindsight, I should have provided much earlier. I just provided my answer to your question in my RfA. Please let me know if more is needed or if you see some other area in my RfA in need of an explanation. -- Jreferee 19:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks Jreferee. I've switched my vote to neutral for the time being, however I'd really like to change my mind again someday. Take care, Kla'quot 07:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Arthur Ellis

Yes, you have a point; we have only just recently started the IP crackdown. However, Checkusers have never been able to comment on IPs. They serve no purpose whatsoever in checkuser requests, as they aren't useful to either the checkuser or to those reading the results. Cheers, PTO 01:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• OK. Thanks for the explanation. Cheers, Kla'quot 07:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My edit at Jreferee's talk page

Clayoquot, thank you very much for fixing my last edit to Jreferee's rfa. I didn't notice that my browser truncated the text. Thanks again for fixing it up. --Iamunknown 06:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• You're welcome :) Kla'quot 07:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)