User talk:Inclusionist/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

← Archive 5 |
Archive 6
| Archive 7 →


{{unblock| "(Took) some time, calm(ed) down, (thought) about how grossly inappropriate (this) was"--already apologized for comments, changed comments before being blocked. Admin who blocked me, we had a policy argument before, see talk page. Original block time was increased from 24 hours to one week, I suspect because of the comments on my talk page, not for original incivility comment. Emailed admin who blocked me yesterday at 15:12, 26 June 2006 ''(see my talk page history)'', I got no response, no explanation for increased boot time. User has edited wikipedia since I e-mailed her, [[Special:Contributions/Kelly_Martin]]}}<br style="clear:both" />

I frequently archive my messages after I respond to a user.
(See Talk page etiquette)
User_talk:travb

1

2

Petral sockpuppet

CJK boot

3

4

Jew and my CJK boot
My Indefinite boot

Unblocked

5

6
7
8
9

Fightforfreedom: Taking it outside
leper colony
Also Cplot
Alienating both right and left User:NuclearUmpf, User:Zer0faults The cause of his paradigm shift?
10

Firestone
User:Divestment RIP
WP:DYK
Cookie award
11

Conversation with a dead guy NuclearUmpf Redux. My future on Wikipedia looks bleak.


Contents

[edit] Blocked for incivility

"It just burns you up that I avoided being indefinetly booted doesn't it? I want to let you know that every single edit that I make on wikipedia, every one, is a way of me saying in your face, ha, ha. I won, and you lost. Despite your best efforts, I am still on wikipedia." You have been blocked for the above comments, made on Jkelly's talk page. Take some time, calm down, think about how grossly inappropriate that was, and try not to do it again. Kelly Martin (talk)

[edit] My proposal to User:Kelly Martin

User:Kelly Martin I strongly encourage both you and JKelly too:
  1. let bygones be bygones, forget our fierce arguments we had before
  2. please accept my apology,
  3. assume WP:GF,
  4. recuse/remove yourselves from my talk page, and
  5. let others police my edits, other admins who did not comment on my booting and who do not have such strong opinions of fair use. Travb (talk) 08:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should User:Kelly Martin be blocked?

What is good for the goose is good for the gander?

User_talk:Xoloz#Do_not_create_cross-namespace_redirects:

"The fact that you believe that a handful of deletion-obsessed process wonk on DRV can determine "consensus" for Wikipedia indicates to me that your logic and commonsense is so absent that it would be criminal of me to even pay any attention to anything you might say. Given that, I have decided to simply ignore you and your opinion on this, and on all other matters, until such time as you show signs of actual complex thought. Please consider a different pastime; you may find Agora Nomic more your style. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)"

[edit] Message to User:Xoloz

Blocked user for uncivility, blocked by user:kelly martin, asks that you block user:kelly martin for uncivility also.

I request that you block user:kelly martin for 24 hours, as she has blocked me for 24 hours for an uncivil statment that is very similar to a statment that she blocked me for 24 hours for.

If she argues about it, I feel she should be blocked for one week, with no explanation, as she has blocked me.

I was blocked for 24 hours for this comment: User_talk:Travb#Blocked_for_incivility

Travb


[edit] Response
  • ...I suggest asking admins Haukurth, Sjakkelle, and/or Splash... Travb (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I emailed Haukurth and Splash, Sjakkelle user name is wrong. Travb (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Message to Admin

Hello, you are on the top of the block log, so I decided to email you.

I request that you block user:kelly martin for 24 hours, as she has blocked me for 24 hours for an uncivil statment that is very similar to a statment that she blocked me for 24 hours for:

"The fact that you believe that a handful of deletion-obsessed process wonk on DRV can determine "consensus" for Wikipedia indicates to me that your logic and commonsense is so absent that it would be criminal of me to even pay any attention to anything you might say. Given that, I have decided to simply ignore you and your opinion on this, and on all other matters, until such time as you show signs of actual complex thought. Please consider a different pastime; you may find Agora Nomic more your style. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)" From: User_talk:Xoloz#Do_not_create_cross-namespace_redirects

I was recently blocked for 24 hours for this comment: User_talk:Travb#Blocked_for_incivility

When I argued about the block, this admin blocked me for an additional week, with no explanation. This admin has not responded to my e-mails asking for an explanation. Here is the email I sent to User:Kelly Martin: User_talk:Travb#Message_to_User:Kelly_Martin

I think it is important that Wikipedia is consistent in its enforcement of its rules. If one user can be booted for uncivil comments, all users should be booted for uncivil comments. Especially the same user who feels that incivility is such an important wikipedia policy that they actively enforces this policy against other users.

If Wikipedia policy begins to be enforced unevenly, with some wikiusers ignoring the rules and not being punished, and others being punished for them, this may lead to resentment and incivility. People may begin to question all administators authority, and the legitamacy of that authority. Wikipedia will suffer as a result.

In otherwords, no one, not even a (self-professed) powerful administrator, should be above the rules.

Thank you for your time, Travb

[edit] Facts & background

[edit] Background

Showing that User:Kelly Martin and User:JKelly's enforcement today of wikirules are clearly punitive (meant to punish me) because of strong disagreements that I have had with them in the past.

  • Both User:Kelly Martin and User:JKelly actively messaged me during and after I was booted indefinetly (the reason I was booted indefinetly is explained below).
  • I questioned User:Kelly Martin's authority. I made changes to WP:FUC and she stated:
    "You are treading a very dangerous path, and if you continue it it is quite likely that you will find yourself banned from Wikipedia"
    User:Kelly Martin also said:
    "...you have substantially alienated a potential ally, and a very powerful one at that."
    I also asked her a question 8 times about how the fair use policy was made, which she has never answered.
    The full messages are here:
    User_talk:Travb/Archive_4#Wikipedia:Fair_use_criteria &
    User_talk:Travb/Archive_4#Your_edits_to_WP:FUC
  • It was these arguments on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use which lead another advocate of restrictive fair use policy, User:Gmaxwell, to search thousands of my edits for potential copyright violations.
    Of the 5 "Obvious copyvio" he found:
    -- 3 were violations in my first month as a wikiuser, back in October 2005,
    --One "Obvious copyvio" involved two sentences.
  • User:Gmaxwell then reported his findings to an admin, User:Cyde who booted me indefinately, the stated reason given on my user page was: You have been blocked for continued insertion of copyrighted material into Wikipedia after you were caught doing it and after you promised you'd never do it again...More info will be posted on WP:AN as soon as we finish assembling our case, complete with diffs of the copyvio material you inserted and the websites you stole it from. User:Gmaxwell admitted himself that "It would appear that User:Cyde was incorrect on one point: I can find no evidence that TravB promised to... (never do it again)". There was no administrative hearings, I never had a chance to defend myself agaist these accusations, I was simply booted indefinetly. Despite User:Cyde's statment, no one ever posted the reasons why I was booted on WP:AN. See: User_talk:Travb/Archive_4#Blocked
  • User:Duk unbooted me. I promised not to get involved with fair use policy or contact any of the editors and admins who I argued with before. I have kept that promise, until User:JKelly contacted me on my wikipage today.
  • As a result of the intense and unprecedent scrutiny of User:Gmaxwell:
    A grand total of one of my earlier pages Haiti-Santo Domingo Independence Society were deleted.
    The other two were edited, with the alleged copyright infringement material removed.
    The other two hundred plus pages I had made and contributed too remain intact.

[edit] June 24th-25th, 2006

Showing that:

  • the entire scandal began based on factually incorrect interpretation of wikipedia FUC policy.
  • That User:JKelly's behavior made the situation worse, not better.
  • I apologized to User:JKelly, tempered my comments, followed wikipedia policy, attempted to put this entire scandal behind me several times, went out of my way to follow fair use guidelines, and was still booted for 24 hours by User:Kelly Martin.
  • I would like to put our past arguments behind me forever, but User:Kelly Martin and User:JKelly do not.
  • User:DragonflySixtyseven deleted all 16 photos on my user page User:Travb#Collage, stating: As per WP:FUC, item 9, these images cannot be used outside of article space. Sorry. This is factually incorrect.
  • 10 of these 16 photos, to my understanding, are allowed on my user page, under current wikipedia policy which User:Kelly Martin and User:JKelly helped write. See: User_talk:Travb/Archive_5#The_images
  • I reverted the edit, restoring the pictures on my userpage.
  • User:JKelly, who I had actively avoided since I was booted, messaged me on my talk page User_talk:Travb/Archive_5#Images_on_your_userpage, telling me to remove the copyright images. I responded on his talk page with uncivil words, asking him to unwatch my page, and to stop harrasing me. (see below for details)
  • Troubled that User:JKelly, who was so involved when I got infinetly booted was trolling my userpage, I contacted User:Duk about this issue, asking for help and advice.
  • After responding to JKelly, I removed the collage, User:Travb#Collage and moved JKelly's comments to my archive, wanting to forget the episode and move on.[3]
  • JKelly reverted my archived comments I had archived, and added more. [4]
  • I again removed his comments, wanting to move on.[5]
  • User:HawkerTyphoon reverted JKelly's comments. [6]
  • User:Musical_Linguist then deleted these comments, stating, He has removed the images. No need to force him to keep the discussion on his talk page against his own wishes.
  • I then wrote Duk: It appears like the issue has blown over. I want to avoid any contact with User:Jkelly again. I asked him to stop watching my edits, and to unwatch my watch page. Hopefully this will difuse the situation permanently... User_talk:Duk#copyright_violations
  • User:Mindspillage, who I have talked about fair use before, came to User:JKelly defense, User_talk:Travb/Archive_5#Your_remarks I told her that "My message to User:JKelly was unacceptable, that is why I tempered my comments, and changed it...I apologized for my comments and behavior by deleting my collage and changing my comments."
  • Once again wanting to get the entire episode behind me, I archived all of the messages, but not before answering User_talk:Mindspillage as per Wikipedia:Talk_pages#Etiquette, and taking the additional step of contacting User_talk:Mindspillage telling her where my response was. User_talk:Mindspillage#Response.
  • I began editing other wikipages. I was messaging user:CJK when I found out that I was booted when I pressed "save page".
  • User:Kelly Martin, who I mentioned above was fighting with me during and leading up to the infinite boot, and who I have not contacted since I was unbooted, then booted me for my comments above.
  • User:Gmaxwell, the user who scrutinized thousands of my edits, which led to me getting indefinetly booted, modifies my user page, deleting two images which he feels are not fair use.[7]

Signed:Travb (talk) 08:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments about my current boot

Message here: User_talk:Travb/Archive_5#Your_remarks, which I wrote around an half hour before you booted me.
My message to User:JKelly was unacceptable, that is why I tempered my comments, and changed it User_talk:Jkelly#I_erased_the_collage_on_my_user_page.
I am sorry for my uncivil comments to JKelly. I am sorry that I had fair use images on my wikipage. I cannot emphasize this enough, and I think my behavior shows that I am sorry.
Are you watching my page too, User:Kelly Martin?
I do not know any user on wikipedia who has had his thousands of edits more examined and scrutinized than my own. I was indefinetly blocked for the majority of edits I made my first month as an editor, despite the tens of thousands of edits I had made since then. Despite this, another user, User:Duk, who I fought with about fair use just as fiercly as I did with you, had the good will and kind heart to unboot me, citing that I had contributed a lot to wikipedia, and I was a good editor.
I still feel on trial. I still feel like I am paying for my beligerance and questioning wikipolicy. I feel like no matter what I do, there will always be an admin with a score to settle, which will take any opportunity they can to boot me again. Everytime I see JKelly and your name appear on my talk page, I am reminded that I have to not only follow wikipolicy to the letter, but the slightest infraction, which is often ignored when others do it, will be punished severly if I do it. User:Gmaxwell, the wikiuser who examined thousands of my edits and who asked to get me booted, just edited my User page. I want to put this whole nasty episode behind me, but certain users, including yourself User:Kelly Martin, won't allow me too.
I wish I could start over. I was looking into the rules for deleting my account today and starting a new account, within wikipolicy.
I support your decision to boot me for uncivility. I was uncivil. I have made ammends, and will even apologize to User:JKelly.
I do not support your selective enforcement of wikipolicy.
We were both in lawschool, you know about conflict of interest and when a judge, jury member, or lawyer needs to recuse/remove themself of a case when it is clear that there is a conflict of interest.
I feel that you have a conflict of interest, that the argument we had before has colored your judgement, and therefore should "unwatch" my page, and let other admins deal with my edits.
Here are my comments on User_talk:Jkelly#I_erased_the_collage_on_my_user_page:
Please see user:Duk's page. Please unwatch my user page, please quit wikistalking me, if you are. Please lets go my seperate way. Whether you like it or not, I will continue to be an editor on wikipedia. You have no say in this. Under the circumstances, your actions maybe considered harrasment, especially considering that I have not edited fair use or any of the pages relating to fair use, as per the agreement that I would be unblocked.
In addition, you are selectively focusing on me for fair use rules, ignoring others. This shows your action, under the circumstances, are not done in WP:GF, but instead to punish a user who you have had agruments with in the past.
User:Kelly Martin, I am sure my harsh comments and debate with you before about fair use, did not color your decision to boot me for uncivility. Of course, admins never abuse or selectively use their authority.
JKelly gets to harrass and bully a user he does not like, selectively applying wikipedia policy as a stick against those he has argued with before, and I get booted by a user whose authority I questioned.
I would like to continue to be a active contributor to wikipedia. I would like a second chance at being an active contributor to wikipedia. Unfortunatly, I angered a lot of people by my comments before, which I apologize for. I apologize for my uncivil comments to you, User:Kelly Martin. These editors, many of them admins, are justifiably angry at me because of my debates before. I simply would like a second chance. I have not violated any of the conditions which I placed upon myself, voluntarily, to be unbooted from my indefinate boot. I have not edited fair use, I have not contacted any of the users which were so happy to see me booted. Instead, these users, including JKelly, have watched my page, and waited for any chance, any reason, to bait me, and get me booted again.
User:Kelly Martin, again, I strongly encourage both you and JKelly, to:
  1. let bygones be bygones, forget our fierce arguments we had before
  2. please accept my apology,
  3. assume WP:GF,
  4. recuse yourselves from my talk page, and
  5. let others police my edits, other admins who did not comment on my booting and who do not have such strong opinions of fair use.
Thank you for your continue hard work on wikipedia, User:Kelly Martin.
Best wishes. Travb (talk) 06:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boot time increased from 24 hours to one week

  • 23:39, 25 June 2006, Kelly Martin (Talk) blocked #195710 (expires 23:39, 26 June 2006) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Travb". The reason given for Travb's block is: "Incivility".)
  • 06:12, 25 June 2006, Kelly Martin (Talk) blocked Travb (contribs) (expires 06:12, 2 July 2006) (Incivility)

Yep, increased from 24 hours to one week.[8]

Maybe, since the 24 hours has expired, the reason should be changed from incivility to questioning User:Kelly Martin's authority?

User:Kelly Martin, are you going to increase it to one month next? Infinite? I guess User:Kelly Martin's statments are both true:

  • "You are treading a very dangerous path, and if you continue it it is quite likely that you will find yourself banned from Wikipedia"

User:Kelly Martin also said:

  • "...you have substantially alienated a potential ally, and a very powerful one at that."

When I called the first statment of hers a threat, she denied that it was. I guess time really bore out who was right.

The full messages are here:

Throughout US history, "disorderly conduct" laws have been an excuse for the authorities to viciously crack down on decent: war protestors, unionists, socialists, abolishionists, women sufferage movements. I find it ironic that "incivility" can be seen as a synonym of "disorderly conduct".

I am guilty of incivility I admited this several times.

This is only one side of the story though, User:Kelly Martin's and User:JKelly's enforcement of wikipedia policy is clearly selective and punitive. It is meant to punish me for questioning their authority.

I have already been punished for the words I said to User:JKelly.

Why is User:Kelly Martin now increasing it to a week?

Signed:Travb (talk) 23:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Message to an admin

Before I realized that my boot time had arbitrarily been increased from 24 hours to one week, I emailed another administrator, asking him to unboot me, since my 24 hours had expired. This editor will remain anonymous.

I wrote:

Hi I was booted for 24 hours yesterday. Should I now be unblocked? I email you because you are the admin on the top of the block log.

He responded:

Hi Travb, I see that there is a dispute between you and two administrators.


I don't think I'm the right person to mediate between you and them, so I advise you to seek help from an informal mediator:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal


Or maybe from a professional mediator:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation#Active_Mediators


You could also find an advocate:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Association_of_Members%27_Advocates


I hope one of these people will be able to help you. Good luck.

I responded:

Sigh, I just want to go back to editing wikipedia, and forget about these two mediators.
Are you familar with the movie the Godfather III?
I have never seen any of the series, but I know the quote, "Just when I think I'm out, they pull me back in."
George on Sienfield misquotes it as "Every time I think I'm out, they pull me back in." in "The Virgin" episode.
As I understand it, the character in the Godfather III is attempting to get out of the mob business, but everytime he tries, his past history and those who were in his past history, pull him back into the mob business.
I want to put this entire nasty episode of fair use behind me, and move on. But certain editors, who I offended and who (justifiably) hold a grudge, always "pull me back in"
Anyway, you gave me some good ideas.
Thanks for your time,
Travb

Signed:Travb (talk) 11:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Message to an advocate

Message to an advocate:

...I am having a prolonged dispute involving some of the most powerful and agressive editors on wikipedia.
The dispute involves fair use and copyright law.
Currently, I simply want to be left alone to edit. I do not want to fight these editors and their policies. This may change if they continue to provoke me.
Briefly:
  • I was booted indefinetly last month.
  • Another user unbooted me, on the condition I would not contact these users again, nor get involved with fair use again.
  • I was then booted again for 24 hours by the same group of users who were watching my page.
  • When I questioned the motives of these users, the boot time was increased too one week. I am currently on day two of this one week boot.
For a general overview of the conflict, please see my current talk page:
...
I think I have laid out the high points of the conflict in a very systematic and clear way. Someone who was not involved in the conflict, such as yourself or another advocate, could quickly understand the steps which led up to my current one week boot.
Can you help?
Thanks for your time,
Travb

Signed:Travb (talk) 11:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Follow up message to advocate (Modified)

Please note the second half of the message: I don't even want to argue fair use or copyright anymore.

Although I explain my position on fair use and copyright, I explain that I do not want to argue fair use and copyright any longer, as per the agreement with user:Duk to get unbooted from an indefinite boot.

Message to advocate:

(Advocate), you wrote:

I'm just not sure what kind of help you're after. :)

Your site was recommended by me by (an admin): User_talk:Travb#Message_to_an_admin

The first sentence of your wonderful wikisite reads:

The Association of Members' Advocates (AMA) is a Wikipedian voluntary association devoted to advocating, counseling, and protecting Wikipedians in need.

Advocate (advocating): An advocate is one who speaks on behalf of another...

I am a law student. When I saw the AMA web site I thought someone would be interested in helping me. Kind of as a pro bono volunter adovocate.

Whereas lawyers often don't pick who they respresent, pro bono lawyers do. It seems like this is the same case here, you are a kindof pro bono lawyer who is not interested in representing me. Maybe I simply have not been very clear. For this I apologize. Let me explain how you can represent me.

Copyright

As far as the fair use dispute goes, while copyright law is a nuisance, unfortunately, it isn't something that can be ignored. Wikipedia must actually follow the fair use provisions allowed for in US law (which I might add is quite a lot more than is available here in Australia) if we are to avoid legal liability down the line. This is why you're simply not going to get anywhere by doing things like removing the policy tags from WP:FUC or using photos which don't meet the criteria on your user page - when it comes down to it, the law trumps Wikipedia policy every time.

I agree 100% with what you say. Please no offense, but you are not saying anything I have heard a million times before on wikipedia, everything I agree with.

The issue is:

  • what is fair use law
  • what is copyright law,
  • who makes wikipedia policy, and
  • what is best for wikipedia?

"the law trumps Wikipedia policy every time."

I agree. That said, and if I can be so bold, I think you are confusing wikipedia guidelines and wikipedia policy with fair use and copyright law.

I simply want to be left alone: Other admins can monitor my edits, if necessary.

I don't want to waste anymore of your time, if you are not interested in advocating for me. But I would like you to advocate for me.

I don't even want to argue fair use or copyright anymore. I simply want to be left alone by these users who I was fighting fair use with.

See my proposals here: User_talk:Travb#My_proposal_to_User:Kelly_Martin

If I am a threat to wikipedia, as (some users) think I am, why not have a (semi-)neutral third party, such as user:Duk or user:Tony Sideway monitor my edits?

These two users both have very restrictive views on fair use and copyright too, and I disagree with both of them on this, but I am willing to be monitored by them if these users who I debated with on wikipedia about fair use feel that I am a threat to wikipedia.

Even though I have argued with user:Duk and user:Tony Sideway about copyright law, and even though I disagree with them, (Duk said that Kelly was generous not to ban me indefinatly again), I feel they are more fair and less punitive in their dealings with others...

Again, I don't want to waste anymore of your time, if you are not interested in advocating for me. Do you speak for the entire AMA? In otherwords, if you are not interested in advocating for me, can I ask other members?

I hope this makes the issue clearer on how you can help me.

Thank you for your time, I really appreciate it,

Best wishes in building wikipedia, I truly love this site,

Travb

[edit] Message to User:Kelly_Martin

Message sent: 26 June 2006

As per:

"You can either wait for the block to expire, or contact Kelly Martin to resolve the problem that led to the block.

If you wish to contact Kelly Martin, you may do so via email..."

I would like to "resolve the problem" that led to the block. I have publicly apologized to JKelly for my uncivil comments. I will happily apologize to him again.

I have "Take(n) some time, calm down" I have thought "about how grossly inappropriate that was, and" I will "not to do it again."

I want to archive al of these comments as per Wikipedia:Talk_pages#Etiquette and forget this episode ever happened, that is what I planned to do when I attempted to log on again, before realizing that my boot was expanded from 24 hours to one week.

As my actions show, and which I have documented, from the beginning I have wanted to put this sorid episode behind me, and move on.

I will delete the response on my talk page if this will help "resolve the problem".

Since my comments are not involving warnings, as per Wikipedia:Talk_pages#Etiquette I can delete these comments, and I will keep these comments deleted and not even put them in my archive, if this helps "resolve the problem".

Thank you, Travb

No response from admin, restored comments. Travb (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted pages which I created

Sockpuppets which have deleted pages which I created:

Users which have deleted pages which I created:

  • User:Travb/Misguided and heavy handed tactics of some admins regarding copyright by User:Jdforrester

Signed:Travb (talk) 13:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent block

Hi Trav, Sorry for the late response, I've been out of town.

If I see another edit like this I'll reimpose Cyde's indefinite block. To be clear, any admin should feel free to reimpose this block at their discretion. I've always encouraged other admins to modify my blocks/unblocks as they see fit.

IMO Kelly Martin was being generous when she blocked you for only a week. Jkelly's notes were polite, levelheaded and patient. There was no cause for the way you replied.

As far as your edits being scrutinized more that other editiors, this is normal given you past problems.

All of that aside, I'm fairly sure that no one mentioned above wants to silence you. You just need to follow the rules. --Duk 16:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the message. I respect your comments, although I respectful disagree with some of them. What was shocking through all this is the person who I fought with first about copyright, when User:TDC was using copyright as a club to push his own POV on WSI, was kind enough to unbooted me from an indefinate boot. I will be forever grateful for this, it took a real kind heart and generous personally for this.
Asking you for help just shows how desperate I was, and what few options I have left on wikipedia.
No one likes to live with an axe over their neck, fearful that any moment it will fall. You feel that axe is justified because of my past behavior, I respectfully disagree. But I am forced to live with this axe, or face the severe consequences.
Just to clarify, in case you didn't catch this on this page: I was booted for 24 hours for incivlity, this was then expanded for one week, with no explanation except the orginal incivility. I have emailed Kelly about resovling this as per User is blocked page:
"You can either wait for the block to expire, or contact Kelly Martin to resolve the problem that led to the block."
There has been no response. I have now added a {{unblock}} tag, since there has been no response. Please let me know if I am not working within wikipolicy. I have actively attempted to work within all wikipedia rules.
Please see my comments here: User_talk:Duk#copyright_violations, which I wrote before I was booted, pleading for you to intervene so this did not escalate. I thought this incident blew over, because I radically changed my User:Travb#Collage, following all wikipedia fair use and copyright rules. Unfortunatly, I was booted, first for one day for incivilty, then for one week with no explanation. Travb (talk) 19:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Message to: Juancarlos2004

I was booted again, first for 24 hours, then for a week.

It is very possible that I may be indefinetly banned/booted again.

So while I am reading and enjoying your comments, I may not be able to respond to them.

Thus far your response on Talk:Hugo Chavez has been the absolute best. Many users simply ignore the question, using it as an excuse to spout their own pet ideology. God willing, I look forward to working with you in the future on other wikiprojects, as we worked closely on Template:Colombia conflict. (I can't check the actual name of the template, since I am blocked.)

You haven't got the Colombia books that I sent you, have you?

Signed:Travb (talk) 19:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Message to Rebecca

Thank you Rebecca (for unbooting me). I don't know what to do know. I am going to put all of the information in my archive. I want to put this behind me, but I don't think certain users are going to allow this. Should I ask user:Duk who unblocked me orginally, on the condition that I do not talk about fair use again, if I can start an RfC or talk on the village pump about fair use? That is the foundation of this problem. I don't know what to do. Any suggestions please let me know. Certain users who have different views about copyright, and are very agressive about their views, are just waiting for any chance to ban me again. Any suggestions would be great, should I go through the organization you are the head of? Travb (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For those users who I e-mailed

For all the users who I emailed about my recent block/boot, refering wikiusers to certain sections of this user talk page, all messages are now in my archive 6, and the situation has been (temporarily) resolved. An admin was kind enough to unblock me. I apologize for the inconvenience. Travb (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Travb. I saw that you were blocked and followed what you were posting on your talk page. I was, in fact, yesterday considering asking Kelly to consider unblocking you early, as you had apologized and had modified your comments before you were blocked, but was preoccupied with transferring some essential files from an old computer to a new one, and trying to get the new one connected to the internet. I see that you have now been unblocked.
If I may offer some advice, I would suggest that you let the matter drop now. I can understand that you feel frustrated by the block, and by the fact that you have been blocked several times, but the best thing for you to do now is to forget about disagreements and who's right and who's wrong, and just make some good, uncontroversial edits to articles, respecting the Fair Use policy, and increasing the proportion of good edits to disagreements.
I'd like to clear up a few things. As I've said before, you are quite mistaken in thinking that Jkelly is singling you out with regard to the Fair Use policy. I have noticed him removing fair use images from other user pages in the past. If you and he have sent each other messages in the past, it's quite natural that he should have your page on his watchlits: indeed, it would be strange if he did not. And the fact that he did not block you for the post that you made on his talk page (for which Kelly Martin subsequently blocked you), even though he was online after you posted it and before you were blocked, indicates strongly that he is not trying to get you banned. I read his posts to you, and there were not threats — just a request that you would remove copyrighted material from your page, and an offer to do it if you weren't sure which images were the problematic ones.
Additionally, you are in error thinking that Kelly blocked you for 24 hours, and then changed the block to a week with no warning when you protested. All the recent blocks that Kelly performed can be seen here. Your own block log is here. Blocks remain in the logs even when they have expired or been lifted by someone else. If an editor is blocked for a month, the IP is not blocked for that long, as it could be a shared IP. Anyone trying to edit from that IP during the first few days (I'm not sure how long, exactly) of the block would be prevented by an autoblock. That happens even if the user trying to edit is logged on as someone else or is not logged on at all. If nobody tries to edit in the first few days, the autoblock is cancelled. The original message which showed up on your screen when you tried to edit was telling you about the autoblock, and giving you the expiry date of that. It wasn't referring to the length of your block. It was referring to the length of time that other users on your IP would be unable to edit. Attempts to edit would result in the autoblock being reset. It's important to note that the autoblock has nothing to do with the blocking admin. Even though the List of blocked users and IPs reports that Admin X blocked IP Y, the admin doesn't actually do anything in order to make an autoblock; it happens automatically. Autoblocks don't remain in the records after they have expired, because they are not blocks that someone performed. Kelly Martin blocked you once and once only. The block was for a week.
The best thing now is to move on. Ask an uninvolved admin for help if you feel you're being treated unfairly in the future, but put real or perceived past injustices behind you, because when blocked users complain a lot about their blocks, and try to have action taken against the blocking admins, they tend to get branded as troublemakers. Since you are no longer indefinitely blocked, the ideal is that you should become an uncontroversial Wikipedian, making good edits to articles and rarely coming to the attention of administrators; and that is what all administrators want or should want. AnnH ♫ 22:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
As per what I wrote on User:Musical Linguist's page: "Thanks for your message. I am confused, really confused about the block, but after reading it twice, I understand. I would apologize to Kelly Martin, but under the circumstances, maybe it is better to let it drop." Travb (talk) 02:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] I am annoyed...Not at you

I understand what you are saying, jkelly takes the biscuit. she blocked me...for no apparent reason! 15:20, 29 June 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.146.42.228 (talk • contribs) AKA User:Joshuarooney [9]

Message at: User_talk:Joshuarooney#A_reply

You messaged me a few days ago, and I responded in length. User_talk:Travb/Archive_6#I_am_annoyed...Not_at_you

I would suggest getting e-mail ativated, otherwise you will miss private messages of other wikiusers.

A little solicited advice: Drop the RfC, [10] [11] everyone who has the slightest bit of familarity with what happened between you and the admin know you are going to lose (except for yourself it appears). I think your current actions are a case study in how to do everything wrong.

Signed: Travb (talk) 01:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I can't get involved, I can't help you. You can use some of my old arguments, but I think it is better that I don't get involved. There are some great organizations which can mediate for you, if you like, which are in archive 6.
It has been made clear to me in a million different ways that wikipedia does not like controversial editors who question wikipedia policy, and who question certain editors. I just want to be left alone to edit.
For all I know you are one of these editors who want me booted, baiting me into doing something so they can boot me. Please just leave me alone. Travb (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Later: User_talk:Joshuarooney#Your_recent_article Your legit, or at least appear to be.
I advise you to seek help from an informal mediator:
Please see: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal
Or maybe from a professional mediator:
Wikipedia:Mediation#Active_Mediators
You could also find an advocate:
Wikipedia:Association_of_Members'_Advocates
I will ask an admin if it is okay to help you, if she says no, that is not wise, I won't be able to help. I have mediated controversial topics before, including WSI and currently No Gun Ri. But there is a definate bias there in me helping you. I think it is a really, really bad idea to help you anymore. But I hate to simply refer you to someone else, as others have done repeatedly to me, passing on the difficult problem to someone else. If I had a nickel for everytime everyone said that after I got unbooted, they were just about to unboot me, but didn't. It is easy to join the bandwagon after the difficult and courageous thing has already been done, after the original person has taken all of the heat for their controversial decisions.
User:Duk and User:Rebecca where very brave and courageous to unboot me, and I really put them in really high respect and regard for doing this, particularly User:Duk, who bitterly fought with me and I said some unkind words to before in the past. If I was in User:Duk's shoes, I don't know if I would have been so kind hearted and forgiving, so it is even more touching that he did this, it taught me something about being a better person. Travb (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advice to Joshuarooney: A Machiavelli view on wikipedia

User:Joshuarooney, I was going to email you a personal email, basically giving you advice about your own behavior. Since your email is disabled, and I don't want to comment on your userpage, I will comment here. Before I was booted indefinetly for copyright violations, a lot of wikiusers who were much more cool headed and comprimising e-mailed me advice. I ignored the majority of it. Please don't make the same mistake I did.

I looked at some of your edits, and although I don't know all of the facts, I think based on those edits, you were looking for a fight. The admin obliged, booting you.

Maybe the admin simply doesn't like you, I don't know, maybe you two have fought before, I don't know. If you two have fought before, then you may be able to argue personal bias. But this argument rarely works. It will probably not work especially in your case, because I think the majority of admins would have booted you too. The admins will look at your bias argument, see that your edits were incivil, and say, "If I were the admin, I would have booted him too." I emailed another admin, asking if I should get involved, and they emailed me back with that same opinion: "I would have booted him too."

The best thing you could do is apologize, profusely. Admit that you were wrong. Apologize to all of those people who you said uncivil things too, in big ALL CAPS LETTERS. You don't have to be 100% sincere, think of it as a game: you want to be unbooted and you will do what it takes to get unbooted. Wikipedia is like a boardgame: there are certain rules and guidelines that everyone has to follow, otherwise they get kicked out for cheating. The rules and guidelines are unevenly applied and they are not always "fair", but you simply can't ignore the rules because of this.

But back up your apology by changing your behavior. (In this way, your apology becomes sincere). You can say some pretty uncivil things, civily. (example) The most important thing is to stay within wikipedia rules and guidelines. The majority of the rules and guidelines I believe in, they make wikipedia work well, and avoid wikipedia becoming a very unfriendly, nasty site like FrontPageMag.com. (I actually came straight from FrontPageMag.com to wikipedia, and my early edits are really nasty and personal as a result)

How can you say pretty uncivil things, civily? How can you become a more effect editor?

First the dont's:

  • Never call anyone a name, ever. This includes vulgar names like asshole, but it also includes words like communist, facist, anti-american, jingoist. Calling people names make you look like a biased ideologue. Even if you are a biased ideologue, you don't want the casual reader to think you are.
  • Never swear at anyone.
  • Never compare your opponent to anyone (especially Hitler or anything to do with Hitler, I was booted for this once).
  • Don't ever post nasty messages on users wikipages. If you do, change them immediatly when you calm down. I always say I am tempering my words.
  • Never assume that your opponent said something, cut and paste your opponents argument, and refer to it.
    • If you assume your opponent said something, and they did not, they will just come back and say what you said is wrong, which weakens your argument. Apologize, in BIG CAPS, that what you said was wrong, and apologize to the user to. Also Compliment your opponent (see below). Thank them for pointing out this mistake.

Now the do's:

  • Learn to apologize for your mistakes. This is the biggest achilles heal of internet users (web blog users and wikiusers). They never apologize for what they say. If you apologize for what you say, that means their argument against you is no longer valid. They can no longer point out your error, and use it against you later. This is probably the most valuable advice I can give you, because this quality, admiting you are wrong, is so rare on the internet.
  • Learn the logical arguments, found here. These are incredibly persuasive weapons.
  • Learn wikipedia policy. Many admins use wikipedia policy as weapons to push their own POV.
  • Point out the illogical reasoning of a user, using wikipedia policy and logical arguments. This does not have the same immediate satisfaction as calling someone an "asshole", and it takes more work, but it is more rewarding and much more convincing. It also makes your opponent look like a fool.
  • Use your opponents own words against them in your argument, in quotes.
  • Continue to ask a question, and remind the user that you have asked the question, x number of times, and they have ignored it. Be relentless until you get an answer. This makes your opponent look like they are dodging uncomfortable questions, which they usually are. Don't get side tracked, don't let them change the subject. Keep asking the same question, over and over and over. Since most users never learn to apologize for their mistakes and will never admit they are wrong, this is an incredibly powerful tool.
  • Comprimise positions. Decide what is the most important thing you want in a wikiarticle. For example, in Philippine-American War I wanted the attocities of Americans to be left in the article. I comprimised, allowing in Philippine attrocities against Americans because this made my position (and the article) stronger. The ideological wikiuser was satisfied, I avoided a revert war, and every single person who types in Philippine-American War in google, will read about American attrocities. By listing Filipino attrocities, the article becomes better, more balanced, more convincing, and my section becomes less vulnerable to future attack. In otherwords, by listing Filipino attrocities, the American attrocities ironically become more convincing!
  • Research, research, research. Out-research your opponent. Never forget: this is an encyclopedia after all. I have found repeatedly the person who researches the most, wins the argument, or at least changes the argument so dramatically, that the opponent will be so overwhelmed they will concede and comprimise, usually on terms more favorable to you.
  • Compliment your opponents, repeatedly and often, tell them thank you for their contributions. Find things you agree with and emphasize those agreements. This not only makes wikipedia more civil, but it also makes people see you as a peacemaker--including your opponent. You will be surprised how much a simple sentence like: "I appreciate your work on wikipedia" will mellow your opponent.
    • Talking peace is a tatic that some admins use often--they will talk peace, but their actions speak louder than words: the admins will be using nasty, lowball tactics while they talk peace. Call the editors on their low ball tactics--but do it in a diplomatic, peaceful way, citing wikipedia policy and the good of wikipedia.

Examples of my strategies in practice: Talk:Norm_Coleman#Poll. Talk:Norm_Coleman#25_articles_on_Norm_Coleman_changing_his_bio_on_wikipedia (and other messages) Where we avoided a revert war and the information that myself and other wikipedians wanted in the article, stays in the article.

Two other suggestions, Joshuarooney.

  1. When you are booted, email people, by clicking E-mail this user, don't use your isp. You can get booted for this.
  2. Don't use fucking lame ass excuses that someone else used you ISP address. User:fightforfreedom, who vandalized my page a lot used this weak argument with admins, and he has been banned forever (I had no part in any of this, either). I don't care if it is true if someone else used you ISP address and honestly, admins don't either. This is one of the weakest arguments you can possibly use to get unbooted.

Caveat for those users who want my indefinetly banned, and those who dislike me This entire message must be read in context. I am not encouraging Joshuarooney to lie or not follow wikipedia policy. I am encouraging Joshuarooney to use some of the tools that I have learned on wikipedia, to become a better wikipedian, and to work within the rules and guidelines of wikipedia.

I hope those wikipedians who dislike me use some of these suggested tactics against me in future debates. (Actually many of these wikipedians I hope I never run across again, but if we do...) It makes for a more interesting debate, and more challenging for me. I think some of these tactics help wikipedia become a better encyclopeida. I think if more people, including myself, consistently used some of these tactics on wikipedia, there would be less revert wars, and less incivility.

After all of the fighting and low-ball tactics of other wikipedians against me, I am paranoid and wonder if Joshuarooney is a sockpupper, and is simply a baiting tactic.

Signed: Travb (talk) 14:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] No big surprise

Message on: User_talk:Joshuarooney#No_big_surprise

Here is my message to your tombstone.

Well, I was editing and cleaning upUser_talk:Travb/Archive_6#Advice_to_Joshuarooney:_A_Machiavelli_view_on_wikipedia and I decided to come and check on you. You have been indefinetly banned I see. That is really too bad. I don't know what you did to "deserve" this, but I am sad about this.

You can email me if you like, maybe I can help you.

Caveat: is this against the rules to help someone who has been indefinetly banned? If so let me know. ASAP, and I will retract this statment. Of the myraid of rules I have read this past two weeks, I think I came across a rule stating you can help banned editors, please message me this policy. I will look for this policy now. Travb (talk) 14:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note

Just a note to say it is obvious you are working hard to reach consensus on NGR and I appreciate your effort. Focusing on the article, not the personalities absolutely lifts the discussion to higher level, and one that has greater chance of achieving comity. Skywriter 20:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks man, I appreciate the note. Please lets keep the bulk of the discussion on the Talk:No Gun Ri page. I just responded to your comments there. Again, I appreciate your comments.
I am a POV warrior, as bad as anyone else here, but I have learned honey attracts bees more than vinegar. It is much easier emotionally to work with people than fight with them, and I usually get what I want for half the effort. Maybe it would be more apt to call me a former POV warrior, who learned the hard way, that it is much smarter and much more easier to get my POV, if I am POV diplomat.
I have also learned to permit dissenting opinions. In fact, I think for the average reader, any wikipedia article is stronger and more credible when all sides are presented, not just one. People really quickly realize when they are reading partisan bullshit, and once that happens, you have lost a reader.
My nasty POV warrior side comes out all the time still, getting me in terrible trouble, but much less often. I really love wikipedia, the people here have taught my not only lessons about wikipedia, but lessons about life, which I carry with me when I turn off the computer.
Signed: Travb (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] While you're at it

I see you're busy: a few words. There are numerous daily errors in puncutation, spelling and grammar introduced into all the articles, along with incomplete references and errors in references. Some well meaning and helpful editors are not fluent in written English, and part of the daily work is cleanup: it goes with the territory, but I have days where I feel like the cleaning crew, and my prose, grammar and spelling aren't great either! I just combined all of the comments from several different articles into the Criticism article, and am just beginning on it. I chose it first since I don't see how we can pare down the main article without first addressing the daughter articles, one by one -- cleaning them up, referencing them, seeing what's there. If you make it to the criticism article, tread lightly, as it's still in very bad shape, mostly unreferenced, incomplete, and a compilation of a lot of writing from a lot of places. It will take me days to get it to a place where it's workable, and in the meantime, unreferenced, incomplete statements get added. Have fun. Sandy 01:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


Thanks Sandy, I am not as active in this part of the Chavez woods as you. My big pet peeve (if you haven't noticed) are WP:Weasel but I will try and fix grammar as I go along. I am not the very best person for correcting spelling though, as I make a lot of spelling errors myself as I write.
You said you are not Venezuelan, are you American? I am American. You said you had been to Venezuela before, can I ask what for?
Don't worry--I will stay away from the criticism section for now.
My interest is a passing one, simply because we watched The revolution will not be televised in class, and my classmate is Venezuelan and very anti-Chavez. The questions I asked on the talk page are not my own, but my professors, who showed The revolution will not be televised in class. Signed:Travb (talk) 01:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To a distinctly non-antlike editor...

RE: Talk:Ward_Churchill#O.27Reilly_factor

I definitely don't consider you myrmicine... positively myrmecophagian, in fact :-).

I'm actually slightly surprised Pokey hasn't gotten himself permanently blocked; I figured that would be the only reason for his happy disappearance. However, I definitely didn't find any of his "arguments" worth the electrons they were transmitted with. But I wasn't talking about Pokey specifically: just as a general pattern, I found that most of the people who wax most indignant about my sins in defending articles against POV or other transgressions to encyclopedicity, wind up pissing off some admin enough to be permanently blocked. The block never has anything much to do with me specifically; mostly I don't even learn of it until after the fact, and certainly haven't been involved in such administravia (I'm not an administrator, for one thing).

For example, a certain User:70114205215 was consistently pugilistic around the Churchill articles, with me acting as his main imagined antagonist. Well, I'm bristly. And I suffer fools poorly. So I'm not surprised to be cast in such a role. But I also never cared one whit about any pro- or anti- stuff he imagined I was pushing for, but only about NPOV. That editor made maintaining something encyclopedic quite difficult; and I can't say that had I been an admin I wouldn't have found some pretense to block him. But I'm not, and I didn't. In the end, some admin with whom I have no particular connection, and who never did anything around the Churchill articles, asked him to change his username to something consistent with permitted naming conventions. Having the quality of character he does, he basically told her to go fuck off... which after a few rounds of attempted negotiation on the point, resulted in the account being blocked. While I am not unhappy with the outcome, I was not even so much as aware of the rule against purely numeric names until the block was being threatened (and I never commented on the propriety of the action).

Actually, the same thing has happened to several POV-mongers who have edited about Chuchill. But it's not a Ward Churchill thing particularly (though that topic attracts a peculiarly large number of "single topic" editors, who never edit any other articles). Pretty much exactly the same story has happened with quite a number of other editors who have railed at some length about my sins. They some how show their true colors to someone with powers to block accounts. LotLE×talk 03:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good morning...yawn

RE: Talk:List_of_United_States_military_history_events#1818_--_Oregon.

RE: User_talk:Skookum1/Archive_1#Hi_Skookum1

My reply to you on my talk page, where you can't hide/archive it, and some on User talk:Heqs. I think you're full of it. Skookum1 16:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are you suggesting I need to get l**d?

Argumentative? No, just discursive, and CORRECT, since you're so off the wall about me; I should know, after all; because I'm me. And I'm not Korean, either.Skookum1 16:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, my apologizes for thinking you are Korean. At least one of us can admit they are wrong. Go ahead and talk some more on my page, I have noticed that you always need the last word. Then I will archive your response, as per wikipedia rules of etiquette, as I wrote you before. [12] You call it "hiding", the reason I archive your response, is I simply can handle your long angry responses and angry attitude for about half an hour a month, then I want move on. Everytime I open my own user page, I don't want to see your angry words. It is a way to cope with you with out becoming uncivil. Travb (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Angry? No, dearie - bemused. If you think sharp, incisive words are "angry" you've led a sheltered life. If you feel they're angry, that says more about your own insecurities than anything about my intent/mood.Skookum1 16:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BC & Pacific Northwest History Forum

Please see RE BC & Pacific Northwest History Forum re: Talk:List of United States military history events#Border Commission troops in the Pacific Northwest. If you think maybe I should also move some or copy some of my other stuff from NW history and BC history pages let me know; I never mean to blog, but I'm voluble and to me everything's interconnected; never meaning to dominate a page so have made this area to post my historical rambles on. Thoughts?Skookum1 03:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Book suggestion

RE: User_talk:Bmk#Thank_you_for_your_recent_concern

"Myths" sounds interesting - maybe i'll look it up. Meanwhile, I have one for you - "A People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn. It's an amazing book - a consistent, very well argued view on nearly everything that has happened in the united states since Columbus. A real eye opener :) --User:Bmk 06:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply: User_talk:Bmk#People.27s_History

[edit] Reichstag

re: Adding Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man to Reichstag (building)

My conversation on Adam's page: [13]

If you add such nonsense to an article again I will report you for vandalism. Adam 04:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If you add such nonsense to an article again I will report you for vandalism. Adam 05:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you think people spend their time writing articles for Wikipedia so that idiots like you can use them to attach your feeble "jokes" to? Does it occur to you that other people have to come and clean up after you? If you can't make a useful contribution, at least stop wasting other people's time. Adam 07:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Adding nonsense to articles is vandalism, and has been found to be so many times. The correct way to deal with vandalism is to delete it and warn those responsible that they will be blocked if they add nonsense again. Adam 07:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)