User talk:Michael Martinez
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] MM
Some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Michael Martinez may not be sufficiently well-known to merit articles of their own. The Wikipedia community welcomes newcomers, and encourages them to become Wikipedians. On Wikipedia, each user is entitled to a user page in which they can describe themselves, and this article's content may be incorporated into that page. However, to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia proper, a subject must be notable. We encourage you to write or improve articles on notable subjects.
Hello Michael Martinez and thanks for your contributions. You're actually not allowed to write the article on yourself. If you are notable enough, someone will write an article on you. "Vanity" articles usually get deleted pretty quickly, so please don't be offended.--Rockero 23:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I understand that other people have been allowed to edit/write their own articles on Wikipedia. My autobiographical article isn't intended to toot my hown, but rather to just lay out what I've done that's earned recognition around the world.
So far as I know, Compuserve, the World Wide Web, the news groups, J.R.R. Tolkien, Andre Norton, the Inklings, Xena: Warrior Princess, and Newsweek magazine (the only other topics to which I linked in the article) all have their own topics.Michael Martinez 05:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Hi, me again. I hope I didn't seem rude last time. As I was trying to find the place where it states explicitly that people are prohibited from creating one's own Wikipedia biography, I realized that it is likely that it is not an actual policy. It is, however, highly recommended that Wikipedians refrain from editing articles on themselves, their family members, companies, et cetera. You might want to check out Wikipedia:Vanity. I'm not trying to say you're vain or anything. Its just the term we use around here. Other than that, the article isn't bad (NPOV, appropriate links, etc., although you should always try to place each article into a Category). Using someone's autobiography or personal journal entries are acceptable sources for biographies, but that is not the same as someone creating and editing their own articles. And please remember to sign your comments on talkpages (and Wikipedia pages, especially when voting on the Articles for Deletion page) by typing ~~~~. Also, when you vote, please make sure to state clearly whether you are voting to keep, delete, merge, etc, and it doesn't hurt to leave a brief explanation of why you are voting the way you are. Thanks again for your contributions, --Rockero 04:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
It wasn't until I saw your comment that I realized I had created a mainstream article rather than a user profile page. I'm familiar with many of the Wiki policies, having been involved with the Wikipedia longer than you.Michael Martinez 05:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Feel free to go ahead and userfy, then. If you don't have the text saved somewhere, you may want to copy it into your userpage now, before it gets deleted (the votes are stacked against you at the moment), and then modify it as necessary to follow the guideline at Wikipedia:User page. I see that indeed, your first edit under this username came on May 16, 2005, while my first edit didn't come for almost a month thereafter (on June 12). And I also see that since your first edit, you have made countless (87) positive contributions to numerous articles of great import. I hereby defer to your seniority.
- I jest because length of time registered is not always the best measure of a wikipedian's experience. I prefer to judge (when judgement is necessary) an editor by the quality of their articles, if they have any to their credit, or by the quality of their edits. Some people prefer edit count, available by using Kate's tool.
- There is no shame in lack of experience with the wiki. It is ok to make mistakes; one of the requirements for participation in wikipedia is civility, so no one will get mad at you or block you for innocent errors.
- Again, thank you for your contributions.--Rockero 06:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I saved the text but I'll wait until I'm feeling better. I've made enough mistakes for one day. Thanks. Michael Martinez 06:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 3RR
The rule is that no one is allowed more than 3 reverts to the same article within a 24-hour period. You made 4 reverts in less than 5 hours. Conrad's first revert was several days ago. The exception to this rule is cases of repeated "simple vandalism" which this plainly is not. WP:VAND is explicit that perceived WP:NPOV violations are not vandalism. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Conrad's three reverts in 24 hours clearly violated the policy. Why did you not confirm that?
2nd revert: 23:12, February 27, 2006 3rd revert: 00:11, February 28, 2006 4th revert: 01:38, February 28, 2006
These are three reverts within a period of less than 2 hours. Michael Martinez 05:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Blocked (3RR)
To contest this block, add the text {{unblock}} on this page, along with an explanation of why you believe this block to be unjustified. You can also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Please be sure to include your username and IP address in your email. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 03:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
BorgHunter violated [[1]] Which clearly and unequivocably states
-
- Sysops may block users who violate the three revert rule. Where multiple parties violate the rule, sysops will treat all sides equally.
Since I was blocked and the other user warned without either of us being given prior notification through appropriate channels as stipulated in Wikipolicy, this was clearly an overreaction on BorgHunter's part, whose Admin privileges were revoked for abuse on February 6:
The link goes to Google cache.
The blocking prevented my using the Wiki email forms to contact Borghunter or anyone else. I had to subscribe to the moderated list and have yet to see my message of complaint be approved or rejected.
- My response to this is, firstly, that the other user did not violate the 3RR. Secondly, my previous de-adminship is not relevant whatsoever. I will leave the template for other admins to review. —BorgHunter
ubx(talk) 05:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Wrong. He made three reverts within 2 hours: 2nd revert: 23:12, February 27, 2006 3rd revert: 00:11, February 28, 2006 4th revert: 01:38, February 28, 2006
Check the page again. You are in violation of Wiki policy. And your history of disregard or incompetence is pertinent to your mishandling of this case. I was reporting abuse and you punished me. Michael Martinez 05:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- The rule says you must make four reverts in 24 hours. Three reverts, while certainly not preferable, is not a 3RR violation. —BorgHunter
ubx(talk) 05:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- The rule says you must make four reverts in 24 hours. Three reverts, while certainly not preferable, is not a 3RR violation. —BorgHunter
He was making multiple reverts to multiple articles for purposes of vandalism. His edits were not made in good faith, they were specifically targeting my own edits for the purpose of inserting false and misleading information, which I clearly documented in the TALK pages, where he refused to post suggested text changes for discussion. Michael Martinez 05:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
A little further on in the 3RR rule
-
- This does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable. In excessive cases, people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day.
You clearly mishandled this situation.
Michael Martinez 05:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I warned CBDunkerson for the incident. He didn't behave himself very well either, though I chose not to block him. —BorgHunter
ubx(talk) 05:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- I warned CBDunkerson for the incident. He didn't behave himself very well either, though I chose not to block him. —BorgHunter
-
The policy states clearly and unequivocably that you are supposed to impose the same penalty on all participants in revert wars. You violated that policy. Michael Martinez 05:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- As an uninvolved third-party administrator, I'm here to chime in on your unblock request. You violated WP:3RR, and were blocked under that policy. CBDunkerson did not, although he has come very close, and has been duly warned. In addition, you should be very careful regarding what you call vandalism. The term vandalism does not apply to content disputes, and calling edits vandalism that are clearly not is not assuming good faith and is something you must work on in the future. I'm removing your unblock request template.
- [edit conflict] I see you have added a new comment; the blocking policy does require equal treatment to violators of 3RR, but CBDunkerson did not violate 3RR, so that point is moot.
- Regards, —bbatsell ¿? 05:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
This is NOT a "content dispute", as you have been duly informed. The term vandalism clearly applies because of the following points:
-
- Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia.
-
- Not all vandalism is blatant, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism: Careful attention needs to be given to whether the new data or information is right or whether it is vandalism.
The edits were targeted and intended to insert false and misleading information. That is vandalism. And CBDunkerson did, as I pointed out, violate the policy
-
- This does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable. In excessive cases, people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day.
He was making multiple reverts to multiple articles, all vandalistic, all disruptive, in clear violation of Wikipedia policy.
Michael Martinez 05:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- He has 5000 edits. Why would he throw that all away to vandalize? Please assume good faith. —BorgHunter
ubx(talk) 05:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
This edit was not posted previously.
ubx (talk) 05:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
The best reason I can show you on short notice is my reply to his self-admitted hateful review of my book on Amazon:
I don't know if he removed his review or if Amazon finally enforced their policy, but other people saw it and mentioned it:
There is a long history between us, and as I understand Wikipedia policy, I cannot share it in detail here. Michael Martinez 05:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- This is a content dispute. I wasn't "informed" of it (although I greatly appreciate your assumption of bad faith), I looked at the edits and the articles in question. CBDunkerson is making good faith edits, as are you; however, you broke a rule, and he didn't. Your continued assumption of bad faith and terming good faith edits as vandalism is alarming, and I strongly urge you to reconsider your attitude. —bbatsell ¿? 05:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Conrad Dunkerson is not making "good faith" edits. Your continued insistence that you know what constitute good faith edits in a field of study where you have not published before is alarming to me.
I ask that the block be removed and give my word that I won't continue the revert war. But I also ask that the Middle-earth project be placed under protection until the critical canon discussion has been completed. Through no fault of your own, you guys are not equipped with the proper knowledge to arbitrate this mess, and I assure you that Conrad is laughing at you right now. Michael Martinez 05:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
bbatsell, you wrote "This user continues to insist that his version of the article is the only correct one and that all others are vandalism." on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:ANI and nowhere did I say or imply that "all others are vandalism". The vandalism is coming from one person, one person only, and you are giving the wrong impression to the ohter Sysops looking into this.
- You seem to be under the impression that only you have the experience and knowledge necessary to edit the article in question, which is why I stated that. You also seem to believe that administrators engage in "groupthink", as you made the same assumption with me — we actually look at the users and articles involved in any dispute. No one is telling us how to think or obscuring the truth. —bbatsell ¿? 06:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- You seem to be under the impression that anyone can judge Conrad's edits on the same level as me. When you've invested 8 years of your life debunking his nonsense, come back and tell me his false and misleading edits are not vandalism.
-
- And, no, I don't think the admins engage in groupthink. I just object to people putting words into my mouth. Shame on you. You talk about showing good faith but fall fairly short on that yourself when it comes to testing what I'm telling you.
-
- Based on the research I've done on you and the other admins posting comments on the ANI page, none of you are qualified to investigate an extremely intricate textual history of the Tolkien works. If, however, you do possess such credentials, I'll be glad to retract that judgement when I come across them. In the meantime, Conrad's vandalism remains just that: vandalism.
Michael Martinez 07:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
And you wrote: "He also continues to replace the unblock template on his talk page after several administrators have reviewed the situation and removed it."
Yeah, well, you guys make it impossible to explain the facts to you, and you are clearly ignoring the Wikipedia policies I keep quoting.
- What policies, exactly, are we "clearly ignoring"? You claimed that removing warnings from talk pages is vandalism only for administrators, which was incorrect. You claimed that BorgHunter must block CBDunkerson under WP:3RR, which he didn't violate. Then you changed your argument to say that he must be blocked because he has engaged in edit wars and disruption, where the policy is clear that this is up to the administrators discretion, whereas WP:3RR is not. BorgHunter utilized that discretion, and I, along with several other administrators happened to agree with him. —bbatsell ¿? 06:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- I have provided extensive citations of the policies. The 3RR policy does stipulate that fewer than 3 posts in one day can be deemed abusive. The vandalism policy does indicate that a bad faith edit is vandalism, and it stipulates that vandalism is any deliberate attempt to lower the quality of Wikiepedia. Conrad's edits are deliberate attempts to lower the quality of Wikipedia. And I didn't change my argument, I made an effort to finish reporting the abuse I was prevented from reporting when I was blocked as I was documenting the abuse. That shouldn't be so difficult to understand, should it?
- The policy is clear that when there are multiple participants in reversion wars, the penalties are to be applied equally. Which part of that is not clear?
Michael Martinez 07:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Put yourselves in my shoes. What would you feel like doing? I'm not "gaming" the system, I'm trying to explain a very complex situation to you. You clearly don't realize what is going on here. You blocked the good guy and gave the villain a free show.
- I would review Wikipedia policies, realize what I did wrong, and work with other editors on the talk page in the future. I would not be continually assuming bad faith on the part of the editor I disagree with, along with several administrators who come along at my request. You continually portray yourself as the only correct editor, and anyone who disagrees with you as the incorrect editor (actually, in this instance, the "good guy" and the "villain"), which is completely contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. —bbatsell ¿? 06:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- I certainly do hope you review the policies and see where you're wrong, but you've given me the strong impression you're not going to accept your mistakes. You should stop putting words into my mouth, and try to get through a post (at least where you reply to me) where you don't just whip out "bad faith". You continually ignore the policies and paint me as someone who describes everyone else as acting in bad faith. That's just you, dude, not me. I only said Conrad Dunkerson was acting in bad faith. You've just painted yourself into a corner and instead of admitting that you were wrong, you're insisting I've done something I actually haven't. That's bad behavior.
Michael Martinez 07:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Nor did I assume "bad faith on everyone's part". Why on Earth would you say something like that? Michael Martinez 06:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- You are still assuming bad faith on the part of CBDunkerson, calling his edits vandalism, when they are not. You assumed bad faith with regard to BorgHunter's block. You assumed bad faith of me, claiming that I was "told" what the situation was and didn't bother actually looking at it myself, and then told me that I had not the intelligence nor knowledge to address your request for unblocking. So far, that's everyone involved.
- Trust me, we've all been in similar situations. I've disagreed with numerous editors in the past; however, you aren't going to help the dispute by claiming that anyone who disagrees with you is a vandal, and continually reverting their edits. I urge you to work together with editors you disagree with on article talk pages and cite sources in the future, and you'll never have another issue like this again. In the meantime, you will wait out your block. With warmest regards, —bbatsell ¿? 06:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
You're using "bad faith" like a flyswatter. BorgHunter was wrong to block me for reasons I've detailed here. That's not bad faith, that's just the way it is. This is an imperfect system and I don't expect anyone who is adminning a huge site to make every call right. I was reporting abuse, which remains abuse, and I was blocked for reporting it. That's bad judgement, not bad faith. You and the other Sysops who have made inaccurate comments about this discussion over at the ANI page are just going on momentum. You assume that since most 3RR blocks are correct that this one is. Well, we're not in a court of law, so I'm not going to worry about where the burden of proof lies on a 24-hour block.
But I am confident that Wikipedia has not seen the last of Conrad's abuse. I strongly urge you guys to protect the Middle-earth project. You have clearly made no effort to investigate the details of the edits -- and I'll grant you that would be impossible for random adminning such as happens here -- but you'll find, if you monitor the situation, that he'll continue to post false and misleading information.
That is what he does, and he is very good at it. He's had a great deal of practice, and I am not referring to his 5,000 Wikipedia edits. Michael Martinez 07:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I don't see it. I see a content dispute. And yes, I have looked at his edits, and I do know a fair bit about Tolkien's work, so I'm no slouch here. I think the two of you should get together on a talk page somewhere and work out a compromise. —BorgHunter
ubx(talk) 14:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- "I think the two of you should get together on a talk page somewhere and work out a compromise." As I mentioned in my abuse report, he repeatedly refused to do that. But given that he is deliberately posting false and misleading information, it is absurd to continue to characterize his vandalism as "a content dispute". His objective is not to act in good faith but to deliberately misrepresent the facts. I suggest you share a few pertinet Tolkien citations in the TALK sections to show that you understand what is going on.
There is no need for further comment from any of you. Michael Martinez 17:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Vandalism
Please note that removing warnings on your talk page from others is considered vandalism. Thanks. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 03:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
And while we're documenting your errors, I might as well point out that removing such warnings is only a violation for Sysops. I cannot find any policy that applies to regular users. If you have a link to the page with that specific policy, please post and QUOTE THE APPROPRIATE section. Michael Martinez 05:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- From WP:VAND:
- "Removing warnings, whether for vandalism or other forms of prohibited/discouraged behavior, from one's talk page is also considered vandalism."
- Regards, —bbatsell ¿? 05:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
My mistake. I may have mistyped the search on that page. Thank you. Michael Martinez 05:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Your email
What was moronic was that the fight was occurring. Talk pages, WP:RFPP, WP:RFC, et.al. exist for a reason - to prevent constant reverting. Please do not justify your reversions to me, use the talk pages for that. I'm not here to judge the fight - only to examine if you did break 3RR, and it seems you did. Remember: 3RR is NOT an allowance, it is a guideline. Do not think it gives you the right to three reverts a day. And you will notice that I also attacked the other party for engaging in a revert war. I don't know what wikipedia policy you're referring to about not being able to share differences. --Golbez 15:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Clearly, you guys will allow more than 3 reverts a day from somene provided he spreads them across several articles. I'm not interested in who you attack (which is supposedly also a violation of Wiki policy -- you admins have really abused the system on this one). I'm only interested in seeing the vandalism stop. You share part of the blame in encouraging it to continue. I have no doubt he will continue. Michael Martinez 17:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- The Three Revert Rule is 3 reverts on a single article. Please stop rule lawyering if you don't even know the rules in play. --Golbez 18:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 06:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
