User talk:Wassermann/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] How to appeal your block

Please don't try to appeal your block by more block evasion (=editing your userpage from an IP). I have rolled that back. The way to appeal is by e-mail to a member of the Arbitration Committee. Since you haven't specified an e-mail address of your own, you can't use the "E-mail this user" feature in the left-hand sidebar, but see the page Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee for some e-mail addresses to arbitrators. Use one of them for your appeal, please. Bishonen | talk 08:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Block evasion

Wassermann, your issue has been reported to the ANI. You are asked to stop block evasions if you really need to imporove wikipedia. Otherwise, you'll have no chance at all and that would surely lead to a community ban instead. If you agree and promise to stop, some admins (including myself) would reconsider your indef block. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 15:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Per the information I have just read at the ANI, I fully agree to end any and all IP editing henceforth. Also, someone mentioned that there that I might be User:74.222.195.21 -- I am not that user, nor am I the other 72... user mentioned repeatedly on Crum's talk page that I have repeatedly denied to User:Valentinian. Also, just to be clear, I am not the user with the similar IP address that left an anti-Semitic slur on Jayjg's userpage in early June, just as I am not the other 172... anon IP user that left those message about 9/11 on Jimbo Wales' talk page that I left that message about on Crum's page (as you can see, these 172... and 72... IP users are all over Wikipedia). My IP address changes every single time I sign on to AOL, but it has always started with 172... . But yeah, like I just said, I will end all IP editing from this moment forward. Thank you for your kind assistance FayssalF. --Wassermann 04:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
By the way -- I contacted the members of ArbCom via e-mail earlier about setting up an appeal, but maybe we don't need to go that far yet and can just handle this at the ANI messageboard? --Wassermann 04:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Wassermann, if you agree to fully abide by a one month block, I am willing to reduce your block to that length. If you are found to edit with an IP (or any other account) even once during that time, your block will become indefinite again. I am also waiting for you to explain your understanding of what is, and what is not, vandalism, and to list all the IPs you used when you evaded the block (you can simply add the template on them if you wish), so we can inspect your edits. Crum375 05:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I totally agree w/ Crum. I've had checked some IP locations but will wait until you answer Crum's suggestion. Cheers. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 11:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Crum375 -- you say that you are willing to reduce my block to a month, but I've already been blocked since late May (nearly a month and a half ago) when my one week block suddenly morphed in to a permanent one. Also, I have no way to track any of the edits I did using a 172... IP address since that time. I've already found many of those IP addresses (as you've seen: I've been tagging my own "sockpuppets" with that template as I have come across them and identifying myself on your talk page), but I truly have no way of remembering if I made edits using the 172... IP address on June 7th or June 23rd or other random dates. I haven't been editing as much since I've been writing a lot, so I think that around 90% of my IP "sockpuppets": have already been found. As for WP:VAN, we've already been over all of that -- I've had ample to time (re)read all of the relevant policies, and I completely understand what is and what is not vandalism. Also, sorry about my slow response time: as I said above, since it is Summer time and school is out I've been very busy writing; I am currently writing two books on two separate topics, so I haven't had much time to be here on Wikipedia. But thanks again FayssalF for helping me to sort all of this out...I really appreciate it. --Wassermann 22:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Wassermann, you say you now understand WP:VAN, so can you please tell me which of these examples would be vandalism: (1) editor X totally disagrees with your edits and keeps reverting them with or without comment; (2) editor X keeps re-inserting unsourced material that pushes a very extremist POV; (3) editor X blanks the page, or large sections thereof, without explanation (assume no BLP or copyvio issues); (4) editor X inserts a bunch of obscenities in the page. Please post below your responses.
Can you also please explain below how you now understand WP:CIV, like calling admins 'administraitors' or 'censors', or labeling someone's edits as 'idiotic'.
Regarding my offer to reduce your block duration to one month, I will do so as soon as you clearly certify below that you will no longer edit using sockpuppets or anon-IPs, and that you will quietly serve out your one month block without editing WP (sounds like now is a good time, if you are writing your books).
I am waiting for your responses. Thanks, Crum375 23:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Is Wikipedia now a twisted quiz show of some sort? Why am I being singled out and quizzed as regards to policy? As far as I can tell, numbers 3 and 4 are vandalism, while the first two are not. That being said, would you please go ahead and start the 1 month block? Actually, I request that the block be reduced to 2 weeks because I've already been blocked since late May (which means I am coming up on 2 months; if you add on another month that'll be 3 months blocked). If this humble request cannot be honored, then please start the 1 month block immediately and let us stop this stalling because I am losing valuable editing time. I am not obligated or required in any way to answer any more of these ridiculous quiz questions. So please, just start the new block period (either an additional 2 weeks or 1 month) and let me serve out my time in Wiki-jail with some dignity. Thanks, --Wassermann 20:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Wassermann, I am willing to reduce the block to 3 weeks, starting from the time you respond to all my questions above, with the understanding that you'll be indef-blocked if you edit with anon-IPs or sockpuppets during your block. Crum375 21:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I've already answered your first quiz question, the one pertaining to vandalism. Now for the second one: "...explain below how you now understand WP:CIV, like calling admins 'administraitors' or 'censors', or labeling someone's edits as 'idiotic'." -- As I've stated many times before here on my talk page, I fully understand WP:CIV and will be toning down my rhetoric in the future. Some of the things I wrote/said in the past could have been uncivil (or could have been misconstrued/misinterpreted and seemed that way), and I fully apologize for that. Calling someone an "administraitor" or a "censor" is uncivil, as is referring to their edit(s) as "idiotic," and I won't do it again in the future. I also plan on leaving edit summaries without capital letters in them, because that can be misinterpreted as being uncivil by some editors (my "fiery" edit summaries is what led to me being blocked in the first place). Now that I've answered all of your questions, please start my three week block immediately so that I can continue to improve Wikipedia beginning three weeks from now. Thank you for your time. --Wassermann 21:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
It sounds like you have a good grasp now of our civility and vandalism rules. I have therefore reduced your block to three weeks as promised. Please stay away from sock puppetry and/or anon-IP editing; any such activity during the block period will result in an indefinite block. I hope you enjoy your time off, get some RL work done, reflect again on our critical policies, and come back to us ready to edit according to the rules. Thanks, Crum375 23:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Crum -- while I personally believe that I should be able to edit immediately and with no questions asked, I am willing to compromise. So I must ask: did you bother to even think about my first request for a 2 week block (remember, that's DOUBLE the original block: not to mention the fact that I have been [unjustly] blocked since late May) instead of reducing it by only 1 week, from 1 month to 3 weeks? While I definitely appreciate your reduction of my (already too harsh) block, I again request that it be reduced to 2 weeks from my original request, i.e. my editing will be enabled again on July 29th (since I originally requested this 2 week extension-block on July 15th). Would it also be possible to get other editors to weigh in on this request such as FayssalF, Jayjg, Samuella, and maybe others to see what they think about it? Perhaps you could take this to the ANI board one more time to see if my original 2 week request can be honored? Thanks, --Wassermann 12:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Wassermann, as someone who has constantly violated our rules by repeatedly ignoring your block and editing as a sockpuppet using anon-IPs, I think you should be happy for your block reduction and serve it out quietly. Applying pressure to reduce your block seems to show you may not fully recognize your wrongdoings. Please don't cause your case to be argued again publicly, with all your violations. Let's just wait for the three weeks to pass, and hope that you can finally abide by the rules. Crum375 14:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I fully recognize my supposed "wrongdoings," and I am willing to abide by the 3 week block if I am forced to do so, but I kindly ask you and others to reconsider one last time. I made a simple and straightforward request that this issue be brought before a wider group of editors/administrators so that they could evaluate the situation with a bit more objectivity, but I have been repeatedly denied this reasonable and basic request; to be frank for a moment, who made you the final judge in this matter? Since Wikipedia is a transparent and communal project, what is wrong with asking other users to weigh in on this? Thanks again for your time, --Wassermann 18:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you really want to know what I think about the matter? I think you should be banned permanently. Not only have you disregarded time and time again clearly stated Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but you've done so at the cost of other editors' time and patience. How long must people play games with you? I have asked you nicely countless times to please be open to other opinions, to consider other editors' concerns, and to quit dictating your will like your opinion is the only one that matters. Yet not hours after the discussion is done for the deletion of Category:Astrological factors, you've already set up a sock puppet account (and as much as you like to argue that anonymous IPs are not sock puppets, registered accounts definitely are) to completely disregard consensus and begin reinstating the category. That's extremely rude and counter-productive. And it's quite clear to me that you still don't think what you've done is bad, through the way you want to weasel your way out of punishment and the wording in your replies to Crum about your "supposed 'wrongdoings'". So you want to know what I think? Good riddance, that's what. – Sam 19:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Sam here. Wassermann, I really don't sense any contrition or regret in your tone – if anything, it's more of the same belligerent behavior pattern, where you think you are always right and everyone else is wrong, and that admins are out to get you. I strongly suggest you rethink your attitude. Unless you really accept that you need to change, follow the rules, and edit collaboratively, you will be re-blocked in short order after your unblock, and it will be for a much longer period, possibly permanently. Please just do your RL work, wait out your block, and come back with a new attitude. As I mentioned to you the very first time I blocked you, I am sure you have a lot to contribute, but you can't do it by violating rules. Unfortunately, given your latest reply here, I am yet to be convinced you really get it. Crum375 19:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Sam -- I simply asked for more wide-ranging input from objective/impartial users and administrators regarding the severity of my block, not a scathing and uncivil indictment of my supposed editing behavior and all of your grievances with me; I have nothing personally against you or Crum or Jayjg or anyone else here on Wikipedia, and I hope to work more constructively with you all in the future. As you well know Sam, I've done more than just about anyone else on Wikipedia to organize and fix the categories dealing with astrology and many other subjects, yet still you remain hostile and rather rude toward me even though my work has been very good and entirely helpful. Crum -- I am not demanding anything here, only politely requesting it: since this basic request has apparently fallen on deaf ears, I'll desist from further pressing my case henceforth. That being said, I'll see you all again beginning August 7th. --Wassermann 02:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
And I gave you my opinion on the severity of your block. If you didn't want me taking part in this discussion, you shouldn't have explicitly requested it. You're missing the point I think. This discussion has nothing to do with your constructive edits; the destructive ones are the whole reason this discussion is going on in the first place. No matter how pretty a bit of pure color paint is, add a little black and you've mucked it up. That's what's going on here, which you fail to see, except in this case the little bit of black paint is quite the sizable dab. I don't know how else to get my point across to you. I have already left countless messages on your various talk pages asking you to quit disregarding others' opinions, but those attempts have all been in vain. My contributions to these discussions would not be "scathing and uncivil" if this whole ordeal hadn't been such a disaster. But you continue to this day to deny any wrongdoing. I don't know about your definition, but if a rule says something, and someone clearly goes against it, I personally would call that wrongdoing, especially if the perpetrator is so enthusiastic about being a part of the community in which those rules hold jurisdiction. Every discussion between you and I has been ultimately fruitless. I don't appreciate being trampled on, nor does anyone else. Your block is no one's fault but your own, so I, like Crum, suggest that you seriously reflect on what you've done so this does not have to be repeated in the future. – Sam 03:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/NYScholar

The above named arbitration case has closed. All involved parties are granted an amnesty over the edit-warring that had been ongoing but has given the administrators the ability to sanction anyone who begins disruptive editing again.

You may view the full case decision at the case page.

For the Arbitration Committee,

- Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 11:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

NYScholar is an excellent editor that has done nothing wrong, and I am glad that this case has been resolved. --Wassermann 20:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Hexagonal mud flats in Death Valley.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Hexagonal mud flats in Death Valley.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 {{di-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 fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of isms

They are trying to delete List of isms again. Gregbard 23:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)