User talk:RegenerateThis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My email address: tonysidaway@gmail.com Deleted comments are accessible in the page history From now on I'm making it a rule to only contribute roughly once per day to any community discussion (it's a personal rule, ye ken?) . If you expect a reply and don't get it, be patient. If you really want a discussion, bring the subject to this page.

Contents 1 Blocked 2 Your block 3 Question about what you intended to say 4 Please opin

[edit] Blocked

I've blocked you for 24 hours for the comment "If anybody admits to involvement with the troll site, treat him like the piece of shit that he is. No excuses." - brenneman 00:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sidayway_civility_sanction:_actionrequired - brenneman 00:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I've tried an minor edit since then, and it seems to have worked. Could you explain why you blocked me, or rather, why you think you blocked me? --Jenny 00:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

00:33, 17 July 2008 Jayvdb (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "RegenerateThis (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 23 hours ‎ (reinstating block: Tony has been told by many to stfu, and/or write more with less) (Unblock)
00:16, 17 July 2008 Phil Sandifer (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked "RegenerateThis (Talk | contribs)" ‎ (I don't really think Aaron is an appropriate person to issue this block.)
00:14, 17 July 2008 Aaron Brenneman (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "RegenerateThis (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ ("If anybody admits to involvement with the troll site, treat him like the piece of shit that he is. No excuses." violates editing sanction) (Unblock)'

I blocked you for rudeness, disruption, violation of your civility sanctions when reminded/warned... I don't know how to say "don't call other editors pieces of shit" any more clearly. - brenneman 00:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I won't appeal the block--I have explicitly stated that I will not appeal any such block.

However I'm weirded out by the idea that you'd block somebody for saying we should ban the trolls. Obviously we all agree that we should ban those trolls. Why would anybody ban me for sayig what we all agree? That trolling for Wikipedia Review and the like is not a legitimate use of Wikimedis resources.

And by the way:

If anybody admits to involvement with the troll site, treat him like the piece of shit that he is. No excuses. --Jenny 00:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Look, Aaron, if I go to arbcom with this it isn't going to look good. A couple of years ago you were sanctioned by arbcom for removing some words from the deletion policy. Within minutes of my restoring the words to the policy (after checking carefully that their removal wasn't due to a discussion) I see you removing the words from the policy and then blocking me over a completely unrelated matter. I absolutely accept your right to block me, it's a necessary control that I should not ever appeal such a block, but the circumstances look bad. --Jenny 00:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Moreover I will state: we as a website have a right to identify websites occupied by people who want to harm Wikipedia. We have a right to say that those people do not wish us any good. We have a right to discourage editors of good faith to engage in those websites in any way. We can and should treat anybody who engages in those websites, which make it their business to attack Wikipedians who edit in good faith, as shit. --Jenny 01:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

brief:

• In the event that you feel I've abused my responsibility, I'm open to recall. I invented it.
• If you'd like to make a request for arbitration, please do so. I encourage you to do so.
• Immediatly after blocking you I reverted my edits to the deletion policy page with an edit summary indicating that I was doing so _because_ I had blocked you for an unrelated matter.

Good day to you sir;

brenneman 01:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I will not edit brennanopedia. --Jenny 01:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I take that as an end to civilised discourse. I am taking this page off my watchlist, please feel free to use {{unblock}} to attract further admin attention if you feel it is required. - brenneman 01:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Verminopedia. --Jenny 01:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your block

Tony/Jenny, I've been notified that you violated your civility sanction. Rather than state an opinion about the legitimate issues that dual participation in off site forums might present, this comment was over the top and very likely to inflame the situation. You have a history of using overly colorful language directed at others user. You've received feedback in the past that many users find these comment offensive. Please choose your words more carefully after the block expires or risk escalating blocks. Since an uninvolved admin reinstated the block, your discourse with Aaron about the block seems unnecessary. FloNight♥♥♥ 01:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not acceptable. We should feel free to say that Wikipedia Review is a forum occupied by trolls, that their activities have harmed Wikipedia, Wikipedians, and non-Wikipedians, and that this harm will continue as long as we don't do something to deal with their continued interference in Wikipedia. I will not be associated with a Wikipedia that treats trolls as worthy of discussion. I know where that leads. --Jenny 01:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I venture to say that if you'd stopped there you may not have been blocked. But you went on to say "And that's it. If anybody admits to involvement with the troll site, treat him like the piece of shit that he is. No excuses." IMHO that's where you went over the top. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course you are free to state your opinion about off site forums and the problems that occur from dual participation in the these forums and Wikipedia. I've done that myself on more than one occasion. But that is not the issue at hand. Your choice of words is the problem. Do not insult other users. It is impossible to engage in thoughtful discussion in this editing environment. FloNight♥♥♥ 01:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Would somebody please protect this page? I am scrambling the password and do not intend to read anything on this page. Honestly if we cannot say that trolls must be treated like the shit they are then we've lost the plot. --Jenny 01:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I semi-protected your page to stop the attacks from ip addresses. I urge you to take a break and re-consider your decision to leave. FloNight♥♥♥ 01:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question about what you intended to say

Tony, I read your comment to mean "anyone who participates on WR is a piece of shit", and I believe others did too. Is that what you intended, or did you intend to say "any troll from WR is a piece of shit"?

I don't think either is particluarly civil, but I do believe the latter would have been less likely to draw the response that it did. If you are criticising trolls only, that's not so controversial; if you are criticising everyone at WR (e.g. "everyone at WR is a troll and a piece of shit") then that's obviously a personal attack directed at a lot of good users. ATren (talk) 02:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

He was pretty clear. It's hard to see how anyone involved with WR can be considered a "good user". I'd go along with "misguided" and I think "piece of shit" is a bit much, but "good", nuh-huh. Being a member of WR is an implicit endorsement of some pretty rank behaviour, including the continuing, painful harassment of certain editors.

I don't endorse Tony's wording, but the sentiment wasn't misplaced. Wikipedia wouldn't be harmed in the least by summarily banning everyone on WR. Post up the warning, start banning a week later. If Jimbo had the balls, it'd be long done. Grace Note (talk) 03:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with this sentiment. WR is a public forum where individuals may comment freely. People contribute there for different reasons, just like people contribute to Wikipedia for different reasons. Saying "WR is evil" because of the actions of a few is no different than attitude of WR editors who think Wikipedia is evil because of the actions of a few.

Example: Daniel Brandt treated Newyorkbrad no differently than any other Wikipedia contributor, based on his belief that Wikipedia itself is evil and anyone who contributes to it (even someone as fair and good as NYB) is evil too. His problem was not with NYB per se, only that NYB contributed here. Is it any different when Wikipedians paint all WR contributors with the same broad brush?

We need to stop demonizing each other on all sides. WR has some abusive elements, and so does WR, but as long as both sides treat each other like mortal enemies this conflict will never end. Neither side is going away, so they might as well learn to coexist. ATren (talk) 04:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please opin

Hi, you responded to an ANI a while ago, but the issue presists. I have placed an informal RfC in the relevant Talk page, do you mind giving me your opinion? Thanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falun_Gong#RfC_on_Repeated_Removal_of_Adminstrator_Reviewed_Edits Bobby fletcher (talk) 05:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)