I know that I've disagreed with you in the past. If I've said anything that was offensive to you, I do apologize. I do truly and honestly appreciate all the hard work you do to provide good content to this project. I haven't said it before, so I say it now: Thank you. — Ched : ? 21:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm scratching my head trying to remember our disagreement but I shan't ask you to elaborate. And there's certainly no need to apologise as any offence (if any) has certainly been forgotten about. I really do support your block wholeheartedly. If I did have one criticism though it would have to be the length, perhaps, but that could've easily been adjusted. I greatly appreciate the note Ched, thanks for popping by and here's to some good future interactions. CassiantoTalk22:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
GD's crystal ball.
I've seen this coming. In November 2014, I advised & pleaded with Arbcom, to not ban anybody at the end of the GGTF case. My advice shouldn't have been overlooked. :( GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGENDA really should be strengthed for time to time. This is an encyclopaeda, which seems to have been forgotten by many who prefer to spend their lives on the dramah boards and away from the 'sharp end' of editing and improving articles. - SchroCat (talk) 11:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, perhaps not. It seems anyone who takes an alternative view or attempts to point out his errors to Kevin is a troll. He should go a long way on the Arbcom. Giano(talk)07:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies Cassianto if I excerbated the issue on ANI, however after the latest 'misunderstanding' of KG there (where he takes the complete opposite meaning from what I actually said), coupled with his repeated assertation on his talkpage that (I assume he is referring to you and I) brought up the gender crap, I have come to the conclusion its a waste of time engaging with someone who insists on interpreting everything to take maximum offense. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have pondered whether to let rip at Kevin, as we have not exactly been the closest of friends on here, but he's standing for arbcom and I'm not, and I feel my concerns have to be aired. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd err on the side of caution if I were you; Gorman thinks it's ok to play by the rules of poetic licence when it comes to telling the truth. CassiantoTalk20:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You misinterpreted my comments - which never suggested that either of you brought up the gender issue to begin with - but only suggested that you and OIDDE were the first to bring it up after 28 unblocked in sections that should have been about RO's behavior (for any passersby, if you take a look at the "arbitration" subheading, you'll note the truth of this.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tempted to revert you, but then that would make me just as bad as you, wouldn't it? Did you notice that I even closed the off-topic discussion with a view to ending the dramah about gender and Eric? I even left a closing note, sating that it was off-topic, which some idiot reverted in order to keep the off-topic discussion alive. It's only because I like Sarah that I didn't revert back to the archived version. CassiantoTalk20:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You'll note I didn't start reverting you until you hit a certain point - and bluntly, I would expect you to revert me if I hit the same point. Certainly you can see what I meant with regards to this section? Or did you close that section yourself before Sarah did? If so, I missed it. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was a valid point: I honestly didn't know whether you were playing dumb in order to rile me, or if you genuinely didn't get it. I see nothing uncivil in asking that. Matters were of course made worse by Dial running off to the noticeboards in order to get me blocked. It's pretty pathetic really. CassiantoTalk20:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring, quite specifically, to the arbitration subheading not included in that closure or unclosure, which contained a valid suggestion (albeit one I didn't think was a great idea) that arbitration be considered - which instead of discussion of the merits of the idea, had you and Only in death instantly suggesting that any attempt at arbitration would be hijacked by some sort of GGTF-mafia. I've barely ever spoken with Dave by the way - just because two people both disagree with you doesn't mean there's a cabal going on. As slakr and Ed both pointed out to you at the ANEW report, it's not really appropriate to editwar with someone else in their own userspace, let alone with personal attacks thrown in. If they're part of my cabal too, I'm suddenly excited - I have quite a bit of respect for them :) Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly MSGJ you are just another incompetent "admin" who doesn't know their arse from their elbow. I suggest you look at WP:3RR and familiar yourself with the rules. And as for Liz, it appears my oppose at her (almost unsuccessful) RfA was entirely justified. Wikipedia needs me more than I need it over the next 48 hours, so I'll sit out my block as I never appeal blocks. CassiantoTalk18:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cassianto, respect that you will not appeal; alway murky water imo. But suggesting that somebody read wp:whatever is a bit like templating the regulars, pfff, best avoided (talking about the phrasing only). Anyway now that you have free time ;) an interesting vid. Not implying anything but you might find it cathartic. Ceoil (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ceoil, but my templating of MSGJ was intentional; if they treat me like an idiot, then I shall do the same to them. MSGJ might also learn something, as they clearly haven't got a clue what warring is. CassiantoTalk11:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@MSGJ: I would like to unblock Cassianto - he was in the middle of a helpful peer review so we can get The Beatles (album) to FAC, and yet again I see somebody seeking a review to improve quality (in this instance, me) suddenly has those efforts torpedoed by a block they had nothing to do with. In this instance, Cassianto did not violate 3RR; though he did revert three times, after his third revert he tried to defuse the issue on Thewolfchild's talk, and then went to report the issue. As far as I know, that's the right thing to do, so unless there's been a conversation where Cassianto has said (to paraphrase) "screw you, I'm reverting anyway" that I've missed, then the block seems superfluous. However, I will say - please don't do this. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, fairly aggressive, but clearly attempting to diffuse the situation and leave the message that "nothing ever good came out of mud flinging on a page".♦ Dr. Blofeld10:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie333, this is three way block for clear talk page disruption that was occurring yesterday. In the wake of these blocks, other editors have begun to participate in this discussion at Talk:Skyfall where it was a battleground before. It seems unfair to unblock one party because they are involved in a peer review that is important to you when there was bad behavior all around. This is a limited time block that will be over tomorrow and hopefully, by then, some consensus will have formed in the Skyfall discussion. But it would be worth hearing what MSGJ thinks since he reviewed the situation yesterday. LizRead!Talk!11:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I do not wish to be unblocked, and nowhere have I asked for that to happen. I wouldn't want to give Liz or Chillum the satisfaction of declining it. CassiantoTalk11:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's still suspicious that you, Caden and Goodday turned up on the talk page Liz in quick succession. Anywhere Caden turns up to comment in a talk page dispute I get suspicious. It's worrying to me when editors who've never had anything to do with Bond films turn up like that and try to force something whether it's infoboxes or style.♦ Dr. Blofeld11:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He was brought to AN/EW twice in two days for editwarrig and personal attacks. Please don't make an unblock. If anyone were to unblock Cassianto, it probably shouldnt be you. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Get with the times Gorman; if you'd have bothered to have read the thread above, you'd have seen my request not to be unblocked. My reason for this is that I will not allow you or anyone else to have the satisfaction of declining such a request. CassiantoTalk23:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BTW Cassianto - regardless of the exact reasoning, props for sitting out a brief earned block instead of making drama about it - I don't mean that at all sarcastically, it's something I respect. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be so fatalistic; there are a bunch of fine admins here in fairness; John, Cas, Floq, Drmeris and what have you. The block was a bit excessive but nobody died. Sit it out and come back re-energised. Don't let agenda driven people like the above drag you down; earning Kevin Gorman's respect prob means as little to you as it would to me. Ceoil (talk) 23:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed there are Ceoil. And all of whom you mention I have a positive relationship with. It's a pleasant coincidence that so many on here experience the same, negative feelings towards the same administrators. Where as the admins you mention, everybody likes. CassiantoTalk23:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You know what's the best way to promote a healthy and functioning community? Ensuring that we're as factionalized as possible, and that we rename autoblock or something WP:OLIVEBRANCH. That'll for sure promote a healthy, functioning community. where sincerely offered olive branches are preferably militarized in some fashion. It shouldn't be a surprise that your talk page is mostly full of people who mostly agree with you, and that my talk page is mostly full of people who mostly agree with me - that's just how communities tend to shake out. It's not a healthy community dynamic when olive branches are assumed to be barbed. The funny thing is? Most of the admins Ceoil lists off I consider frieds, and vice versa. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot of revealing presumption in a naming such as OLIVEBRANCH. Nor are we primarily here to develop a community. Ceoil (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, we're primarily here to develop an encyclopedia with as much high quality content as we can attract to it. We do, however, need a reasonably healthy community to do that. It's fairly common in my area for any attempt to reach out and end a dispute to be referred to as extending an olivebranch, I'm not sure why you would think it's presumptuous. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are career orientated, have little interest in content, and place yourself at the center, reaching out to pull in. That's the presumption. Ceoil (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually not at all career-oriented, have written quite a bit of content, and have supervised quite a bit of high quality content through the USEP. Mitophagy was an article largely written by my students although it could deal with being a little bit less technical - unfortunately that article did agree the semester when I started to have now perfectly well under control health issues. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This community is not a community, and hasn't been for some time. It's made up of different pockets of people who believe what they want to believe and assume what they want to assume. To force people to adhere to stone-age ideologies, such as the many policies on here, is just asking for trouble. The problem is, these policies were dreamt up over 13 years ago by well-meaning, rose-tinted spectacle wearing liberals. There are many different cultures on Wikipedia and multiculturalism doesn't work, both in real life and on here. CassiantoTalk00:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a rose-tinted spectacle wearing liberal who not only embraces multiculturalism, but is the product of multiculturalism, with parents who are the product of multiculturalism (not sure about the well-meaning part) I tend to agree. ---Sluzzelintalk03:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You know what's the best way to promote a healthy and functioning community? Yup. Throw out any editor who is not here to build content like yourself Gorman who are a drain on the time and energy of active editors. People like you are the reason for dysfunction on the site. Any time going into things which are not the encyclopedia is a problem. It's an encyclopedia. How many of your last 1000 edits have actually been towards building an encyclopedia? ♦ Dr. Blofeld11:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks
Many thanks for your comments on the talk page of a disruptive editor engaging in PAs. After this rather disgraceful personal attack, I wonder what excuses or double standard will be applied by the admins who have commented here—Liz, HighInBC, MSGJ, Kevin Gorman—in order to take no more action than a wet blanket comment. I would wait with baited breath, but that would just be a waste of time. — SchroCat (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as Charlr6 is now reverting every warning I leave them, but are still conducting a conversation over edit summary, I'll allow them here to answer why they thought it justified to thank me 6 times in under 30 seconds for edits I made a few days ago? Their latest edit summary intimated that the two thanks I gave to them was "sarcastic". It wasn't. I thanked Charlr6 for acknowledging my edits to him by leaving me a detailed summary in his revert. I thought he was instrumental in getting SchroCat blocked, but he set me right by telling me he wasn't. That, in my view, deserved a thank. And in a twist of irony, Gavin did not start this thread based on the "many thanks" which Charlr6 harassed me with. I say this as it would only be a matter of time before some lunatic accused him of igniting more dramah. CassiantoTalk17:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You were another editor who was blocked as well as Schro and WolfChild. And as you would have seen it, you would have already known, I had nothing to do with any of that and the 48 hour blocking/ban you three received. So I highly doubt how you apparently thought I had some involvement, even though I clearly didn't, unless you mistook me for WolfChild just now or whoever else was involved with that? Also no idea who Gavin is. Charlr6 (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did I not just say? How can you have just thought I had involvement of Schro and your 48 hour ban/block, and then suddenly thanked me for my comment saying I had no involvement. I can't believe and can't see how you confused me or somehow believed I did have involvement with it. So these 'thanks' you say you did in terms of a genuine 'thanks', I honesty cannot buy. And I personally believe you just said they were a general thanks, because admins are tagged on here and you want to seem like a good guy if they happen to read it all. But if they then go and look at the 'November 2015' posts on your talks, and the report which eventually lead to your banning, even they will see I had no involvement in it. So I just can't see, how you for some reason mistook me to have been part of that. Charlr6 (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Charlr6 are not answering my question. I'll tell you what, I'll help you out; the reason you thanked me six times in under 30 seconds was because:
You think I'm amazing and one of the encyclopaedia's best editors;
You were abusing the thank feature in order to harass me.
I guess we are both going to think the other person did something, when the reality is they were never doing whatever that was, so then both of us are wrong. But those 'thanks' you gave me, were once again obviously not actual thanks, like I said above, with the points I stated above. I guess maybe if you are right, I'll just presume you mistook me for somebody who got you banned for two days, even though I wasn't even close to any involvement of that. End of. Charlr6 (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So from that very wordy answer, I deduce that you were abusing the thank feature? For the record, and I'll say it again, just in case you missed it, I thanked you for your detailed edit summary where you did the very same thing that you are now doing here; clarifying that it wasn't you who got SchroCat blocked. Me saying thanks for that could, I suppose, be taken in two ways. However, saying "thanks" six times in under 30 seconds for historic edits, makes you look like a troll whose sole intention was to harass. A simple apology from you now would make all this go away. CassiantoTalk18:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Knowing who you are through all your edits and comments I've seen, I 'deduce' those 'thanks' you made to me, were not actual thanks. We both know why you performed it so please don't insult my intelligence. It was not an edit I would expect a "thanks" for, because once again, I do not know how you somehow believed I was involved with the blocking, when you clearly know I wasn't, unless mistook me for somebody else. But once again, there are bigger things in life. Take a look outside. Don't so personally take six virtual thanks you view as a trolling, as much as I viewed yours. This is a simple talk page, on a simple encyclopaedia website, on the internet, hovering invisibly around our vast beautiful world. Now, if you excuse me, I have to go put the chickens to bed, feed the snakes. And then, feed and walk the dogs. End of. Goodbye. Say what you like, I don't care, and it is obvious the admins don't so much either. Probably because of the 'reputation' you both have, but that's none of my business... Charlr6 (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I was not pinged, I use a capital C in my name. I agree the link given by SchroCat is a personal attack, a warning has been given. I also think that telling another editor "not to post at all" is out of line and a clear example of unreasonable entitlement.
I am keeping an eye on the Spectre article. I think the article talk page in general is suffering from a high level of heat, and that all parties would do better to approach this as a scholarly disagreement rather than an adversarial situation. Regardless I will be enforcing a minimum level of civility on the article talk page and anywhere else those involved communicate with each other. HighInBC17:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know you imagine me saying everything I say with a sneer and a sarcastic tone, but the reality is that I am a very sincere person. Nothing I said was meant to be taken sarcastically. HighInBC17:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's bollocks Chillum, as you well know: there is no ownership there at all, and your suggestion there is, IS a PA. There is not a "high level of heat" at the Spectre article at all (apart from the stalking), but Charl6's utterly pointless comments should not have been made. Telling someone not to post if all they can post. Is pointy crap is not ownership, but COMMONSENSE. His comments should have been totally deleted for being disruptive and unconstructive, but if you are determined to stir the pot, try and do it when you're not on such dodgy ground as this. – SchroCat (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the utterly ridiculous "warning" on my talk page, I'm not sure you could see my point of view straight, regardless of the situation. You bring too much baggage to discussions and have a negative attitude to certain editors. I have absolutely no trust in your actions, except to see the worst in some, and try to do the worst to them you can. – SchroCat (talk) 18:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Charlr6, don't get me wrong, but I can take a joke like the next man; however, calling me "a cock" under these circumstances, was inappropriate. Perhaps if we had met under more lighthearted circumstances, this wouldn't have been an issue. CassiantoTalk19:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cassianto: once someone has reverted with a message indicating they don't desire your presence on their talk page once, please don't re-engage, even if they're baiting you. They either really want you off their page (which if so you should respect) or are just trying to bait you in to an editwar block. @Charlr6:: I tend not to take action after another admin has taken any form of action, but if I see a personal attack coming from you again like that, regardless of who it's directed to, you will be blocked for an appropriate period of time. Cut out the thank spam too; it was harrassy to begin with, and Cassianto has now made it clear it's explicitly unwelcome, so additional thankspam will also result in a block. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of custom, I don't take harsher action on something another admin has already actioned unless I view their initial action as egregiously inappropriate. If his behavior continues, a block will be forthcoming. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Typically blocked users get over it or get blocked again. If you have further problems with him instead of going to a drama board feel free to ping me directly. I hold very few grudges (and you certainly haven't made the list,) and since I was involved in the initial situation anyone who wants to complain about canvassing can go away. And believe it or not, I really am quite happy to block for disruption. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
_by_Ron.jpg)
