User talk:Mangojuice
Welcome to my talk page! Please leave your message. I'll respond on your talk page unless I think people casually reading my talk page would be interested in my response, in which case I'll respond here. Thanks!
Asgardian and the Red Hulk article
Hi. Sorry to bother you again, but Asgardian seem to be having an edit conflict again, as seen here. I tried leaving a message on his Talk Page explaining my rationale, and suggesting that we start a consensus discussion. Instead of agree to that, or even responding to my message at all, he went and reverted the article again, which is against WP policy regarding edit conflicts. I've started a consensus discussion on the conflict on Red Hulk here. I request that you monitor the situation so that if he continues to revert without discussion (the offense for which he was blocked previously), you can offer your assistance. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- I am not really active enough to take on new things to monitor closely such as this. I took a look at the recent behavior and it appears that discussion is underway and reverting has slowed down or stopped, so I see no need for a block right now. I suggest if you feel a block is merited at some point, that's when it's best to request help. And WP:ANI is probably better than requesting my help directly, because I'm not all that active these days. Mangojuicetalk 05:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- See, this is why blocking him outright sometimes appears to be the only option: Every time I try asking people to participate, they come up with some excuse not to. You asked me to contact you, and I did, and now you're finding a reason not to. Yeah, a discussion was underway, and guess what? Four people (I and three others) came to a consensus on three of the four points I brought up (six if you count two others in a discussion on the Comics Project in February--It's in the portion of this discussion beginning on 2.13.09) and what did Asgardian do? He reverted the article. When confronted, he stated that there was "no clear consensus" on the matter. He even reverted blindly, and in knee-jerk fashion, because he not only changed the disputed content, but even a valid edit in which I formatted two mentions of the same source with the ref name tag. He also appears to have edited my post on the article's Talk Page to delink my signature for some reason, and others in the discussion appear to be losing their patience with him, as seen in this other page. I locked the article down to prevent further reversions by him (and to avoid the option of blocking him) until we can get confirmation by the others that there is indeed a consensus. What are we supposed to do if you won't intervene as you said you would earlier this year? Nightscream (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
"You indefinitely full-protected Towelie, reversed yourself..." Yeah, that's right. I didn't know that indefinite full-protection protection was considered inappropriate, and when someone pointed this out to me, I acknowledged this, and took that protection off, never again doing so. What's your point? That not knowing about a particular protocol is "misuse"? This was an error based on ignorance of a particular rule, nothing more.
"and then semi-protected it for the extreme duration of 1 year." Right. Countless anonymous IP's are constantly adding unsourced POV information to that article (possibly one person engaging in sockpuppetry for all we know), and I had previously clarified the addition of material in which editors interpret satirical works with someone on Jimmy Wales' talk page. Despite this, editors, usually anonymous IP's who don't know about or care about WP:V, continue to add such unsourced material to the article. Thus, semiprotecting it is perfectly valid. I typically do this with articles that are subject to such disruptive editing. It is not "extreme", for if it were, why would the block page give 1 year as a duration option?
"You also semi-protected Pandemic (South Park) over IP edits you disagreed with." I did no such thing. I discussed the various matters of that article with others on its Talk Page, including one matter in which I requested Third Opinion and started a consensus discussion in order to address another editor's insistence on adding certain material. All of this was by the book, as far as I know, and nothing was inappropriate. After this, however, anonymous IP's continue to add unsourced material against both policy and consensus, and not what "I disagreed with", so yeah, protecting it was reasonable.
"This is not the first but the second time you have protected Red Hulk which you have been heavily involved in editing." Of course I protected it. Editors were adding material without citing a reliable source, and in that matter, Asgardian agreed with me. Using protection or blocks is inappropriate where there is a genuine content dispute, but not, as far as I knew, where there is an unambiguous policy violation, like WP:RS. Is there? If so, this is news to me, and I can't imagine why. What should I do, ask another admin to protect it for me? In any event, this would be yet another permutation of admin powers that I was unacquainted with. I'll be asking around about this, but if what you're indicating here is true, that does not constitute a willful etiquette or guideline violation on my part.
"In the discussion that led to Asgardian's unblock, it was revealed that you were sternly warned many times about misusing your tools, yet you blocked Asgardian again." If you're referring to the blocking that led to that discussion, that block was legitimate, and should not have been reversed. Asgardian disruptively removed of content despite unresolved Talk Page discussion, and repeated violated of Civility. He has not learned from this lesson, because he has continued to engage in both behaviors, even recently. He's made personal comments about myself, and about another editor with whom he disagreed with, ignores messages left on his Talk Page, and counterarguments during Talk Page discussions, uses deceptive Edit Summaries, and he continues to revert articles against the consensus. You, meanwhile have done nothing about him, even though I contacted you when this started, as per your request.
"As to the actual issue, Asgardian is correct that there isn't a consensus over the date format thing. I do see that some editors said, speaking generally, that including dates and issue titles is okay as long as not done excessively, but that was (1) over half a year ago, and (2) not a specific opinion on the text in this dispute." That indeed pertains to this dispute, since it mirrors what was said on the Red Hulk Talk Page, and yet, Asgardians insists on removing all such information, arguing that not doing so leads to an unreadable "laundry list" or "minefield" of dates and issue numbers. This is false, since we're talking about a middle ground of occasionally including such info, and he's talking about an all-or-nothing proposition between a huge list and none and at all. This is on the Red Hulk Talk Page, which is not "over half a year ago". Did you not read it?
"As ThuranX said, you have a preferred version just as much as Asgardian does and are pushing hard for your version." You are now bringing up something that is completely irrelevant to the current discussion. Of the four points I raised on the Red Hulk Talk Page, the others agreed with me on three; on the fourth, the matter of info pertaining to the character's human identity, they did not. I requested clarification of that, and ThuranX became angry at me for doing so, accusing me of pushing for a particular version, when I was merely asking for clarification of a point in order to reach a compromise. His accusation was a completely inappropriate breach of WP:AGF, and by now repeating it yourself---in regard to the separate matter of dates and issue numbers, which had nothing to do with Thuran's statement--you are now violating that policy yourself.
The evidence of the discussion on the Red Hulk Talk Page, and Asgardian's behavior, clearly falsify your assertion that he has not misbehaved, but I somehow have. Even the others are fed up with him, and I linked you to that as well, yet you ignore that as well. I asked you to intervene, and you never responded on my Talk Page, and when you did, it was to say that you weren't going to do so because you weren't "active" enough. Funny how you're not active enough to intervene with genuine policy violations by Asgardian, or to look over the genuine evidence of his misbehavior (I guess all those other users and admins I linked you to are all wrong), but active enough to overreact and exaggerate with respect to Good Faith actions on my part. Clearly you do not have the judgment capable of dealing with him realistically or objectively, and I will show this to the AN. Nightscream (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
10c worth
I'll keep this separate from the above for easy reading. True to my word [1], I haven't edited Red Hulk since the issue came to a head, and have suggested that it go to WikiComics as there seems to be an impasse.
To the best of my knowledge, there has been no edit warring, only improvements and modifications. The references in the article were placed in footnote formate as that is a style that I've run with for some time (over 30 - 40 articles) and seems to be becoming the norm, as the references in the text approach becomes unwieldy and difficult to read. Anyway, that's a matter for WikiComics.
Finally, a tad disappointed at the "mob" mentality shown here [2], as while I've made mistakes in the past (although it has been noted I've been unfairly blocked on more than one occasion), I don't feel an editor's history is the issue here. Regards Asgardian (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to waste your time with this, but Nightscream seems to have followed ThuranX down the road of incivility, and has become openly abusive: [3] I would like to see him cautioned, and I really think his administrator privileges need reviewing. Many thanks. Asgardian (talk) 03:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Can you unblock me?
I have now an account here at Wikipedia (the same as the one on the Swedish wiki "Hollac16"). Can you unblock me? /Hollac16 (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Knight Prince - Sage Veritas
This guy looks like a disruptive SPA to me. I suggest not unblocking him or a perma ban on Barbera and ethnic realted articles. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- I also must object to any unblocking of Knight Prince - Sage Veritas, I spent time and effort to try and help this editor understand that edit warring and personal attacks were against Wikipedia policy, and after his first block and my detailed explanations, not only did he persist in edit warring and attacking Rlevse - he still attempts to play the innocent card. Dreadstar ☥ 21:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- I've given due consideration to both points. I feel that KP-SV was only indef-blocked in the first place for an apparent loss of temper after he was blocked. He's retracted the comment, and agreed to a 1-month ban. I don't see that he's an SPA; he has made useful contributions at Lebanon and Jordan. And in any case, the 1-month ban will let him develop some breadth and his account is less than 1 month old in the first place. Plus, Juliancolton, the blocking admin, seems to feel the idea is acceptable. Just because this block is being lifted doesn't mean he should be spared from further blocks if he engages in more edit warring or personal attacks, after all. Mangojuicetalk 06:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- His article range is very narrow, basically Lebanon and Jordan and he was disruptive over more than on article. What exactly does the one month ban cover, a one month block, a one month topic ban or what? The consensus at Barbera is the autobio trumps the 1-2 RS's he can find and there are more RS's, first hand ones at that, that support the Italian view. How do we know he will accept that? Given his pattern of behavior, there's a very good chance he'll return to his prior disruption. And he still doesn't seem to understand WP:RS. Reading his talk page again note he only changed his tune when you offered to unblock him. I feel he's only trying to game an unblock. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's quite clear. A total 1 month ban from the Barbera article and talk page, and from edits regarding the ethnicity of people in general. As for the argument on Joseph Barbera, I don't know that he will accept it, and I don't think it's necessary for him to do so, I just think it's necessary for him to engage appropriately about it... once you guys have had a reasonable period away from it. Mangojuicetalk 14:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- His article range is very narrow, basically Lebanon and Jordan and he was disruptive over more than on article. What exactly does the one month ban cover, a one month block, a one month topic ban or what? The consensus at Barbera is the autobio trumps the 1-2 RS's he can find and there are more RS's, first hand ones at that, that support the Italian view. How do we know he will accept that? Given his pattern of behavior, there's a very good chance he'll return to his prior disruption. And he still doesn't seem to understand WP:RS. Reading his talk page again note he only changed his tune when you offered to unblock him. I feel he's only trying to game an unblock. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- I've given due consideration to both points. I feel that KP-SV was only indef-blocked in the first place for an apparent loss of temper after he was blocked. He's retracted the comment, and agreed to a 1-month ban. I don't see that he's an SPA; he has made useful contributions at Lebanon and Jordan. And in any case, the 1-month ban will let him develop some breadth and his account is less than 1 month old in the first place. Plus, Juliancolton, the blocking admin, seems to feel the idea is acceptable. Just because this block is being lifted doesn't mean he should be spared from further blocks if he engages in more edit warring or personal attacks, after all. Mangojuicetalk 06:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
It's just evident from his previous work on the article/other articles across Wikipedia. However, I have no interest in causing animosity or disruption! Thanks for taking an interest, Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- Also...you appear to have redirected my old account...this is fine, but I liked the old account layout, and the redirect has made it impossible to view this. Please restore my old account - I may consider using the information there on my new one. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 21:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- "Contradict the truth"? It's pretty blatant. And silly. I'm sorry you don't see that :P Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- Also...you haven't done what I asked....which isn't particularly helpful. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hey there: your decision to act out against me has been duly noted: I shall proceed as necessary if I feel these actions are escalating towards bullying. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 15:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- "Contradict the truth"? It's pretty blatant. And silly. I'm sorry you don't see that :P Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- I suggest comprehension lessons: I shall proceed as necessary if I feel these actions are escalating towards bullying. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 15:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- There is no requirement that I not ask for further input on your behavior. So I am doing so. In particular, I will be notifying Tanthalas39, since he had placed you on warning for disruptive behavior at Maltese (dog). I will be bringing up your use of alternate accounts. I will be bringing up your inappropriate accusation of vandalism. I will be bringing up your inappropriate attack on Imbris. Perhaps if you see that this is not me with a biased view of the situation, you will listen to the warnings I've given you, which I believe are fair and appropriate considering what you've done. Mangojuicetalk 15:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's a shame administrators aren't what they used to be. I hope you're doing all this with good intentions; but we all know what sorts of roads those often pave. Be productive! Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Heya! I've just realised you're a "doctor of philosophy". Isn't that brilliant :) but you don't speak much French and no German at all. How does that work? I suppose it all depends. There's an AN/I over Imbris btw, you might want to chuck your 2c in. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 23:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- I checked out the ANI, but since I've edited substantially with Imbris, I have to consider that I've taken off my admin hat in dealing with him. My interactions with him on Maltese (dog) were definitely difficult; you can find some rather long complaints I left him if you search through his user talk page. But ultimately, I think he came to trust that I wasn't favoring one side or another, and this let him relax considerably. Mangojuicetalk 04:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Heya! I've just realised you're a "doctor of philosophy". Isn't that brilliant :) but you don't speak much French and no German at all. How does that work? I suppose it all depends. There's an AN/I over Imbris btw, you might want to chuck your 2c in. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 23:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
User:Rm125
FYI: I gave Rm125 a vandalism warning for repeatedly deleting sourced material with which he did not agree, not over a good-faith difference of opinion. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 22:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, can you please check this
On article Hassan Kamel Al-Sabbah, there's a user called Mohummy who keeps deleting most of the article claiming the sources provided are not WP:RS yet he can't say how that is. Can you please check the sources and give me your opinion. Thanks. By the way, I've started a discussion in that articles talk page. Thanks again Knight Prince - Sage Veritas (talk) 01:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- By the way, he's already done 3 rv's and I'm not about to get into an edit war with him. Knight Prince - Sage Veritas (talk) 02:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Please block me indefinitely
Thank you. Noloop (talk) 22:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Please place an indefinite block on my account. Noloop (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Let's see... I reported an editor for violating 3RR, and I was blocked instead. I protested the block and was denied. I said, fine, I don't want an early unblock, and was promptly unblocked early. I requested an indef block and am now (apparently) required to be unblocked. WTF. If I request a community-wide ban, will you make me an admin? Obviously, anybody who wants to be indef blocked can make that happen...do you want me to be disruptive? Are you at least going to discuss what's going on in your head, or should I just go vandalize something? Noloop (talk) 03:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- See WP:SELFBLOCK. Such requests are generally not granted. You can take a break or leave. Mangojuicetalk 03:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- The idea is to help me leave. Something analogous to cutting up your credit cards. Noloop (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- I understand the idea, it's just against policy and therefore not done. Mangojuicetalk 21:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
In the absence of
Just to let you know that Tan has been very kind in helping me out to sort the sockpuppets over here. Since he is on a Wikibreak so I am reproducing a message that I left on his talk page for your consideration too. And I guess you very well know the main user named LineofWisdom of this whole episode too.
- "Cher Tan. I don't know how did I miss this one WikipedianBug which for sure seems yet another one of a suspected sockpuppet of LineofWisdom. Because the quality of English, written by him all over his edits, is exactly the same - the time of creation of this user account is the same i.e. 22nd August when all the other socks were created by him - and above of all his repeated votes of his earlier bad faith AFDs of Dil Jan Khan and Abdul Majeed Khan Marwat. Now he has voted a 'Delete for the second time on Rafiq Shinwari, an article created by me, which though has been referenced in abundance now. I am certain that's him again but can you check this user or do something about him too. Always grateful."
Please advice on impossible situation- the same thing repeats itself over and over
Mangojuice, I need you advice, please. As you suggested here[[4]] I try to behave in more civil ways and when in doubt you graciously offered your help I am so fact working on J Street page. As before Malik Shabbaz and nobleezy and Sean as a team [[5]] are undoing me constantly without providing ANY justification whatsoever. Once again we are facing the same situation when I provide a thorough and well based arguments [[6]] they working as a team undoing it. Please take a look at the situation on J street. Please read the article that talks about it
This is the quote from NYT we are discussing:
- “The peril may be real. But it can also feel like a marketing device. “You know what these guys are afraid of?” says M. J. Rosenberg, Washington director of the Israel Policy Forum. “Their generation is disappearing. All the old Jewish people in senior-citizen homes speaking Yiddish are dying — and they’re being replaced by 60-year-old Woodstock types.”
- J Street, by contrast, is wide open to the public. Visitors must thread their way through a graphic-design studio with which the organization shares office space. There appears to be nothing worth guarding. The average age of the dozen or so staff members is about 30. Ben-Ami speaks for, and to, this post-Holocaust generation. “They’re all intermarried,” he says. “They’re all doing Buddhist seders.” They are, he adds, baffled by the notion of “Israel as the place you can always count on when they come to get you.”
As you see he gives a very pointed reply here and it is relevant. For the issue of generational gap in this context. More then that I added this right after the sentense regarding Jews and non Jews supporters ( While primarily made up of Jews, J Street welcomes both Jewish and non-Jewish members.) Why not to include that they have a diversity there? You can see clearly that when I give a point that Malik doesn’t have an answer to the other guy comes to undo it. This is very typical of this team and they are provoking me by undoing and working as a team. Please tell me what think you. All my edits are well documented. What should I do here? Please advise. Thanks for your time. This happens everywhere I go. Is 'team working" is allowed?--Rm125 (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Now the dream team are erasing talk pages. Look at the history [[7]]how they work together even on talk pages to erase my talk. Not only they erase my contribution to the article itself. They erase talk pages. Is it possible? This is not legitimate prsactice. Something must be done about it
--Rm125 (talk) 23:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Happy Mangojuice's Day!
 |
User:Mangojuice has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
nableezy needs to be reminded of civil behaviour ( use of curses on talk pages- fu(xxx)ck
What do you say? Can we start working on language for a new RfC, or do we let the old one run its course? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Fuck"Some random word" it, just let the old one run its course. This user is incapable of not disrupting anything so there is no point in just giving him another avenue to further disrupt. nableezy - 05:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
[[8]]
Mangojuice I disagree with your ban and “sanctions“
| This discussion has been archived. Please do not modify it. |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. |
|
ResponseFrankly I see no reason to bother warning Nableezy over his use of the f-word, directed at no one, out of frustration because you seem so intent on bring it up over and over again, nearly a week after it happened. You are extremely close to having your block reinstated because of your complete inability to adjust your behavior to Wikipedia expectations. Specifically:
Under the terms of WP:ARBPIA, which you have been previously warned about [16], I am imposing the following sanctions on you.
If you wish to appeal the bans, after your block expires, please go to Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement. If you have any questions about the terms, ask me - do not test the limits with your edits. Mangojuicetalk 04:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Rm125 letter to MangojuiceYou say: “Frankly I see no reason to bother warning Nableezy over his use of the f-word, directed at no one, out of frustration because you seem so intent on bring it up over and over again, nearly a week after it happened.
So here we ( Shabbazz and I finally agree to place the right tag. But nableezy says: <quote>Fuck"Some random word" it, just let the old one run its course. This user is incapable of not disrupting anything so there is no point in just giving him another avenue to further disrupt<end of quote> So clearly as you see nableezy doesn’t cooperate with two of us and solves the problem so long discussed, but instead uses curses and uncivilized behavior. As you see the word” Fuck” is crossed to show that he “kind of” realizes that it is improper to use, but of course we know better, don’t we, Mangojuice? You tell me in your decision to block me: “Frankly I see no reason to bother warning Nableezy over his use of the f-word, directed at no one, out of frustration because you seem so intent on bring it up over and over again, nearly a week after it happened.” So here we have 2 Wikipedians finally coming to a constructive agreement and the third party instead of agreeing to end the disagreement instantly-noy only doesn’t agree with the majority- he is using the f-word “directing to anyone” Are you sure he is directing it to “anyone, Mangojuice? So according to your logic if 3 people discussing the issue and someone uses the f-word- he is insulting “no one” This is shameful. This is illogical. This is not “reviewing-this is taking unjustified and subjective opinion favorable of offender and at the same toime accusing the agreeing party in “uncivil” conduct. I strongly disagree on this point, Mangojuice. Please change your ways. Be fair to new Wikipedian. Don’t wrongly accuse.Try to ask and understand. Don’t jump to conclusions.>>>
You are extremely close to having your block reinstated because of your complete inability to adjust your behavior to Wikipedia expectations. Specifically:
Once again you take sides against both common sense and Wikipedia rules. When two people are fighting normally you look at who started the fight and punish him. Why would you ignore the party who started ans plus didn’t make any attempt to discuss-thus violating Wikipedia rules and take sides with the party who started the edit war” and without attempt to discuss the issue? Once again. Mangojuice you violsated both common sense and Wikipedia rules.>>> Instead of accepting those opinions as legitimate, you continue to accuse everyone who disagrees with you of acting in collusion: [32] [33].
“Nableezy, it would really be helpful if you would stop mentioning all the bad things that can happen to Rm125 if he doesn't comply. If there's going to be any chance to rehabilitation here he HAS to stop feeling attacked. That said, Rm, Nableezy is correct that you should read WP:ARBPIA and understand that there's some stuff there that applies to you and could land you in further trouble”
Mow let me ask you respectfully, my dear friend..what is this “some stuff” you are talking about here? Where should I look for this “some stuff” you are so cleverly pointing to me about? I have read very carefully and I haven’t seen anything whatsoever that “applies to me” personally. And what kind of “farther trouble” are you talking about here, my dear? Can it be that all your baseless threats, lecturing and patronizing to are the result of “some stuff” you came up with-baseless- based on your subjective opinion and improper seasoning? The only “farther trouble” I see is your total inability to see this controversy from the neutral point of view. Your harassment and your ban- totally based on invented and manipulated information toward a newbie Wikipedian who sincerely came to make a contribution is misplaced. You constantly claim that as a person whose English is less then perfect I am somehow inferior to others. This is not correct. May be I need a word processor to write correctly but I am not a lazy and clueless observer. As to all your “judgments” and “verdicts’ and “sanctions” allow me to dismiss all the “stuff” you base it on. It is beyond me how did you come up with this” verdict” and what are you trying to prove here. I expect you to guide me how to overturn this injustice as soon as possible. Please let me know how we should proceed from this point. I personally don’t have lots of time to waste of going to various boards and engaging in “office politics.” I would prefer just to reverse all this and proceed from here. Like it never happened. If there is a problem to reverse your decision advice me on other venues. Respectfully. Rm125 --Rm125 (talk) 09:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Rm125 responds to Mangojuice- last statement in seriesThis is the responce to your post on my talk page. Mangojuice sez: I have no interest in communicating with you further.
Mangojuice sez: You are making disparaging comments about me and I don't see why I should bother responding to you.
Mangojuice sez:The sanctions stand, they're wise,
Mangojuice sez:I'm open to review, and I'm sure the community will back me and happy to discover if that's true.
Mangojuice sez:I have seen no sign from you that you are actually open to anyone else's opinion
Mangojuice sez:anytime anyone says anything you don't like, you just attack them,
Mangojuice sez:loaded with empty statements like your opinion on your "whatever" logic or Now it becomes pathetic not to mention a constant complete lack of respect of my judgment.
Mangojuice sez:If you don't respect it, get someone else's, end of story
|
Unfortunately you chose to ignore all my attempts to resolve our disagreement. I tried to reply to your accusations point by point.I know it is not easy to counter my argument. Therefore I don't hold it against you, since obviosly my reasonings are devastating. Hovever it is helpful to leave this correspondence for the sake of interested parties reference.I also will present it as an evidence to the appropriate board later. Please reconsider leaving it for a week or two and hopefully by then this issue will be resolved between both of us to out mutual satisfaction. All the best --Rm125 (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- That's why I didn't remove it, it's just inside a collapsible archive box. The length of it just makes it hard to manage my talk page. Mangojuicetalk 18:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Admin enforced topic bans
Mango, ref your comments at WT:BAN to Jayron ("I see your point . . ."), I'm curious if we're on the same line of thinking ref my thoughts in the section above that regarding this being a matter of admins interpreting consensus as we do every day when we execute a block - I don't see myself as deciding a block so much as applying consensus as the same has been conveyed to me through policy - that line of thinking. Maybe you completely disagree based on your comments but I just wanted to ping you outside the discussion to see. Also curious if you have any thoughts about my suggestion for a dedicated page where bans could be proposed by any editor for discussion (see my comments towards the end of the first section at Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy#Community_discussion_of_topic-ban_and_page-ban_procedure_urged and Beetstra's response). Maybe I'm completely out to lunch with my proposal but I value your opinion.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 19:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, when there is a clear community consensus on an issue like a ban, in principle, it doesn't have to be an admin who identifies it. For instance, if a user was blocked after non-admin X made a complaint, and X continued to be involved in the user's unblock requests, ultimately X might be the one to come to the realization that Y is, de facto, banned and be the one to articulate it. That said, I would really discourage non-admins from deciding on the existence of bans for two reasons. First, as a pure matter of practicality, Wikipedia often acknowledges that an uninvolved, impartial admin can be relied upon to be fair. So bans "identified" by admins are that much easier to check on. Second, when it comes to bans other than total bans there are a lot of variables: duration, the wording of the topic ban restriction, which other sanctions to apply, whether the ban applies to talk pages or not, project space or not, et cetera. So there is a real possibility that a consensus may exist to ban someone but not over the exact terms. I think we can generally trust an uninvolved admin to decide the terms of a ban based on a community discussion but I don't know if I'd be so comfortable with a non-admin doing that. But I suppose, if the non-admin did a good job, the ban could have support. Mangojuicetalk 20:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Any thoughts on my suggestion on Bans for Discussion or some such name, as discussed on that page?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 17:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well, there was the WP:CSN that got closed down. I think "bans for discussion" would be too much along the same lines, and would probably not work in the long term for the same reason. Mangojuicetalk 17:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
User:Camponhoyle and his socks
On 7 July this user was blocked for vandalism and you blocked five others as his socks - see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Camponhoyle. It seemed as if they were a gang of kids mucking about, and they were told to go away and start with new accounts if they wanted to contribute sensibly. I think they are back, but not contributing sensibly:
- SuperTeacher123 (talk · contribs) has input an article Sockpuppetry of Camponhoyle two or three times,
- Falmorrow (talk · contribs) has just posted it again,
- Thunderbird123 (talk · contribs) put a hangon tag on it
- HappyMan999 (talk · contribs) has chimed in on the talk page, and so has
- MattiasGoyle (talk · contribs)
Superteacher123 has some constructive edits, including Easiteach and Technika which I gather were also involved in the original Camponhoyle business. The others have few or no constructive edits, and the focus on re-hashing the Camponhoyle affair is suspicious.
I was going to post all this at WP:SPI but it does not seem there was a formal SPI case raised before: shall I now raise one and post all this there, or can you deal with it direct?
Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
PS: add to the list:
- Servanthoyle2 (talk · contribs), author of the remark just below, and
- Servanthoyle (talk · contribs)
JohnCD (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
YOU WILL PAY FOR ALL YOU HAVE DONE TO ME AND MY MASTER, AND MY MASTER'S ALLIES!
FACE THE CONSEQUENCES!
YOU CANNOT STOP ME! WE HAVE ALREADY BEAT THE SYSTEM! TO DESTROY US FULLY DELETE EASITEACH!
Martial poem
Have you checked the source?? If necessary, I can introduce several others which make the association plain - however, the existing one offers no dispute. Please check the sources before reverting edits. This is becoming intolerably unfair. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 13:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your quick and courteous response. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Camponhoyle
Hi I know camponhoyle and his sockpuppets, I am willing to help you get rid of them by telling you his new accounts.
A new one is user:Servanthoyle3
Thanks TheTraitor (talk) 19:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello MangoJuice...
Fancy banning us? Like to see you try! Hope you have a had a good time doing it, because we sure have. Hope you come up with a better plan than to ban our i.p adressess.