User talk:Delicious carbuncle

Template:Archive box collapsable

Your editing privileges have been suspended for 24 hours

I will not template you, since you are likely familiar with the {{unblock|''your reason here''}} format. I would very strongly suggest that you review WP:POINT and WP:DISRUPT before you make any appeal, or launch an ANI discussion over my actions. I will of course note my sanctioning of you at ANI and Jimbo's talkpage, in any case. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

While I could provide evidence to show that my edits reflected what I was told at ANI and thus were neither pointy nor disruptive, I am reluctant to do so only to have my unblock request denied by an admin who sees things that same way you do. If anyone cares to unblock me, they will. Otherwise, I'll sit this one out. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If you don't see the point violation, you really ought to be blocked for more time, not less. You'll generally find that feigning cluelessness does not help your case. Friday (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If you think I should be blocked for more time, I am powerless to stop you, but please don't come by to insult me when I'm not really in a position to respond in any public forum (like Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks where I would attempt to demonstrate my cluelessness to your satisfaction). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No one said it was policy to insult or threaten vandals, even persistent ones, at ANI. What was said was that one or two instances of frustration being vented (and not directly at the vandal, because it was not on the vandals talkpage or the vandalised article talkpage) was not grounds to question the general ability and dedication of the admin(s) and editors concerned. Per WP:AGF the community is expected to overlook the occasional instance of non optimum interaction or comment, and where there are signs of a deterioration in compliance with WP standards to offer help - and advocating for the removal of an admin from certain activities is a penultimate step (to RfC/Admin or ArbCom desysop Request) rather than an initial one. I would further comment that amending policy requires obvious and transparent consensus, rather than the interpretation of what you think was said in respect of one instance. Even if you claim WP:BOLD, your edits were reverted per WP:BRD and you should have then initiated discussion. Since you edit warred to reincorporate your changes you were violating WP:BRD to make your WP:POINT. I strongly suggest that in future you should ensure that you have consensus for your actions, and that you understand that the community and its policies are not to be gamed when you are in the minority of opinion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Even if you are right, you edit warred. You can't honestly claim you didn't know that was wrong and would get you blocked. The overall point here is that BF101 is not just any old vandal or troll. He has demonstrated his utter contempt for this project and it's goals literally thousands of times. By making a big dramafest out of PMs remarks you are giving him exactly what he wants. Now the person who knows the most about him is on a break, another user is blocked, and there is discussion all the way up to Jimbo's talk page. WP:DFTT. The best way to deal with BF101 is WP:RBI, and the best way to deal with an admin who has been trying in good faith in every conceivable way to stop him for several years and has gotten to the end of his rope and vented a little about it is to pat him on the back and tell him it going to be ok, and not to get so worked up about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, I hope to explain myself at ANI (unless someone prematurely archives the topic to prevent me from doing so), but I will respond to parts of your comment here because I agree with much of what you say. Vandals are a fact of life on Wikipedia. We should work to discourage them and to mitigate the damage they do. The most successful interaction strategy seems to be, as you say, revert-block-ignore. The least successful interaction strategy seems to be baiting the vandals and becoming, to use the vernacular, a "lulzcow".

The issue with PMDrive1061 is a long-term pattern. He finds "fighting" vandals stressful and lashes out with language that is clearly in violation of WP:NPA, which only spurs on the vandals and trolls. Let's not forget that he is putting himself in this stressful and frustrating position. It is counter-productive and PMDrive1061 should find something else to do on the project.

My request was not that he be de-sysopped, but simply that WP:NPA be enforced for his statement "I would personally like to medicate this idiot with a very large right fist..." which should not be accepted from an admin under any circumstances. Ignoring these types of statements is counter to the best practice of WP:RBI, whatever else you may think of the general issue of civility. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't give it a thought...

I needed to get my head on straight, which is why I vented in the first place. All self-control basically went out the window since this has gone on for so long and I fear it's driven others off the project. I've e-mailed Jimbo to apologize to him for having to step in my big ol' can of worms. No hard feelings whatsoever, then or now. You're one of the good ones and we're in this together. We just have to somehow convince the powers-that-be that this isn't a playpen and serial vandalism will be followed with possible legal action if that is in fact possible. Somehow,we have to put teeth in this thing. We can block and revert all day, but in the case of multiple, coordinated vandalism (or one very determined little boy in Alabama), the people who run this place need to take some responsibility. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

PS: The "medicated fist" comment was intended to be humorous and I'm sorry I didn't make that sufficiently clear. The last thing I'd want to do is to actually do bodily harm to anyone, let alone a child, however bratty. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Lionelt's talk page.

Please see ANI

[1] I think its time to make this interaction ban absolute. Please feel free to comment. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's see, it's August and there have been no interactions since January. When Neutralhomer violates his restrictions the first time, I let it slide. When he violates his restriction the second time and I ask for it to be enforced. Rather than enforce it, your response is to ask for an absolute interaction ban? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The sanction is aimed more at Neutralhomer then you but for fairness I'm proposing it for both of you. It seems fair from the last discussion at ANI that anything between you and Neutralhomer ends up badly. I usually find it goes wrong when I do high profile blocks so I'm not looking to use my block button here. I do want the bickering to end and a formal unambiguous community sanction leaves no space for this to be wriggled around. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not responding to Neutralhomer (as much out of kindness as anything else) so there really isn't any "bickering" to speak of. As I said, I have no objection to an absolute interaction ban, but I don't have much hope that it will be any different than the last one. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Inhibiting requests for enforcement is an area that most admins find very difficult as it effectively disenfranchises users from the usual consensus driven dispute resolution that wikipedia relies on, hence the problems with finding a blocker here. I want an absolutely unambiguous line to make it extremely clear what is and is not going to get someone blocked. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Please stop

You are the subject of the sanction proposal and your comment has been put in the designated section for users involved. Please let users who are not involved (the community) to comment on whether the sanction should be enacted or not. Additionally, my recent comment tells you that this is the last straw - your proposal intends on letting this problem continue forever, and I won't support that. If you want to make your own amendment proposal, it is not proper to do so through someone else's, otherwise I would have done the same with respect to Spartaz's proposal. Finally, please cease making inaccurate statements about me or my position - for example, contrary to what you said here (you objected to all of my proposed changes), I supported the proposal that removed "other issues". Thanks! Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not interested in playing your games. Please just walk away and leave this for other people to deal with. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Office Lady Rope Slave‎

Hi, Delicious carbuncle. Conversations on hard / soft porn and the differences between the Japanese and US concepts of such have led to the agreement that these non-explicit films do not belong in the same category with hardcore US videos. I originally added the category, that's why I removed it. Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to where that was discussed and agreed? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk was between another editor and me-- he'd removed the category from Russ Meyer's Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, and these pink films are in the same style, and of the same lack of expliciteness as are his films. The Pink film category probably makes "Pornographic film" redundant anyway. Whether we should put Pink film as a sub-category of "Pornographic film" or "Erotic film" or "Sexploitation" or whatever, is another matter. Dekkappai (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

In other words, you think that the category is not appropriate? I'll answer at the discussion you began here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Why are you reverting the information on the other film titled Rope and Breasts? It's cited, and Jasper Sharp mentions it in conjunction with this film. I didn't link the two, a reliable source did. Dekkappai (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I've answered on the talk page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

AN/I

Once again your rudeness has landed you there.Camelbinky (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

My rudeness? That will be a nice change. Usually it's people who are jealous of my naturally long eyelashes. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It was the opening comment that was the issue, nothing you said. Off2riorob (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Got it. Sorry for the confusion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy to admin board report with no notification or prior attempt at resolution?

This is now done. I have unblocked both accounts a grand total of four minutes after you had posted the report to AN. I must admit I am a bit curious as to why I was not notified, and why you failed to attempt to resolve the matter on my user talk page, and instead went straight to a report at the admin noticeboard? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be a recurring issue and not specific or limited to your recent blocks. I started the thread in part as a reminder to other admins who may not have seen the first two. Giftiger wunsch's well-intentioned move from AN to ANI has dilued the usefulness of this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

That did not answer either question, both of which are customary and even noted in instructions at multiple pages, prior to directly escalating issues, which you failed to do in both cases. -- Cirt (talk) 21:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are upset about, to be honest. I notified you about the thread within a minute of starting it. As I keep saying, the issue is a wider one and not limited to your recent actions, so discussing it on your talk page does little to remind other admins of the previous resolutions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Just to let you know, I reverted your revert on WP:AN as it simply served to partially-copy the thread moved to WP:ANI. If you feel that all admins should be reminded about the consensus about the word nipple in usernames, you should leave a new note at WP:AN, without mentioning User:Cirt. It hardly seems fair to bring up a particular incident, especially one where the blocking admin was so co-operative, if you do feel that it's not just Cirt who needs to be reminded of this. I think WT:UAA will probably be more appropriate and reach the intended audience more selectively, though. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • You actions, though likely well-intentioned, were hasty and unhelpful in this instance. If you read the previous threads, you would have seen that this is a recurring issue and not something that is specific to Cirt or any other admin. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Not hasty at all; in hindsight, I still support my actions. If you wanted to report a specific issue, and you did specifically mention Cirt, it should have been at WP:ANI, and you should have discussed it directly with Cirt first. If you feel that there should be a general reminder about it, WT:UAA is probably your best bet, and individual names should be left out of the note. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
    • You were so quick to respond to my post that you missed the fact that I notified Cirt on their talk page immediately after starting the thread. You decided that it was an "incident report" (which it wasn't) and moved it to ANI where it is likely not to be seen by as many admins and will soon fall into jokes about nipples if it doesn't get quickly archived by someone like yourself. If you see me starting threads on AN assume that I have done so for a reason and ask me before moving them. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I didn't miss anything; when I left the comment, you hadn't notified Cirt. You did so shortly after, so I retracted the comment. It was an incident report, as you were reporting an incident by Cirt. It's as simple as that; it should have been on ANI and I was right to move it there. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
        • I think I know what I was writing when I wrote it, but let's not waste any more time discussing it. I'm sure you had good intentions despite the results. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback reguarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eldebrock @ User_Talk:Wolfnix

Hello, Delicious carbuncle. You have new messages at Wolfnix's talk page.
Message added 16:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Who did what when

Obviously she has various agencies that represent her. Or, come to think, as one of the most famous tv personalities in her country, maybe she doesn't need to, I dunno. I'm editing like a automaton here trying to pop things into their appropriate category and apparently I messed up when I clicked over to the UK page that SI.com linked to, that has got modeling shots of her posted on it, by assuming it to be some genuinely contracted photo agency. Have you ever been to such a site? They have a bunch of high quality pix on them of the person they are promoting. Duh. So, again, I f*'d up by not glancing at the site long enough--STILL haven't, btw--to see where the site's pix of her came from...eg her numerous shoots I now know done for H Para Hombres? or what?

As for when I deleted the site from being listed as her agency in the infobox. What, you're Elliot freakin Spitzer, Sheriff o' Wall Street ? I'm sitting at the phones in my trading pit or boiler room or whatever its called working like a dog and you're coming along and making aspersions when to the very best of my knowledge I'm not guilty in any way whatsoever of any kind of foul play. OK? But instead I get from you, "H-B, you left the site in the article as a site for modeling pix!" Yeah, so I did. That's what it is. Bring it to the article's talkpage. ...Although I suppose user tk pg's are OK too. Shrugs.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

What are you doing?

Per wp:PRESERVE you're supposed to be careful abt removing sourced material. Please contribute in good faith to the discussion on the talk page. Do you really think mention of the World Cup should be deleted? If you are too lazy to improve this coverage, then, per basic editing guidelines youre simply sposed ta mention your concerns on the tkpg, not delete in whole other's contributions that are in portion correct. Can you show me a guideline that says other than that?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 00:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

That someone once labelled various athletes as different types of animals has no place in their biography. You seem to be having trouble understanding the difference between fact, opinion, and trivia. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

DONTLIKEIT is not a guideline, I'm afraid.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 02:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't be afraid, just don't bother coming back to my talk page. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Cahole

I am Irish, lived here all my life, and I've never come across the surname Cahole before. Neither has the phonebook for Dublin, Ireland's largest city. [2]. Just sayin' Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

No one said it was a popular name. ;) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand how an historical message, such as mine, was struck from the record.

Okay, why did you feel it necessary to refactor primary evidence on the Iraq war talk page? I am not being faceniorous are demagogic when I paint those comments I made as being both constructive and quite logically not vandalism. I really do not understand why it was deleted. EVIDENCE says War on Terror, was both iraq's and afghanistan's war's primary names, why did you delete that in a conversation on it I am not being confrontational, I am asking; why?--Cymbelmineer (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You made edits to an archived discussion. I have already reminded you not to do this and you acknowledged my warning. The content of your edits is irrelevant and immaterial. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Discussion On Me(Kagome_85) PLEASE READ!!!!!!

Although I know you might delete this and refuse to reply to it given that another user has been deleting my posts claiming how I am not allowed to post since I'm banned, I think you should listen to me, given that a user is harassing me(the one that started the discussion on me). This is what I posted on the Wikipedia thread that was removed: Although I know that this account will be banned for "sockpuppetry" or "evasion of block" or whatever, I just want to point out have you thought to see if these accounts created to say how the account Kagome_85 should have a sitewide ban MIGHT be related to Moukity? Kagome_85 is my account, but these accounts created to say there should be a sitewide ban are not. If an IP trace was done you would find that this account and the accounts made to say there should be a sitewide ban put on me probably start with 142., but you would also see that the rest of the digits that follow my account and the ones that follow the accounts made to say there should be a sitewide ban put in place on me are different. I know you may say that any user that is guilty would say that, however, I am pointing that out since a.) I am not stupid enough to go on here saying you should put a sitewide ban on me by using a different account since I know you can trace it and b.) Why would I go make another account to report something I did on another account when I know that would just get me in trouble since I can get caught? and c.) Why would I go linking to a news article about me when I don't want people to know about it? I'm not looking for attention or anything like some people are.

I hope that you consider what I said since I felt I should point out the fact that Moukity could(and more than likely is) be behind these new accounts made to say that I should be banned from the site permanently. Anyway, feel free to ban this account as you probably will, but I'll be putting the retirement sign on it anyway since you can be guaranteed I won't be using this anymore. By the way, the only reason I found this post was that I went to check the Incidents Noticeboards for something on another topic that I was told about that has nothing to do with me, so you can't say that I had any knowledge of this thread because I never, if you looked at the date that this post was made you would see that. Please, I implore you, to do an investigation into the accounts that started this discussion on me, and see if they were made by Moukity (a.k.a. Blackmagic1234). If you see this, then you will know that he is at fault as well. Sango 42 (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

A word of advice to both parties - it should be apparent to you that these types of things can lead to unpleasant real-world consequences (legal and otherwise). Stop editing Wikipedia, stop posting messages about one another here or elsewhere, and stop antagonizing each other. This will not end well for either one of you and the longer it goes on the worse the consequences are likely to be. The sooner you figure that out and walk away, the better. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Your second link on your user page doesn't work.

I thought you might like to know that the page for I'm not Pauline Berry seems to redirect to a broken link. I'm not criticising you, I just thought that then the formatting of the page would be a little clearer. Thanks.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The reason for that is probably covered in my talk page archives or in the ANI archives if you search on my username. Thanks for noticing, though. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Jonah Falcon

Hi. Why isn't IMDB a reliable source for BLPs? At least it is better than no source or a false one, but I don't understand why it's unreliable. However, I have not restored my statement; I just want to hear your opinion on the matter. Thanks. HeyMid (contributions) 09:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

By longstanding consensus, IMDB is not considered a reliable source for anything, but is generally accepted for uncontroversial information relating directly to film or tv work. You should have no trouble finding many discussions relating to this in the archives of WP:BLPN. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

re: Creme Puff

;-p

If you wish to delete my articles callously and mean-spiritedly,

then please go to the effort of reading the massively enumerated list of highly reputable third-party subjects founded specifically around the article DisInformation (search engine). Perhaps your efforts would be well-spent if you paid a blind bit of attention to the serious impact the subject had on numerous reliable publications, then you would see fit not to get rid of my work. Your destructive editing is so self-serving it is pitiful.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 22:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

As it stands, the article is full of original research and synthesis. Although you have two decent sources, it would be better to expand the existing Disinfo article. English doesn't appear to be your first language, so I will assume that your comments were not meant as a personal attack, but please be mindful of how your words may come across. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, English is my first language. It is refreshing to see such care given to ones dignity on Wikipedia. Lets make one thing clear: all my commentary is published. I somehow doubt that you read all four clear, investigated sources that appear on just about every major search engines terminology, but at any rate, your blatant editorialising is not backed up by the facts. You are being faecinorous and avataristic if you assume that deleting such an article without fair-warning is not kleptomaniacal. I hope I've enriched your vocabulary. Now go and get a job, because I will not stand idly by and watch my name get defamed by some old-maidish user who has not asserted any true notability for any of their comments.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 22:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you haven't seen WP:NPA? I'll add a warning to your talk page as a handy reference now that I know that language isn't the issue. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Allowkeeps

What's going on? --John (talk) 04:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Just the usual trolling sockpuppet of a grudge-bearing user. See this ANI thread and this followup. Protecting the article will help, but only result in a different target. Since the ANI threads didn't get anywhere and private discussions with ArbCom members have not worked (the user's identity is known to ArbCom), I may have to follow up more formally, but I would rather not because it would be a tedious exercise and reopen a conflict that has been largely dormant since this user ceased editing on a regular basis. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Grow up!

[3] Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

And hello to you, too. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes

...[4] That was my feeling too -- good to see some confirmation ... Antandrus (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

On a completely unrelated matter, this IP seems to be in Florida. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Correct you are. I left a note too.  :) LOL. For what it's worth I recognized "Carolyn" right away, but I don't block fast any more because the risk of being wrong is too high, and in the current humiliate-all-admins environment there's hell to pay when you are. Antandrus (talk) 01:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe in the old ways, where some admins are chosen randomly for humiliation, while others are immune to any kind of criticism. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

That seems Fair. ϢereSpielChequers 17:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

BLPprod

Hi Delicious Carbuncle, I hope you don't mind, but I've removed your BLPprod from Brandon Jones (actor) as the article has an IMDB link. During the last RFC I tried unsuccessfully to get the sticky prod process broadened from unsourced to ignore Facebook, Myspace, LinkedIN and Utube "sources", and IMDB is usually reckoned better than those, at least for screen credits. If the article had been unsourced when you tagged it then an IMDB link would not have been enough to justify removal of the tag, but as it was more a {{refimproveBLP}} then it doesn't qualify for a BLPprod. Cheers ϢereSpielChequers 17:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Since IMDB ha been consistently rejected as a reliable source for biographies of living people, I considered that it was as good as unsourced. If the addition of an IMDB link would not have been sufficient to remove the tag, then it seems odd that the presence of one would necessitate it's removal, but it's par for the course. Maybe another RFC will have a different result once there is a longer history of BLPprods. It's a moot point since someone added other links, but thanks for letting me know. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Paid editing

Found myself wondering what your views on paid editing are. Pro? Anti? Pro some of it sometimes? Anti all of it? Or is it all a little more complex than that? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Paid editing goes on here all the time, whether it is contractors/editors paid to create articles or people who edit articles of interest to their employer as part of their job. If Wikipedia had a desire to eliminate or mitigate this, it would need to take measures that would substantially change its character.

I am generally of the opinion that what matters is the results - if paid editors are creating decent articles that meet all of our guidelines, that should be fine and we probably won't even notice. Where I differ from many people who hold this opinion is that I have concerns about how the articles are created. If someone gets paid to write an article because they can write and are familiar with Wikipedia, that in itself isn't a problem for me. If people use sockpuppets or meatpuppets to generate the appearance of consensus or to sway AfDs, that is not ok. If people have a clear conflict of interest but refuse to admit it, that is not ok. If people are attempting to co-opt Wikipedia to benefit their commercial venture that is not ok (see User:Eclipsed's various proposals). I have to say that most of the paid editing I see smells spammy to me, but I have a pretty low tolerance. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

In case you didn't see this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kleenezplease I think an old acquaintance has found his way back here again - Schrandit (talk) 08:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see that, but it comes as no surprise. Thanks for bringing it to my attention Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to make clear...

... no slight was intended by my recent comments at User talk:Jimbo Wales, but I merely meant that the whole "legal advice" (actual or perceived as such) debate is usually fruitless and best avoided. Your comment seemed to be going in both of those directions at once. Some things are taken too seriously. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I cautioned Silver seren about their comment on legal matters for forestall one of those debates, not to encourage one. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

BLP violations

Please stop the BLP violations, as you have done twice now, at page Jamie Sorrentini. If you continue to violate WP:BLP, this disruptive behavior pattern will be reported. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 06:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, I do not see how this is a BLP violation and you have offered no explanation. Further, I feel that your threat of a block for adding a source used in other BLPs (and, what's more, added to articles including BLPs by you) is both over-reaching your admin powers and a clear indication of your inability to view objectively anything remotely related to Scientology. I suggest that if a block is forthcoming, you had best find solid grounds for it and find someone else to do it. Regardless, I won't take it lightly. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 07:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not threatening a block. I will not act in an admin capacity, as I am involved in this issue. But I will report you if you continue to flagrantly go against the 3:1 WP:RSN consensus, and continue to violate WP:BLP. -- Cirt (talk) 07:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Surely the appropriate solution to this dispute would be to wait for the RSN discussion to reach a consensus? If there is a genuine issue with adding the source to Jamie Sorrentini, it can be removed by someone other than yourself. Perhaps they will be able to explain how it violates WP:BLP as you seem unable or unwilling. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 07:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

In cases of WP:BLPs, we should defer to the 3:1 consensus to wait until after discussion has resolved before using questionable sources that fail WP:RS. -- Cirt (talk) 07:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Has it failed WP:RS? I thought that is what we were meant to be discussing. And when did majority rule replace consensus? That discussion has only just started. I find your aggressive actions in this episode disturbing. It would be nice if you would let things run their course without hyperbole, doublespeak, contradictions, and threats. In fact, it would be nice if you didn't keep typing things but never addressing any of my questions, so please don't reply here unless absolutely necessary. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 07:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- Cirt (talk) 07:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding this, it seems clear that this sort of issue falls under the remit of WP:ARBSCI. I am making no statement as to whether or not your edits are good or bad in this case, but merely notifying you that you are editing in an area under special ArbCom sanctions, and that by editing in this area, you find your edits under special scrutiny. You may be blocked without further warning, after this notification, should it be determined that you are editing tendentiously in the area of Scientology. Again, no statement as to whether your edits so far have met that description, but you ARE on unstable ground here, so tread cautiously. --Jayron32 08:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I find it unsurprising that the "special scrutiny" did not prevent the current situation from developing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it could have; if no conflict exists there is nothing to scrutinize. Its the presence of the conflict which generates attention. In any event, this is not a finding of wrongdoing, but merely a reminder of the environment in which the conflict is occuring. --Jayron32 15:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Please cease gaming the system

your current edits appear to be using multiple formats to attack a user in order to distract from the ANI rather than improve wikipedia. In your own words the edits you have done to the BLP and ANI are to back up my allegations of Cirt's anti-Scientology agenda. Coffeepusher (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The ANI thread is about Cirt's anti-Scientology agenda. Which you appear to share. Go away. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Delicious carbuncle. You have new messages at ResidentAnthropologist's talk page.
Message added 01:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

December 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on WP:ANI. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

AE notice

I have filed a report of which you are the subject, at WP:AE. -- Cirt (talk) 04:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Really. That should be interesting, don't you think? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban

Please see my comments [5] on the WP:AE thread about you. Per these findings, you are now topic-banned from all edits related to Scientology, including but not limited to an interaction ban against bringing forward any further Sc.-related complaints against User:Cirt. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm asking Future Perfect to reconsider since they appear not to be uninvolved.Griswaldo (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Since his response was no, I raised the issue at AN/I. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Inappropriate_discretionary_sanction_at_AE.3F. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I haven't yet had a chance to read through all the comments made in that "finding" or at related ANI threads, but I think some people, including yourself, are mistaken about some of the basic facts. It isn't surprising, given the chorus of Cirt's supporters drowning out the few reasoned responses, but I hope you will at least allow me the chance to set the record straight. You may not change your mind about the result, but at least you will have the facts. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle, please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Inappropriate_discretionary_sanction_at_AE.3F, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Potential_WP:CANVASSING_by_User:Cirt and User_talk:Elen_of_the_Roads#AE_query. Several people in these discussions have expressed the opinion that you should appeal the AE decision. The relevant arbitration remedy is Wikipedia:ARBSCI#Enforcement.

The process for AE appeals is ill-defined; I've been trying to write a Guide to appealing sanctions (see discussion Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration#Appeals_process_for_discretionary_sanctions), but this has not progressed due to Coren having been ill. If you decide to appeal, I would advise you to check with an admin, perhaps User:Elen_of_the_Roads, on which page and in which format you should launch your appeal, as this will affect your chances of success. Cheers, --JN466 12:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• Please disregard the above; I've just noticed that you're at AE already. --JN466 12:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I started to write something in the original request, but realized that a separate appeal would be more easily understood by editors who had not participated in the original discussion. Thank you for your support. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Quality improvement project

Delicious carbuncle, at Jehochman's user talk page, he made some very good suggestions to both of us. Namely, that we both try to move forwards collaboratively. I would like to try to make a good faith effort to discuss with you, here on your talk page or at my talk page, some of your concerns, in a polite and cordial manner. :) I would like to try to address your complaints - similarly to the way I successfully and collaboratively did so with Maunus at the article Michael Doven - an article you had complained about in posts to ANI and BLPN, which resulted in comment by Maunus, see edit summary: "remove neutrality tag - Cirt has argued well for the merit of included material". Further, Jehochman made an excellent recommendation to both of us - that together we try to work collaboratively to improve an article to WP:GAC or even WP:FAC potential. I would like to work with you on that quality improvement proposal - for the article Slaves of Sleep, considered a "classic" of science fiction and a book well-regarded and with positive reception of its author, L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology. I posted to relevant WikiProject talkpages about that quality-improvement-effort. Would you like to work collaboratively with me on this, to improve that article's quality status, together? :) -- Cirt (talk) 18:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Cirt, while I can appreciate Jehochman's suggestions and your show of goodwill in extending this offer, I must decline it for the following reasons:

• My concerns are related to BLP and POV issues, not Scientology. While working on an article about a book by CoS founder L Ron Hubbard may improve our working relationship, I do not think it is relevant to the issues I have raised. Perhaps we could work together on something completely unrelated to Scientology when this is resolved.
• I have presented evidence at ANI of a long-term pattern of POV-pushing and anti-Scientology activities because it is my sincere belief that you hold a bias that prevents you from fairly applying our policies and guidelines. I do no think it is appropriate or helpful to reframe this as a personal dispute between two editors which can be solved through discussion on your talk page.
• Having publicly raised my concerns, I believe it would be unfair to you if you did not have an opportunity to publicly rebut them. Your comments thus far at WP:ANI, WP:BLPN, and WP:AE appear to be attempts to limit discussion of the underlying issues rather than addressing them.
• You have stated that your reason for canvassing admins to impose sanctions on me at the arbitration request you started was due to your frustration over critical statements made by another editor. I cannot understand this statement to mean anything other than that you were deliberately attempting to limit discussion which was critical of your actions. I think this is both grossly inappropriate for an admin and indicative of your unwillingness to directly address valid concerns.
• Even in the article you use as an example of your successful collaboration with other editors on CoS-related articles, you are merely demonstrating your lack of perspective. On Michael Doven, a good-faith edit attempt to separate the subject's professional career from their involvement with the CoS was made by another editor after I raised it at BLPN. You reverted it. Although some of the fluff has been removed, the article is still larded with a truly ridiculous number of gratuitous references to Scientology and Scientologists (including a reference in the lede to "the younger sister of musician Beck"). The reader is given the impression that Doven's success is inextricably linked to Scientology. This BLP should serve as an example of why I feel that I must file a request for arbitration enforcement.

I regret having to rebuff your outreach and I hope you understand this is not personally motivated. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I replied at User talk:Jehochman. -- Cirt (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Jesus would you two either get a room and frack or else get in a cage fight and get over all this already? You have both been going at this for YEARS at this point. While entertaining for a while - it has since become quite detrimental to WP, and is like watching the demise of my marriage all over again. Feel free to delete - just making an observation. Srobak (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you have me confused with someone else. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Discretionary topic ban contemplated

You are hereby notified that in accordance with the provisions of Wikipedia:ARBSCI#Discretionary_topic_ban that a discretionary topic ban is contemplated in your case. The behaviours for which this ban is contemplated are outlined in this WP:AE archived section: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive76#Delicious_carbuncle, later overturned for lack of a warning. If you fail to heed this warning, you may be topic banned, initially, for three months, then with additional topic bans increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. ++Lar: t/c 01:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Acknowledged. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Re your latest AE thread

I would suggest that you withdraw it asap, pending sufficient actionable evidence of behavior after their recent warning was given. un☯mi 02:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I, err did not think that Cirt would actually do something like that just after getting a warning, nonetheless I think that Lar's suggestion of a cool down period is 'a good idea'. un☯mi 02:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Seriously

This is getting extremely unproductive and WP:POINTY.

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Any legitimate concerns about Cirt are now looking like the harassment campaign NOT like "legitimate concerns"