User talk:Steve espinola

I think your version is great Mmmmmmbo

---

Can you please explain your edits to Biff Rose? They appear to express a negative POV towards the person. -Willmcw 06:55, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

For willmcw

I think its high time you stopped trying to rearrange my words. The information contained on the biff rose site colelcts the pertinent info. It is not a billboard for his achievements, but an overview of his career. I think records that were pressed and sold are of worth. Ones that were not around in copies more than fifty or a hundred are not. I've interviewed Rose, I know which ones sold and which ones didn't. You can beef up a discog with murky details, but it won't help the whole wiki crowd. Stop being bullheaded, and agressive, because though you've been given power through edits, you have also become that which you supposedly fight against. You are not allowing the newer versions of this piece to come to life, but instead are so closely guarding the information disseminated from within that you have become like a fascist. Terrible!!!

Why do you delete the number of "Carson" appearances? Why are you deleting the name of his biggest song? What does it matter to you if the records sold 10 or 10,000 copies? Do you have some personal animus towards Rose? Please note that your personal feelings, and your personally-obtained interviews, should not be used to influence the article. It's a biography, and should present a comprehensive picture of his life. It's not a place to gain revenge on someone you don't like. -Willmcw 20:21, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I've copied this discussion to the talk:Biff Rose page. -Willmcw 23:29, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Any info deleted was moved from prominence to more esoteric reading of it, to make the article read better, and have a decent flow. That Rose was in Time magazine once in 1965 is not of note. That he wrote a song that was covered by both Tiny Tim and David Bowie is. That that song was co written Oscar winning musician Paul Williams is important. Also of note, it should be mentioned that Rose has disavowed the Williams connection in several interviews, until in late 2004 on his own website's message board he admitted he was falsefying William's own involvement in the song. But a small 200 word blurb in time 50 years ago is not of worth. As for Rose's appearnaces on Carson, there has been no reall connection with the amount of times Rose officially appeared on the show, and how many times he taped performances. He alleges, himself, that he appeared on the show 12 times. Producerss from the Tonight show remember him being on with much less regularity. Therefore, a distinction, to leave out embrassment, would be something like, "Rose appeared with some level of regularity on the tonight show in the end of the decade." Of note> Rose was banned from any more performances on the Tonight Show because he refused to cut to a commercial break during his last performance, reciting a poem he often claimed as his own, which in fact was a poem by Paul Newman's uncle, Joseph Newman. This was chalked up to Rose's irrascible nature. I think it is important to notice to, the anger that first rears its head here, and then seems to pop up, on the record he did in 73, and beyond, to his later self released recordings where Rose is heard calling african americans niggers, and making fun of the jewish religion, citing Hit5ler as a genius, who clearly had a vision. Willmcw is trying to keep the previous words someone else wrote about Rose being a child molester, which were clearly vandalism. I did not write that, and the anti semitic sentiments attributed to Rose are very easily found in his records and his websites. Willmcw is a vandal and works against my own edits in a nasty and un wiki fashion.Steve espinola 00:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Greetings

Greetings and welcome to wikipedia. Please excuse the rude treatment you've received from the administrator who has engaged most of your attention thus far. He has a bad habit of disregarding Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, especially where a newcomer has made edits to an article or subject he deems to be his territory. You should not let a hostile reception deter you from participating here and I hope you will stay. While editing I encourage you to review Wikipedia's policies and guidelines located here. Please make a good faith attempt at abiding by each, and if you believe that another user you have encountered is not doing so a proper recourse is to inform him/her of it. Thanks and welcome once again. Rangerdude 23:54, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that this is a new user. -Willmcw 01:45, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

A hunch that somebody's a returnee, absent clear proof, is no basis to harass him or her. Unless you have proof and are prepared to make a case of it, please assume good faith. Rangerdude 04:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not harassing anyone. I came to his talk page to ask him to not delete material from an article. The fact that he is using a different username today didn't seem like sufficient reason to call out the welcome wagon. But you go right ahead if you like. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:09, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Revert warning

You are in danger of violating the three revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. -Willmcw 23:46, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

REad this

Willmcw, I understadn yo uare trying to avoid vandalism, but by manipulating this site into your view you promote FASCISM.

MY edits are good on the subject of Biff Rose.

Look at his website, research his recordings. Time magazine has written numerous articles, are these mentioned in other wiki posts... NO. So why here?

As for Rose's self released recordings, I did a favor to you by listing them. Are Other performers non accesible recordings listed? NO.

Do a better job editing and less of one POlicing because you stink at it.

Redirect

The article at Biff rose is improperly-titled because it is not capitalized correctly. Please leave it as a redirect to the properly-named article. Thank you. -Willmcw 04:38, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

What the?

Hey, why are you reverting my edits and removing the photo of Biff Rose? I found a separate article on the same topic (where you seemed to be the main author), incorporated the main points from it in an attempt to mege them. Someone later redirected it. Why are you deleting my additions? Marcuse 18:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

However much I abhor racism, anti-semitism, etc. I think that whatever Biff Rose currently espouses seems more like it should be taken with a grain of salt. Not quite the same as David Duke. I have no problem with these things outlined in his bio, but it should really not have the form as something showing a personal point of view. It seems like the way the article was, was fairly balanced, showing both old and new aspects of the artist. And let the quotes and links speak for themselves. Why did you remove all that other stuff which you deem extraneous, by the way? Having the name of some songs and collaborators seems rather harmless. But anyway, I don't really have any particular agenda in the matter, I just don't like random deletions of what I write. Marcuse 19:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey man, you have got to get a more broad sided view of the reality. what your writing only proves that you are a sock puppet for the Rose crew, and that you are unable to realize that wikipedia is a group process and that your words will be eidted no matter what, it's the nature of the beast. If you don't like the process move to some other site that protects your version of relaity as the truth. Good luck finding that place, brainiac.Steve espinola 22:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)Steve

Username

Someone created a user page for you claiming that you were "a vandal who had a beef with one of the real Steve Espinolas". I've deleted it. Best wishes, Meelar (talk) 20:44, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

---

It was at User:Steve espinola, with the content "Steve Espinola" is the name of at least four real people. The Wikipedia user calling himself "Steve Espinola," however, is a vandal who has a beef with one of the real Steve Espinola's.

signed,

A real Steve Espinola, Brooklyn, NY."

It was created by an anonymous user. Best wishes, Meelar (talk) 21:04, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Can you verify that your name is really "Steve Espinola"? There is a well-known singer by that name. Another user is claiming to be him and claiming that you are impersonating him. This is similar behavior to someone who used the name user:Biffrose though he apparently was not that person. -Willmcw 21:37, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I can verify I am Steve Espinola, can oyu verify that I'm not?Steve espinola 22:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC) Steve Espinola

There is a famous Steve Espinola. There my also be other Steve Espinolas. Are you claiming to be the singer? If not then would you please make a note that you are not that Steve Espinola so that no one will be confused? Thanks, -Willmcw 22:27, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I'm officially confused. All I did in this was to delete a version of User:Steve espinola which had been vandalized into an attack page against you. As for the content of your disputes with other user(s), I can't comment. Best wishes, Meelar (talk) 22:41, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Reply to Biff Rose

Hello, Steve Espinola. I've protected the Biff Rose page until the dispute can be settled. I don't know who is right/wrong, but remember to keep in mind the non-point of view policy. If he is generally known as an anti-semitic, then that could be mentioned. Also, I've removed the picture because it seems doctored/fake- Hitler obviously wasn't around in 2004. Finally, keep in mind WP:3RR- this rule applies to everyone. Thus, please try and solve out this dispute. Once you do, you can contact me or another [[admin|admin]], and we can unprotect it. One final note- you may also wish to try WP:RfC, where you can garner input from the Wikipedia community. Hope this helps! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 23:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

P.S. What listing did you see my name on?

Do not hide evidence of a dispute

Please stop deleting material about an ongoing dispute over your editing behavior from this talk page. Selectively deleting warnings and questions is a sign of bad faith, and is against guidelines on proper user talk page behavior. Wikipedia:User page#What can I have on my user talk page?. -Willmcw 23:57, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I think you are making trouble willmcw, and have reported you. You keep harrassing me and accusing me of doing things I have not done. PLease examine your behavior, in regards to me, and adjust it. Steve espinola 00:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

to willmcw- YOU ARE HARRASSING ME> I've alerted other wikipedia officers so you should leave me alone. Rememeber, w3rr, willmcw. Leave me alone.Steve espinola 00:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Your note

Thanks for your note, Steve. This is the first I've heard of this dispute, so I have no idea of the details. I can tell you that Will is a good editor and responsible admin, so if he has a concern, it's best to be as cooperative as you can. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:15, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Hello again, Steve. I'm sorry you feel discouraged. Please understand that we have to deal with a large number of vandals, trolls, and troublemakers of various kinds, and so when a doubt arises about someone's intentions, we have to act on it. The best way to deal with this, from your end, is to assume good faith of Will, and offer him whatever cooperation he needs from you to help him sort it out. I can assure you of his goodwill and integrity. Perhaps you could drop him a note and offer to help him get to the bottom of it? That's likely to meet with a positive response. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:52, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Problems with other users

Steve - Thanks for the note regarding the problem you are having. I encountered much of the same as what you describe with Willmcw when I first started editing Wikipedia, and he still tries to agitate against me from time to time. As far as dealing with it there are a couple of things you can do and strategies you can try. The first suggestions are things I would try right now, then if the situation becomes unbearable you can proceed to the later ones.

1. If you see him violating a specific Wikipedia policy from the link I sent you earlier (e.g. if he's personally attacking you) go to that policy's page, quote the passage that he's violating, and post it to the article talk page with a polite reminder. Knowing Willmcw, this probably won't stop him any and he'll either proceed right ahead or switch to some other harassment technique. It will however establish that you've attempted to work out your problems by approaching him directly, and if he doesn't respond it will establish that the uncooperative behavior is on his part. Knowing the rules and having them on your side is a big plus even when he's not acknowledging them.

2. When you make edits to articles that he is challenging you over document your sources ad nauseum. This is very easy to do - you simply put the link to the source in between two brackets at the end of the sentence you've added. He may still delete your work, but deleting valid sourced material is frowned upon much more than if it were unsourced. Also, use the "edit summary" section to link to applicable wikipedia policies if he's violating them.

3. If he makes hostile, inflamatory, or abusive user page comments toward you don't worry. Let them stay up as evidence for the whole world to see! It's unfortunate that this is sometimes necessary and can make a mess of your user page, but often times that sort of stuff hurts him more than it'll hurt you. Plus you can always clean up the mess he's made at a later date once the conflict is resolved.

4. Now, if he start's stalking you there are a couple of actions you can take. I haven't had a chance to review your recent interaction with him, but my own experience is that one of Willmcw's favorite harassment tactics is stalking. He will never acknowledge it if you point it out to him, but there is ample precedent that stalking other editors on wikipedia is an inherently disruptive practice and a bannable offense (see here). In fact, shortly after I joined Wikipedia Willmcw began stalking me at length. I eventually documented him doing so at over 40 different articles. One way to counter this is to start making a log of all the different articles he's stalked you to and post it in a sandbox page off of your own user page. Link to the diffs of each stalker edit he makes by placing them in brackets on a list and describe them. If experience is anything, it probably won't deter him much but it will keep a log of all the evidence of his behavior together in a place where he and any other wikipedia editor can use it.

5. If things get really bad with him, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution may become necessary. Take this step only if absolutely needed, and when doing so make sure you've built a solid list of evidence including (1) links to the edit changes where he's violated policy, (2) links to the policies he's violated, and (3) links to posts you've made to him attempting to inform him of this or curtail his harassing behavior. When you've got these three things it is also normally a good idea to find an experienced wikipedian out there who can back you and certify your complaint - e.g. another editor who has been active in the discussions on an article you're experiencing problems with and who agrees with your position opposite of Willmcw. When you've got a second person to do this you can file a "Request for Comment" against him citing the policy violations (See WP:RfC for instructions). This is a tricky and involved step to take, but sometimes it becomes necessary.

6. If you file an RfC there are a couple of things you need to be aware of. First, per explicit policy, Wikipedia does NOT operate as a democracy...but some people including the editor you're reporting problems with act as if they think it does. One feature of the RfC is that it permits other editors to review the case, make recommendations, and endorse the side of one participant or the other (if you file an RfC he also gets to respond to it). This feature has both upsides and downsides. The good part is that often times you will attract the attention of a genuinely concerned editor, who will then go to the article where the problem exists and actively assist you in working it out. The downside is that the RfC board is often a hostile place. There are trolls who hang out around it all day and more or less flame anybody who files an RfC with personal attacks on you for simply filing it (even though they're not supposed to do that). These editors have no genuine interest in solving problems and simply lurk there to stir up trouble and exacerbate the situation. If you encounter one about the only thing you can do is ignore them or respond. Also, since your dispute involves a well known administrator with many friends on wikipedia, it is very likely that several of his friends will come to his assistance and cast what they perceive to be "votes" endorsing his position regardless of the facts or merits of your case. To give you an example, I've filed an RfC against Willmcw before providing clear evidence that he was intentionally disrupting article content by slipping in quotes by David Duke - as in the KKK guy, who is entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia for obvious reasons - and several of his buddies refused to acknowledge it because of who he was and because of their friendships with him. The typical response was something not unlike what you seem to have received from one such friend of his, as in "I know Willmcw and he's a good editor, so he couldn't possibly break the rules like you say he has!" That's where the issue of Wikipedia NOT being a democracy comes into play though, because no matter how many friends and cronies he can round up to cast what they think are "votes" in his favor, those people almost never contribute to resolving the dispute itself. They'll either show up, cast their "vote" and leave, or cast their "vote" and linger making intentionally incendiary remarks about you for "insulting" their friend by calling out his policy violations. The real value of the RfC is gained from the editors with a genuine interest in honestly evaluating the case and resolving it, and those are the people you should pay attention to and actively work with. Even if he can round up 50 of his friends to claim that he's a great guy who never breaks any rules, all you need are two or three supportive or even neutral editors who extend a hand in good faith to help you with the problem. After all that's what a request for comment is about - it's not a "request for a vote" but a request for other editors who will come comment on your case in a way that helps you find a resolution.

7. If an RfC doesn't stop it the next steps are mediation and arbitration as described on the dispute resolutions link. I won't go into the details here of each process beyond noting one thing you should be aware of: mediation and arbitration both have conflict of interest provisions. That means if the mediator or the arbitrators involved in your case have a personal allegiance to Willmcw (which very well could be the case since he's an administrator and has several administrator friends) you can ask for their recusal there.

I hope this helps some and if you have any further questions or would like an opinion on a specific case where he's giving you trouble don't hesitate to ask. Good luck - Rangerdude 02:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

One more thing - if you encounter an administrator or other editor with strong personal allegiances to Willmcw and he/she insists how great an editor etc. he is, take it with a grain of salt. As an editor with a long history of disputes with this particular user, I will readily concede that he is skilled at contributing to wikipedia and has done some good things here. But he is also a troublemaker from time to time, and can be a very malicious one at that. Harassing newcomers and stalking are the most notable examples of this. His worst qualities appear in anything involving politics. He has strong personal political beliefs and is hostile to those different to them and especially anything opposite (and he and I are more or less political opposites, hence our difficulties). He also reacts the same way on some non-political topics that he's staked out as his territory or personal interest. So while he's done some good for wikipedia and while some other editors genuinely consider him an asset, you should be aware that personal loyalties and internal politics within wikipedia are also at play here. If he treats you in fairness and with civility it's perfectly fine to respond in a friendly and civil manner and I'll even encourage you to do so. But he is capable of less than friendly behavior as you have probably figured out, and the best thing to do there is to point out the applicable wikipedia policies, all the while remaining civil about it yourself. Rangerdude 03:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Jacobin Club

Your recent edits at Jacobin Club, inserting frivolous headings, are at least perilously close to vandalism. You are wasting people's time when you do things like this: I don't like being left to clean up after you. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:33, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

The above statement is ridicuouls. The offending section read-Ch-ch-ch-changes, and was a heading over tpop a paragraph describing change in the Jacobins. I reverted to appease this angry non sense maker. But I have nowhere been near vandalism and to accuse blindly as such is defamation. I've reverted and will revert to the copy edit I made, with noted change, becasue it is a strong edit.Steve espinola 05:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I had no idea the amount of anomosity I would face on Wikipedia. This is obviously because of the improper allegations of Willmcw.Steve espinola 05:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Willmcw has now been found on a completely different edit of mine, changing it- Master of Landscaping Architecture. article

Willmcw again

Precisely the reason why Wikipedia may change the structure of its nature, is because of the editors like willmcw who, rangerdude above so deftly points out, has made himself a respected editor on the haunches of abusing others, someitmes bashing them into submission. The baseless claims that I'm a sockpuppet are nothing but attempts to make me seem unworthy to the site. If willmcw succeeds, we have let another fascistic vandal infiltrate the freedom of speech that this site so excellently represents. It saddens me to no end that this editor has such a short scope that he can only try and push his point of view, and then abuse a new member of the site. That willmcw is such a micromanager of his personal edits, it would seem that he would garner more citations of abuse, but he has apparently kissed up to the right people, and now found himself in a position of power, which he then abuses, by labelling members with sentiments they are then hard fought to get out from underneath. By labeling me as a sock puppet he makes his own star shine two fold, first by 'indentifying' an un wiki like type, and secindly by establishing his own version of events as the more factual. This is a shameless tactic, that is used in political campaigns and the like, wherre one party will make up a story and then slather it over the image of the competing party. unscrupulous and unsavory behavior such as this, sadly gets results because people tend to believe what they read. So her I am presenting the facts. I am not a sock puppet, I have written factual edits based in the lyrics and messaqges on Biff Rose's website. Beyond that particular entry, my edits are based in cleanup, as I like to make things flow better. Certianly, some of the articles I cleaned up were only mildly so, because they needed very little attention, mostly just formatting help. But willmcw makes it appear as the copy editting and rewrites I've done matter not. This type of recrimination is harmful in a few ways. First my edits are then thought to be suspect so the work I've done to better the site is for naught, secondly, I spend more time writing these long explanations of where I'm coming from rather than working with the community on new edits, and thirdly by making it difficult for new people to use the site properly. Hopefully this will alert some people, and I have alerted advocates, though I've been hesitant todo so, because as rangerdude points out so elouently, in the above posting, many of the advocates are friendly wiht willmcw and will blindly take his side of the disagreement wihtout even going over the facts and notes. If that is allowed to happen then this site has failed its mission and no longer is a Wiki orgnaization but merely an edited encyclopedia and should advertise itself as such, isntead of a wiki experiment. The very idea of wiki is whaqt attracted me to the site in the first place. I find the subterfuge that willmcw has enacted to be a side effect of much of the technological advances we have seen in our very recent past. The internet troll is something that often causes more danger than an actual stalker, because many of these so called trolls also possess stalking and hacking skills, and use thse against one, vandalizing and creating mayhem along the path others travel. These sorts of things can be combatted, but much like internet worms and trojan horses, and of course the actual viruses, one hundred more pop up when one is killed. The tenacity of willmcw says nothing of his own honesty, and instead speaks to his character. He is unwilling to be challenged and therefore causes trouble for anyone who disagrees with him, having manipulated the system into giving him a postion of power, which as I have stated, he then abuses. I hope whoevrer reads this understands I have done my best to write honest edits, and work within the wiki rules as stated, and hope that willmcw is at the very least chastised for his behavior, and issued a warning against doing so again.

the below is an example of vicious and libelous name calling. I have made worthy edits, that have made Willmcw has disagreed with and is now making libelous denoiucnements against me. He lacks proof and is using techniques that are illegal on WikipediaSteve espinola 06:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I haven't called you a vandal, I told user talk:Jonah Ayers that deleting material can be vandalism. I have called you a sock puppet, and I think you have picked this particular username to confuse other people, just as you used user:Biffrose previously. I think that you are also user:Dearth vader, who made grossly fraudulent edits in order to disparage Rose,[1][2] and another edit attacking user:Sojambi Pinola.[3] I think you are also:

• user:216.175.116.151, user:216.175.121.239, user:216.175.116.198, user:Biffrose, user:Jonah Ayers, user:Varg Virkennes, user:Bad apple, user:Mmmmmmbo, user:Efrim walzer, user:Steve espinola, user:Peace through superior edits.

Most recently, I think you are user:Peter Pie who added a photo to Biff Rose just 3 minutes after you uploaded it with this username.[4][5] I think you have some particular vendetta against Biff Rose, and have been deleting his achievements while adding unsupported and libellous accusations about him to this encyclopedia, and while attacking anyone who attempts to defend Rose. -Willmcw 05:58, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

SLANDERSteve espinola 07:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

PS: In addition, you apparently are running down the category or list of Wikipedia:Cleanup articles and either just removing the tag or making unhelpful contributions. My admittedly-bad faith assumption is that you are trying to rack up edits in order to appear more involved in the project than you are. -Willmcw 06:19, August 10, 2005 (UTC)-- This is SLANDER07:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)Steve espinola

Total BS, I've added and extracted info, copy edited the articles, man, you have launched a vicious smear campaign and it's terrible.Steve espinola 06:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...unclean articles

It seems as though I am in a revert struggle with you :-/ I spent *hours* migrating articles needing to be cleaned since September 2004 to the new system and yet 4 articles thus far have you deleting the cleanup tags unnecessarily and more. If it weren't for willmcw, I'd have to revert a lot more. — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 16:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Not so, I've actually worked on those aticles. fuck you.

The Brooklyn Steve Espinola says:

"Chad", "Dearth Vader", "SE", "Jonah", "Varg", whatever-who-cares, get a job. Help the homeless. Do something useful. Stop messing up people's good work. It is incredibly unlikely that TWO people with my name are connected with Biff Rose. You have taken on this fake name to attempt to needle me, en route to messing with Biff. You're a transparent vandal, using a simple pattern of reversals (accusing other people of each thing you are doing). The more you write, point fingers, and mess up people's edits, the more obvious you are. We can't all take the place of your neglectful parents. Get help. Signed, a guy who has been called Steve Espinola in day-to-day life much longer than you, pen name 21:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

yes. and one other thing, don't mess about at my website.Sojambi Pinola