User talk:RobertRosen

Welcome

Hello RobertRosen, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of Contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.

Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Roleplayer Good luck, and have fun. --role^player 17:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National RTI Forum

Hello, I have reverted your changes to National RTI Forum, and request that you discuss further changes to the article on the talk page. The article went through the AfD process and was kept, in large part, because of the references I added. You've now removed them. By the way, I have no conflict of interest as you mentioned in the edit summary, because all I know about this group is what I've learned from reading reliable sources. Please explain why the sources cited are not reliable, as they are major professional journalistic sources in India? Also, please be aware that an external link to an organization's website is perfectly acceptable in an article about that organization. Please make future edits on the basis of consensus with other interested editors. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on my talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 06:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I edited to clarify that murdered activists were not necessarily members of NRF. References in a regional edition of a newspaper are still reliable sources. For example, articles in the Northern California edition of the New York Times are just as reliable as articles in the New York edition. The fact that an organization is regional does not make in non-notable. Many regional groups are notable. Lucknow is a big city. Distinctions between "association" and "trust" seem trivial, and you provide no alternate source. Long-term notability will be decided by history and reliable sources, not by your personal opinions. COI and sockpuppeting by the original author (then a new and unsophisticated editor) are irrelevant now that other editors are involved and that editor is inactive. Base your future contributions on reliable sources, please, and write from the neutral point of view. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 07:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoogroups

Please be aware that Yahoogroups is not a reliable source, as it has no professional editing or fact checking. Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources, and statements backed by reliable sources should not be removed without consensus. Please also be aware that the designation of a group as "small" or "large" is subjective, and that a group that some people may consider small can also be notable and eligible for a Wikipedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 07:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am perfectly aware that YG is not a RS. I was clarifying the context of the individuals behind the NRF as you alluded to, and considering the pending sock report. In passing, do you plan to respond to my other concerns for that article, especially the issue that the sources do not back the sweeping claims made about NRF.RobertRosen (talk) 08:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, RobertRosen. You have new messages at MikeLynch's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your recent edits

Hello, I have reverted some of your recent edits. The murders of RTI activists are well-sourced and provide context for the activities of the National RTI Form. Post-secondary education is appropriate for biographical articles - why is it uncyclopedic? I will be expanding the Amitabh Thakur article soon. Please discuss your concerns on the article talk pages, or on my talk page. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 15:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I will give you a few hours to have the opportunity to remove all material you've added that violates the neutral point of view. The court case is a primary source - it is not allowed. Blogs are not allowed. Spam is not allowed. Personal accusations are not allowed. Everything in this article mus be backed by reliable sources. Do not inject your personal point of view into the article. That is simply not allowed, and it will not stay in the article. Do not add material until you have the reliable sources to back it up. This is non-negotiable.

Immediately disclose any conflict of interest you may have regarding this article. Cullen328 (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should discuss this on the article's talk(discussion) page only. This will allow other editors to assist us better. You have also raised several technical issues. I perceive these to be "wikilawyering". I will have to research intensively the technical points raised by you, such as if citing the "reported" version of a court's decision qualifies as RS or not. As I have conveyed to you previously I am as equally concerned as you that the article should conform to all applicable Wiki norms especially 5P (and 3RR). RobertRosen (talk) 17:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Dear RobertRosen
Thank you for your message on my talk page. I am just a simple layman so I am not connected with NeGP in anyway. But I am interested in the subject matter and so I follow it closely. I am not sure I understand you correctly about your statement on stakeholder feedback on a draft electronic services delivery bill of DIT. I hope you can help me understand with a little elaboration. I am generally opinionated, so would definitely give you my 2-cents worth in whatever discussion you wish to have. Feel free to contact me via 'talk' page or email me from my user page. Look forward to getting more details from you.
abhishek singh (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I have read the article and its associated discussion page.

Namesake

I suspected as much :-) Do take care abhishek singh (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other matters

You are a very intelligent fellow, Robert Rosen, and you are introducing many new topics into the discussion. You may think that I am a fool, and perhaps you are right. When I was young, I thought that I was brilliant, and the older I get, the more humble I become. As for bishul yisrael, I am not an Orthodox Jew, but rather a modern one - a Reform Jew who tries to observe traditions that speak to me while embracing the modern world and all cultures. These concepts (bishul yisrael) have absolutely no relevance to my daily life, other than as interesting intellectual concepts worthy of encyclopedia articles. If I had written the article on the topic, I would be in a position to discuss it. If you were here or I was in India, I would be happy to dine with you. We would just leave pork and beef off the menu. As for the Naxalite insurgency, I believe that such movements have to be dealt with from the point of strength of a modern democracy - with firmness to combat terrorism but with also a political and social response where an open society is contrasted to fanaticism and sectarianism. It isn't easy. I mourn for the Indian police officers who have lost their lives in that fight as I mourn for the New York policemen and fire fighters who perished so heroically on September 11, 2001. As for the Indian caste system, I must confess that it mystifies me. Our social struggle for progress here in the United States is in exactly the opposite direction. Egalitarianism is the ideal of my social circle, but I am acutely aware that the wider world does not necessarily share my ideals. Enough for now - it is time for bed for me. Cullen328 (talk) 06:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jim, I am not a young person either, nor am I a Jew nor did I ever consider you to be a "fool". As part of my profession I meet many Israelis and I've stayed in Israel for extended periods. My user handle is a tribute to one of the 20th century's greatest thinkers Robert Rosen (theoretical_biologist). We learn from various cultures, I see you've experienced Ramakrishna, you could also research the one person he acknowledged as his superior (Debendranath Thakur) - unfortunately you wont find many RS on him. In wikipedia (as in religion) many things are taken on faith. Trust me when I say that these Thakurs (and their fora) are unworthy of our labours when the real ones await. Being aware of essays like this [1] causes one to question if we should participate in flawed processes (like Wikipedia) or shift the goal posts. RobertRosen (talk) 07:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arvind Kejriwal image

Hello, Can you please explain the copyright problem you've identified with this photo? The image is properly tagged with a free license. Also, there is nothing wrong with an SPA uploading photos. For example, if a company makes a truly notable product it is fine for them to make a freely licensed photo of it available. A portrait photo is preferable in every biographical article. Please explain. Cullen328 (talk)`

There is no evidence that the uploader actually created/owns the image in question or is in a position to assign the copyright. Also, there is also no evidence that the image was taken with the consent of Kejriwal. Wiki Image Use Policy: - "Along with a tag, specify the source or copyright holder information. Provide as much detail as possible." For instance it could be a copyvio of this copyright asserted image [2]. Your example about the company is apt - the company would own the copyright and could assign it away. RobertRosen (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is the statement "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide." It is signed by user Jaipuriar in 2006. In more recent years, Wikimedia projects have asked for more detail, but older licenses remain valid forever. Please restore the image, because I find it to be of encyclopedic value. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Policy "Always specify on the description page where the image came from (the source) and information on how this could be verified. Examples include scanning a paper copy, or a URL, or a name/alias and method of contact for the photographer." RobertRosen (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notwithstanding WP:IUP, the copyright of this image seems almost certainly to fall under the Indian Copyright Law ["Indian Copy Right Act 1957"] since the image was first published in India. Under this law, the copyright holder can only relinquish his copyright through a formal notice u/s 21 of the Act [3] to the Registrar of Copyrights which then notifies it in the Official Gazette. In other words a mere declaration on Wikipedia is not sufficient under Indian Law. I'm sure that "Advocate D.J.Jaipuriar" would confirm this. OTH, if Jaipuriar retained his rights but GP licenced it online, the licence would be in writing and "signed" by a digital/electronic signature issued by a Indian Certifying Agent under provisions of the Indian Information Technology Act 2000 which would authenticate Jaipuriar's identity conclusively (and this is something User:Abhishek can confirm). NB: Usually when a non-US Wiki editor points this out the argument eventually descends into "Wiki servers are primarily located in Florida and only US laws apply") RobertRosen (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

National RTI awards

Hi there, I have recently developed a new article related to RTI in India. It is National RTI awards. Given that you are a fellow editor on a similar matter, I was hoping that you can help me take a look at the article, improve it, give feedback or rate it, so that it can be up to the Wikipedia's high standards. It has already been edited/reviewed by one editor. I'd greatly appreciate your help. I agree that there's a serious lack of RTI related articles on Wikipedia and just like you, I am trying to fix that. Hopefully together we can do it a lot faster. Thank you in advance
abhishek singh (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, RobertRosen. You have new messages at MikeLynch's talk page.
Message added 17:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited India Against Corruption, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Baba Ramdev (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, RobertRosen. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.
Message added 01:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

_morelM W^illiam 01:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your WP:ANI entry

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. _morelM W^illiam 09:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel L. Akin

~~It looks like the other half of the tag team is following me around and will not let me again tag an article...Daniel L. Akin. Basileias (talk) 08:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

This looks taken care of. I may have error'd on this one. Sorry for the litter on your page. Basileias (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OWN

I know that you were trying to help, but this edit seems to me to be a breach of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. It certainly came across as saying that I should butt out. St Anselm (talk) 08:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your offer of a Third Opinion

Hi, you dropped this message on my talk page [4]. I thank you for the care and service you provide as a third opinion editor. However, I am not the one engaged in the conversation that requires your third opinion. The other two editors in the section that you are offering your opinion are the ones involved. Here is the user talk page to the editor that needs your opinion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ajaxfiore I noticed that you already contacted the second editor. Thank you for being a helpful wikipedia editor. Fordx12 (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I noticed your edit in the talkpage to the RfC on user conduct. What exactly to you wish for me to do? I have already began offering some sort of good faith gestures to RidjalA. I will respond in the article talk page as per your instructions. Fordx12 (talk) 01:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 2012

Hello, I'm Gwickwire. I noticed that you recently removed some content from La Luz del Mundo without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. You removed a very large chunk of the article. This isn't looked well upon here at Wikipedia. If you have a problem with it, or if it is directly copy pasted from a source, then you should edit it to make it not copyvio, not just remove all of it. I didn't see too many copyvio issues, so I reverted all of your edits. There was no reason to make over 10 edits removing chunks at a time from the article. If you have questions, reply here and I'll come answer. gwickwire | Leave a message 02:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After further review, I see you had come in as a third opinion on this issue. I can see nowhere that you tried to resolve the dispute, only that you went in and blanked anything you didn't feel was neccesary. That's not how third opinion here works. A third opinionater is supposed to resolve the dispute with a compromise everyone can agree with before taking action on the article. That clearly wasn't done here. I have advised other editors to take it to dispute resolution, and I stronlgly advise you to re-read policy before participating in any more 3Os. Thank you. gwickwire | Leave a message 03:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback - gwickwire

Hello, RobertRosen. You have new messages at Gwickwire's talk page.
Message added 14:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

gwickwire | Leave a message 14:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the dispute resolution community

Glad to have you on board. There are a lot of different personal styles for doing dispute resolution work and a great deal of latitude in how one chooses to go about them, so what I'm about to say is merely a suggestion. In doing Third Opinion work, could I suggest that a 3O has more weight when it comes from someone who does not get caught up in editing the article where the dispute is pending? For that reason, when I give a 3O — and I've given a lot of them, over a hundred — I generally either opine or edit, but I don't do both. As one particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." Just like that, jump in, bam offer a well-reasoned opinion, and ride off into the sunset. It seems to work: Somewhere around 75% of the disputes in which I offer an opinion either settle or stop. But other 3O'ers get more involved than I do and do good work too, so your millage may vary, as they say. Best regards, and thanks for your help, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you're correct, and one should be emotionally detached and do 1 or the other. BUT .. WP isn't the same place (or encyclopedia) it used to be .. so I'm trying to fine-tune a "Judge Dredd" approach which works on the C and low-B pages with 2 (or max.3) warring "bad" SPA type editors (the good ones wouldn't need to ask for a 3O). I would be in the other 30 as I want clean pages (not a temporary cessation of hostilities till the under-resourced UN peacekeeper goes away) and that can't be done by riding off into the sunset. PS: Is this connected to my 2 recent/ongoing WP:3 attempts, and do we need to discuss it ? RobertRosen (talk) 20:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More power to you and I hope it works. You may need to be more emotionally detached for that approach than for mine, as it will put you into the thick of things. But that's all good. One possibility you might want to consider is the non-3O. I do that occasionally, either when I think I may want to get more involved or when I've had previous dealings with one of the editors. I openly recognize that I became aware of the dispute when I saw it at 3O, but then go on to say that I'm jumping in as just another editor not under the auspices of the 3O project and am leaving it listed there in case some other 3O'er wants to issue a "real" 3O. That explains, if nothing else, why I'm mentioning 3O but not removing it from the list there, but it also makes it clear that my opinion or discussion "counts" towards consensus, since 3O's arguably do not (see the history here). That may be more persnickity that you care to be, but that's the way I am. Again, just FWIW, and glad to have you around, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback - gwickwire

Hello, RobertRosen. You have new messages at Gwickwire's talk page.
Message added 22:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

gwickwire | Leave a message 22:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "User talk:Gwickwire#recent_reversion_of_La_Luz_del_Mundo". Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 03:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Please do not attack other editors, as you did to La Luz del Mundo. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

RobertRosen, please note that Wikipedia:Single-purpose account indicates that "Many single-purpose accounts turn out to be well-intentioned editors with a niche interest", and that "a user who edits appropriately and makes good points that align with Wikipedia's communal norms, policies and guidelines should have their comment given full weight regardless of any tag." Hence we should assume good faith even if another account appears to be an SPA. Since WP:CIVIL supersedes all issues of NPOV, etc., please avoid using words such as WIKISCUM to describe any other editors. I hope we can collaborate to improve La Luz del Mundo. Λυδ α cιτγ 17:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Audacity. I have no problem with SPAs. What I do have problems with are SOCKs who abuse Multiple (unverified) User accounts to prevent neutral editors from doing their job (and wasting incredible amounts of time while f***ing bleeding heart editors go spouting rules and policy). I see you are an Admin. Please use your regular admin statistical tools (I'm not asking for a SPI) and see if you detect what I can with only the basic open source tools Wikipedia provides ordinary editors. FYI, I have already detected the master puppeteer on the page, but I had to go a long way back in time to sniff him out. This article is an abomination, and its a disgrace to Wikipedia that editors can get away with this. I'd really like to see if (not how) YOU can clean it up. Finally please don't preach the elementary rules of WP to me - I am a very long term Wikipedia user and NOT an editor here and I'm absolutely convinced that Wikipedia cannot be depended upon for more than, say, 0.1% of its pages. RobertRosen (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen any evidence for sockpuppetry yet (and as far as I know I don't have any special tools related to sockpuppetry), but if I do suspect something I'll ask for an SPI, and I'd suggest that you do the same. Or, per John Carter below, discuss your findings with one of the SPI clerks. In the meanwhile, there's no point to anyone making allegations which can't be proved without an SPI. Also, again, calling me or anyone else "f***ing bleeding heart editors" is uncivil and hence uncalled for here. Λυδ α cιτγ 22:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Audacity, you might want to keep a continued eye on this situation. I am a neutral third-party editor who was recently requested to take a look at the La Luz del Mundo article. I offered some general opinions and I made one change in the article, fixing a tagged section heading[5] after three other editors agreed with my proposed change. RobertRosen then objected to my change;[6] he did not offer any reason why he thought it should remain the way it was, but simply shouted at me for making the change before he had a chance to comment. I undid my change and asked him to explain his position. I urge RobertRosen to calm down, discuss the issues in a collegial manner, and stop throwing accusations around. I also urge RobertRosen not to respond to any Third Opinion requests in the future, since he doesn't seem temperamentally suited to it. The goal of the Third Opinion process is supposed to be to mediate, calm things down, and achieve consensus - not to immediately impose major changes and raise the drama level exponentially. --MelanieN (talk) 16:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN. I am also a neutral third party editor - please don't imply otherwise. I volunteered to sort out the mess at La Luz del Mundo when there was no other option AND after detailed discussion/talk with the 2 concerned SPAs. The 2 SPAs for that page Fordx12 and Ajaxfiore had added about 50,000 bytes of promotional spam to that page after it came off a 90 day block (being a low level page it had no outside editors except RidjalA). I cleaned up most of it. You yourself agree that the page content was way too excessive. What is wrong in saying that these 2 are SPAs for this page and its connected articles? They are self admitted SPAs and proud of it. Please don't disparage my WP:3 record. Except for this article I have a perfect record, and had I not been ganged up against by a clique of generalist editors supporting POV pushing COIed SPAs, this page would also have been sorted out by now. Finally, when I have inserted 3 fairly serious maintenance tags to the article, you cannot (and I repeat cannot) manipulate a fake consensus within 2 hours and without my participation when I am an openly declared MOST INTERESTED PERSON for the page. LASTLY, there is an ongoing WP:DRN for this article. Admin:Audacity has malafidely blocked me for 24 hours so that I cannot participate in that ongoing discussion. You had no business editing the LLDM page when the DRN is in progress. RobertRosen (talk) 05:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you can't currently post on the page Talk:La Luz del Mundo, could you explain here why you think the two section titles should include the phrase "Servant of God and Apostle of Jesus Christ" after the names of the two individuals? That was the issue which I changed, based on the opinions I had seen up to that time; I have now reverted the change waiting for your input. --MelanieN (talk) 17:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear MelanieN. I am being very unfairly targeted for trying to protect Wikipedia pages from vandals. I am being targeted because I have Admin rights at both Citizendium and Scholarpedia, and the quality of work I can do there is simply impossible at this crowd sourced collection of used toilet paper (aka Wikipedia). You have 25 year old kids fresh out of grad school being given out Admin rights. Since I am permanently barred here till I recant and withdraw my "potential legal threats" (which means till Hell freezes over), I am unable to contribute to any of those articles like LLDM in a meaningful and rational way (ie. by consensus with neutral and competent editors and not the bunch of POV pushing SOCKs who have infested Wikipedia). If you have time, please review my block appeals below - I really can't believe how bureaucratic this place has become, it seems that every nobody in Real Life gets their rocks off misusing the virtual dildos billionaire Jimmy Wales is dishing out to his unpaid slaves. If you want to know the secret at Wikipedia its this -- deliberately encourage a big bloated downmarket "cult" encylopedia with as many upaid acolytes as you can find slaving away - put a few puffed up admins and clerks over them - KEEP THE DONATIONS AND WIKI LOVE rolling in so that Jimbo can afford his 5 private jets - Oh and we can call Jimbo "Servant of God" or the "Apostle of Freemasonry" or whatever. There's no difference between LLDM and Wikipedia. RobertRosen (talk) 20:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try one more time. On the specific question of the two section titles: you objected to my change, so I reverted. Please answer two questions: Are you of the opinion that "Servant of God and Apostle of Jesus Christ" should be included after the names of the two individuals as part of the section titles? If so, could you please explain why? --MelanieN (talk) 04:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And for the last time, I'll say that I don't discuss on personal talk pages but only the article's talk page with ALL involved editors. Any competent editor would have seen that I have already given my considered opinion 4 times on the questions you have asked and on article page itself. Here are the diffs [7], [8], [9], [10]. RobertRosen (talk) 07:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the diffs. They seem to consist of removing the entire history section, titles and all, as "fluff" or similar description. Since your "considered opinion" is that the entire history section is fluff, I take it you do not object to my removing a small part of the fluff. I will go ahead and do that. --MelanieN (talk) 15:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear MelanieN, sarcasm will get you everywhere at Wikipedia. I am in no position to object as you can very well see. I very strongly urge you to use open source tools like [11] please fill "en.wikipedia" in the first box and "La Luz del Mundo" (case sensitive) in the second to see what has been going on with that article especially in Sep/Oct/Nov 2012 with those 3 SPA editors. There is simply no point in politely removing 1 or 2 bits of guano when all the pigeons are crapping there. RobertRosen (talk) 05:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not being sarcastic, and politely removing bits of guano is still a net improvement to the encyclopedia. --MelanieN (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fordx12 and Ajaxfiore between them added 50,000 bytes to that article in bucketloads and you are helping them remove it with a teaspoon ? Excuse me while I snigger into my (blocked) sleeve. The only way to deal with massive SPA POV-pushing like this is with a direct firmness. I hope you've seen that the 2 of them are still EXPANDING the LLDM article. Don't let the reduction from 73,000 bytes to 65,000 bytes throw you off - that only went in cleaning up the text buried away in the references. Those 2 know that most of their refs are bogus and SPS (for example the entire "mural" refs they use to puff up their Architecture section). That's why Ajaxfiore did this [12]. MelanieN, you need spunk to fight such bad-ass editors (and you don't have it) !!! RobertRosen (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Tools

I regret to say that although I have a lot of tools as an admin, I really only became an admin to work on protected templates, like WikiProject banners, and that, and only a few other things are about all I've ever really done as an admin. This, honestly, is something well outside anything I've done before, having not dealt with that many multiple account editors, and I have a very strong suspicion that anything I do could be seriously flawed and possibly counterproductive. Sorry, but I'm almost certainly the wrong person to ask for something of this sort. User:Dennis Brown or one of the editors at WP:SPI/C would probably be in a much better position to deal with this.

On a side point, I have started to go through some of the information on databanks, and have found a rather significant amount on the LLDM from them. A lot of it is in Spanish, and a lot of others look like strictly local stories in some areas, but I would be more than willing to forward what I can find to ou if you were to give me an e-mail address to send them to, particularly if you know how to speak Spanish. I don't. John Carter (talk) 20:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for personal attacks such as [13], [14], [15]. Please follow WP:CIVIL with ALL other users, and please avoid calling other users sockpuppets, barring the results of an investigation.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Λυδ α cιτγ 17:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

RobertRosen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The specific allegation against me is that I "called" User:MorelMWilliam a sockpuppet barring the result of a WP:SPI. This is incorrect. I did not call MMWilliam a sockpuppet. I called him an "an incorrigible sock who has regularly continued to disruptively edit and abuse several editors besides me after being unblocked." This was in a discussion on WP:ANI where the matter was being discussed with numerous Admins (some of whom had threatened to block the abusive MorelMwilliams for NPA). On an Admin Notice board WP:Reformed does not apply, and I can speak freely especially when I am the accused in a false Check-User request on WP:ANI brought by a previously confirmed Sockmaster User:Manorathan who admitted right away to Admin:GiantSnowman he had no basis to call me a sock. After the baseless WP:SPI initiated against me was immediately reverted by Admin:GiantSnowman, MMWIlliam perversely launched an abusive and WP:TE attack on me. It is relevant that you Admin:Audacity did not participate in that WP:ANI although it was open to you to do so. In the same WP:ANI thread I had already provided (3 posts above that) to Admin:BWilkins the WP:SPI investigation details [16] in his case and his continuing bad/abusive behavior with editors besides me thereafter [17], and also his 3 blocks on 16.may.2011 and 31.may.2011 by 3 separate admins for disruptive editing. As MorelMWilliam is a confirmed sockmaster (under a new name) who has thereafter continually harassed me by simultaneously initiating 4 vexatious WP:DR appeal processes (WP:ANI, WP:DRN, WP:BLPN, WP:RSN) where he has been extremely argumentative and abusive, and he has stalked and harassed me to allow him to vandalise the Aruna Roy article with copyrighted, contentious BLP text from a particular non-RS source which he insists on reinserting. The text is defamatory personal information about Mrs. Aruna Roy concerning her parentage, religion, family, and marriage and divorce/separation etc. and is not properly sourced. MMWilliams has also made several sexually inappropriate comments to me. When I repeatedly told MMWilliam yesterday that I would not discuss these matters with him, he immediately published information which could threaten my life/identity in the Real World on his talk page and deliberately reinserted it when I undid it. Hence the block should be lifted (and as an Admin knowing these facts it is your solemn duty to immediately permanently ban User:MorelMWilliam from wikipedia). I also urgently need to participate in the ongoing WP:DRN for La Luz del Mundo which is now opened to comments as you well know. RobertRosen (talk) 3:05 am, Today (UTC+0)

Decline reason:

Regardless of the previous block reason, you advise below that you are currently involved in DMCA takedown proceedings against Wikipedia. Per WP:NLT, you may not edit Wikipedia until the DMCA case is resolved. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Note continuing personal attacks ("a clique of generalist editors supporting POV pushing COIed SPAs") above. Λυδ α cιτγ 07:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was a direct response to "I also urge RobertRosen not to respond to any Third Opinion requests in the future, since he doesn't seem temperamentally suited to it". Since it was in the context of LLDM, why don't you also join in on the ongoing WP:DRN discussion (from which you have blocked me from participating). PS. I had reported this matter to Aruna Roy's office and am drafting up a formal DMCA for them as I believe that Wikipedia is arrogant and unresponsive when it comes to protecting BLPs of non-US (ie. second class) citizens.RobertRosen (talk) 07:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see that NAC have finally made it to Wikipedia [18]. As Wikipedia has blocked the official IP addresses of the Indian Govt servers from editing - "View Source", I advised/assisted them how to go about editing - sometimes stupid rules are meant to be broken. So if Jimbo Wales's page is "defaced" it gets reverted in under 1 minute [19], but notable Indians being subjected to libelous WP attacks have to hang around for hours if not months. Mr. Admin: This is going to look very good in our future motions. RobertRosen (talk) 07:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

RobertRosen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

There is no DMCA or NLT on at the present time. I reported the long-term BLP violations by user MMWilliam to Aruna Roy's organisation and they are now taking part in Wikipedia's Dispute Removal processes on the WP:BLPN notice board [20]. I also clarify that my usage of the term "our future motions" refers to prospective appeals/DRs on Wikipedia between me and Admin:Audacity. I may also add that despite initiating 4 separate WP:DRs on the same incident and not getting any consensus in his favour, MMWilliams is still hell-bent on vandalising (with disputed/controversial BLP text repeatedly removed by several other editors besides me) the Aruna Roy article with nobody to stop him. I would also like to assist them (NIC) in the WP:BLPN process as they are new to it and are already making all kinds of mistakes. Hence also this appeal to be unblocked. RobertRosen (talk) 09:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This unblock is still clearly a legal threat - one that is intended to chill the discussion or editing of an article or set of articles, thereby either preventing others from editing it. That behaviour is reprehensible on Wikipedia, and the legal threat requires us to protect the project from your actions (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'm leaving the unblock request for another administrator to respond to, but it's worth noting that a) your claim that you are advising Aruna Roy's office regarding DMCA proceedings still constitutes a legal threat, whether proceedings have been started or not, and b) I have just had to block User:Arunaroy for this related legal threat at the BLP noticeboard. For the record, I take no stance on the validity or otherwise of any such DMCA proceedings, nor on the content of the article, but the fact remains that you are not permitted to edit Wikipedia whilst such legal threats still stand. I have also therefore increased your block to indefinite - when the legal issue is resolved, you will be able to be unblocked. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

RobertRosen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

As an editor at Wikipedia I have always stood for proper observance of Wikipedia Rules and Policies such as for pages connected with Right to Information Act and its associated personalities. Unfortunately, harassment by a disruptive and abusive confirmed sockmaster in the last 10 days got under my skin, and caused my usual equanimity and calm to be disturbed and washed out my past 5 years of good work at Wikipedia. *I can definitely state there is no legal process or legal threat to the Wikipedia project that I know off. *I can definitely state that I have not disruptively edited at the Wikipdia project. *I can definitely state that I understand the reasons for my being blocked and shall endeavour not to repeat them. RobertRosen (talk) 13:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkuser confirms that you have become a sockmaster since your block. Given your comments, you knew this was against the rules. Per use of accounts listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RobertRosen, your request for unblock is declined. Courcelles 06:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@UserCourcelles. I did not become a sockmaster. What I did was to set up a VPN tunnel so that Aruna Roy and/or her office could edit/complain at Wikipedia (since wikipedia has blocked their IP range). This VPN was set up before I was blocked. The VPN code is running on my server (hence will have my IP address in Wikipedia's server logs which was never concealed in the X_HTTP_ADDRESS_ACCEPT (although I could easily have done so by clicking a checkbox)), the exit points are random TOR nodes (also used by proxys). Its a very standard block of code to edit at Wikipedia - freely available in the public domain to those who can search it out and it took me under 5 minutes to install. RobertRosen (talk) 09:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You recognize that WP:TLDR and WP:NOTTHEM are going to kill the above request, right? Why not re-read WP:GAB and amend it? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks will do that. RobertRosen (talk) 13:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two other points. Calling oneself an "exceptional editor" can reasonably come across as being indicative of possibly excessive ego, and shouting by the use of all caps in any section is not the best indication to support the claim of being an exceptionally good editor (I'm assuming that what is meant by "exceptional editor") or even an indication of being particularly familiar with conduct guidelines. There are other ways of emphasizing text, and I would assume that you have at some point been informed of them. Persisting in conduct one has probably already been advised against is not a very positive sign. John Carter (talk) 18:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John. Would appreciate more tips. RobertRosen (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stay

While the current circumstances are non of my business, I would reconsider your course of action. I would consider a recant if it can mean closure. Loose the current battle to be able to fight later. Scholarly editors are sorely needed here and while others may take your contribution lightly, I consider my brief interactions with you anything but lightly. No, your participation is here valuable and loosing it would just be bad, bad, and more bad. Loosing you is a win for the POV pushers. Basileias (talk) 01:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bas, don't grieve. One thing about goodness is that it is as pervasive as evil. For every tree that falls another 10 will grow from its roots. WP rules work both ways, they power the good editors as much as they cloak the bad ones. As shakespeare (william) said about a certain rose, whats in a name. Go with God. RobertRosen (talk)