User talk:CltFn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Bat Yeor[edit]

Responses:

  • Please desist with your insinuations.
  • My edits regarding Yeor's departure from Egypt have to do with a prior discussion as to the most neutral way in which to present the material.
  • The last thing this article needs is to have Yeor's scholarly credentials "proven" by assorted neo-conservative sources. She's an historian; that should suffice. CJCurrie 06:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
1) This prior discussion you cite had nothing to do with Bat Ye'or's scholarship.
2) Your use of the phrase "assorted neo-conservative sources" raises further questions about a pre-existing agenda editing the article. Its not an insinuation , its you own words.
3) The citations provided meet Wikipedia standards as for Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Citing sources , thus irregardless of your opinion, her scholarship is a supported by published , verifiable and reliable sources. --CltFn 12:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding reversions[1] made on December 21 2006 to Bat Ye'or[edit]

Regarding reversions[2] made on December 21 2006 to Bat Ye'or

Octagon-warning.svg
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 48 hours.

Please mark your reverts as such in future - use "rv" in the edit summaries. If you are in doubt as to what is a revert, pease read WP:REVERT.

William M. Connolley 20:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've extended this block to indefinite per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Community_ban_for_CltFn. Dmcdevit·t 10:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Why are you doing this DmCdevitt??, I discussed by edits on the talk page of the article in question here.
I requested page protection of the article here
I offered compromises to my edits and added references as requested. Did you actually look at my edits carefully to establish what actually was going on on the page before making such a drastic decision as to block me indef? Look at the Bat Ye'or edit history page
Have you checked the value of my contributions to wikipedia against the alleged disputes I have been involved with?

--CltFn 17:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Conditional unblock?[edit]

I'm considering unblocking you, but it would be conditional on something like 1/7R, strict civility and extensive use of talk pages for controversial edits.

But I can't quite see why you would prefer that to simply getting a new account; if you stuck to the above, you'd be in no trouble.

Reply here.

William M. Connolley 19:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks William Connolley. I accept the terms you propose; ie 1/7R, strict civility and extensive use of talk pages for controversial edits. As far as a new account, I did not know there was such an option but in any case I would prefer to continue editing as CltFn even if it is somewhat a more challenging road for now.--CltFn 00:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
OK William M. Connolley 13:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh - also: this section needs to stay on your talk page; and (I presume this must be obvious) this is your last chance William M. Connolley 13:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
OK agreed.--CltFn 13:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Reminder: this needs to stay here; the conditions remain.

In particular, you appear to have broken the 1/7 RR constraint [3], [4] and failed to mark reverts as such.

William M. Connolley (talk) 21:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked[edit]

I've blocked you for 24h for violation of your unblock parole. Based on talk, I don't think youve been strictly civil. You've clearly broken 1/7 RR William M. Connolley (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


John Esposito and Bat Ye'or[edit]

Stop hand nuvola.svg

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced defamatory content into an article, as you did to Bat Ye'or, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. I refer to your campaign against John Esposito in the article, talk, and edit summaries ("shill for the Saudis", wording which implied he was personally "a recipient of a $20,000,000 endowment from Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal of Saudi Arabia", etc) which has been ongoing for over a year now. <eleland/talkedits> 15:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked again[edit]

I've blocked you for violation of your parole. You are required to use the talk page to discuss controversial matters; all reverts are controversial. All reverts must be marked as such William M. Connolley (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


Blocked again, 48h[edit]

You're blocked for clear violation of your parole; [5] William M. Connolley (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


MfD nomination of User:CltFn/Sudden Jihad Syndrome[edit]

User:CltFn/Sudden Jihad Syndrome, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:CltFn/Sudden Jihad Syndrome and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:CltFn/Sudden Jihad Syndrome during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. --User:Crotalus horridus (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2008

Indefinitely blocked: Long-term Abuse[edit]

Stop x nuvola.svg
You have been indefinitely blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. To contest this block, please email me or place {{unblock|your reason here}} on your page, including an explanation why you feel you should be unblocked.

Block rationale: Long-term abuse of wikipedia policies with user being blocked on and off since 2005. User was previously indefinitely blocked by User:Dmcdevit with the block summary stating "Exhaustion of the community's patience for repeated edit warring and blocks". He was then later unblocked on conditions set by User:William M. Connolley. Since then he was reblocked 3 times by the same user for parole violations (two of those blocks being a month ago). Since then he has continued to try and perpetuate political smears on the Barack Obama article using tags as weapons. It is my belief considering the long-term abuse by this user and the fact that he was given the opportunity to redeem himself after being indefinitely blocked by another admin that the community's patience is now exhausted and that the user is a net detriment to the goals of Wikipedia.--Jersey Devil (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

CltFn (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribscreation logchange block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

I did not violate any wikipedia policy, I was blocked for while participating in a discussion on Barack Obama's talk page which is hardly a valid reason for blocking.Would someone please show what violation of Wikipedia policy was commited in the discussion? Also cited is that I put a dispute tag on that page per wikipedia policy to point out that there was a content dispute about a section of the article, again hardly a reason for blocking. I re-iterate that I did not violate any wikipedia policy, instead the blocking admin is essentially citing my block history to indefinitely block me, apparantly prompted by his own partisanship towards Barack Obama as shown by the POV description of my edits in his block rationale and comments on the Barack Obama talk page [6]. My block history is used by the blocking admin , on the assumption that it is valid, a supposition which may not be accurate. What I am really guitly of? I am guilty of presenting sourced material that does not agree with some other editors, some of whom go to great lengths to get me blocked from the site for not other reason that they believe this to be their best way to prevent the inclusion of content which does not suit them. Why did I get blocked so often one might ask? Its because I normally edit very controversial topics and in the my early wikipedia history I would more easily be get ropped into reverting a revert of my edits, but I have since grown past that. Unfortunately some editors still play dirty and purposefully try to get accounts whose edits they do not like blocked. In closing , I respectfully request that this indef block be lifted as it has no merits and is an example of a partisan and excesive use of blocking powers--CltFn (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


Please include a decline or accept reason.

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.

|decline=Decline for now, pending results of ANI discussion below. Looking at the block history for this IP, there has been a long history of abuse; blocks have been done by a wide range of admins over a long period of time. I see no good faith here. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)}}

For anyone else looking at this, I'm opening a thread on ANI. This user is a long time contributor and purely on that basis, I think this needs to be more than just a unilateral decision. I'm doing this completely without prejudice - in other words, I'm not saying that there is anything right or wrong with the block - I just think based on the history that it needs to be reviewed by more than a few pairs of eyes. --B (talk) 03:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you been through any WP:DR?[edit]

I noticed this, and wondered if you've simply been blocked by admins or if something else happened. While I'm not exactly a supporter of everything you wanted to add to Obama's article, you were at least discussing the tag you added, which shows good faith to me. Anynobody 06:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No I have not been through any WP:DR I was having a nice civil discussion on the Barack Obama talk page, albeit on a rather explosive topic judging by the general response of some editors I was debating this with and out of the blue I get indef blocked by Jersey Devil after he appears to have been steered in that direction by one of the editors I was having the discussion with. --CltFn (talk) 08:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Something weird happened to my previous talk page post, you may want to go through yours and see if the anon did any speaking for you. Anynobody 22:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The noose is already around your neck, please note this![edit]

Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Controversial_block_needs_review The noose of an indefinite block is already around your neck. While RFA's often have the question "what is the difference between a block and a ban", if you are indefinitely blocked, it's not much different from a ban from the blocked user's perspective.

There has been some opposition to your indefinite block. B is neutral. Yahel Guhan and ThuranX are opposed. In the interest of compromise between these editors and the editors calling for your permanent block, I will unblock you on a trial 7 day basis. Your edits during the next 7 days may be reviewed. If they are not productive, I will not intervene any further and an administrator will likely block you indefinitely (forever). Guidelines for productive edits include trying to use neutrally worded phrases, use reliable sources for all edits (especially since you will be under scrutiny). Archtransit (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I have read through the ANI you pointed to and noted the concerns voiced by the various admins I appreciate the magnanimity of this offer and will adhere those guidelines .--CltFn (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The best thing you can do is to be patient. Don't create a sock. This will harm your case. Your case has not yet been settled. Be warned, however. I am more interested in the process of how and why we ban editors than your edits. Archtransit (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the efforts to resolve this situation. I will keep your suggestions in mind and keep abreast of the ANI discussion. --CltFn (talk) 10:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Your block has been reinstated. The discussion on AN/I continues, despite the fact that you have clearly exhausted the patience of many administrators I apologize (and I'm sure others would agree) for the confusion surrounding your block/unblock/reblock and any future actions. Avruchtalk 01:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

OK understood.--CltFn (talk) 10:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
More effort is being spent about you. This is rare in WP. It's easy to forget about you and leave you bleeding like a injured animal in the road. I don't support you but I support your ability to defend yourself or express your opinion. Please be patient a little longer. Do not create any socks in the interim. This will only hurt your case. Archtransit (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks once again for your help on this. --CltFn (talk) 04:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible proposal[edit]

This proposal is made to you, not the community. Do you want the opportunity to be conditionally unblocked and be allowed the right to respond on ANI and/or DR and/or ArbCom? This courtesy is commonly allowed. I don't guarantee that I'll do it but denial of your request would look bad on the one who does.

If you do, consider clarifying which of the edits between 28 December and 17 January are in dispute and why you made them, why you are sorry, or what you promise to do in the future. If I were you, I would request conditional unblock to respond and wait a few days to contemplate a response as your wikipedia life depends on it. Be prepared for several people who will be opposed to giving you the right to make a statement. Don't depend on me to write your statement as I am not interested in being your advocate. Archtransit (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes of course I would accept a conditional unblock . The edits you refer to , I assume are on the Barack Obama article. I made them to present information in regards to Obama's early childhood religious background. that in my view was not adequately covered in the article , thus I took up the task. I made sure to fully cite the information to reliable, verifiable and reputable sources. This was clearly a sensitive topic for some editors, some of whom heavily contested any mention of the topic. The debate which ensued on the talk page seems to have led to some drastic measures being taken with the block and I have now been excised from the discussion.
This is just totally out there. CltFn, if you have responses you wish to make to the ANI discussion, you can post them here and an admin will copy and paste them over to ANI for you. What Archtransit has told you above is just not true. You're not entitled to unblock to defend yourself and it won't look bad for anyone who declines to unblock on those grounds. I'm sorry you've been hit with all this incorrect information but I'll watchlist your page and if you wish to make any comments in your own defence, post them here and I, or another admin, will move them for you. Sarah 22:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Sarah. The whole topic of blocks and unblocks is in itself seems to be a controversial one with diverging opinions being voiced amongst administrators. --CltFn (talk) 04:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

--CltFn (talk) 04:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Unblock for an ArbCom request is customary. For others forums, it is a courtesy. Neither one is to be abused. However, don't rush into ArbCom. Archtransit (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid you are mistaken about many things including the above. We have had many ban discussions with the editor blocked and there have also been many ArbCom requests made with the account under a block and the blocked user has either sent their statements to a clerk or posted them on their userpage for an admin to transfer. Same with community based sanctions. Additionally, I have never suggested arbitration for this user, I have, however, suggested arbitration for you for gross and incompetent misuse of adminship. Sarah 02:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)