User talk:R.stickler

We need transparency

Why, I hear you ask.

September 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "R.stickler", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it looks like a pun on "arse tickler", which is a well-known joke subject. If you believe that your username doess not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. --Boson (talk) 12:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly did you think was wrong with my username? I couldn't see any mention of "joke subject" in the policy you referred to. R.stickler (talk) 18:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to "joke subject" was to indicate that wordplay on "arse" enabling deniable use or implication of the word "arse" is well-known in English humour, e.g giving the false name "R.Sole", "R.Soles" etc. - or the well-known English joke about the "pick-up" line "Tickle your arse with a feather?" (where the speaker can later claim to have said "Particularly nasty weather!).
So the username looks like it is a pun on "arse tickler", which would potentially violate username policy, since it would be a de facto reference to an offensive word, as explained at Wikipedia:Username policy:

"Note that usernames that are inappropriate in another language, or that represent an inappropriate name with misspellings and substitutions, or do so indirectly or by implication, are still considered inappropriate."

--Boson (talk) 22:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Martinvl (talk) 00:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Since you seem to enjoy templating everyone, I'm going to slap this one on you. —cyberpower ^Chat_Online 01:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely a fair representation of my work, but thanks for the welcome, at least. R.stickler (talk) 06:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you edited under other accounts? NE Ent 10:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't have any other accounts. R.stickler (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outing

Would you please read WP:OUTING before attempting to post this again. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please take note that your recent edits have been suppressed. Martinvl (talk) 19:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Censored you mean? Are you denying that you have a serious question of COI to answer? R.stickler (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As stated previously, please familiarise yourself with WP:OUTING and the policy on harassment. Continued violation of relevant policy may result in loss of editing privileges. L Faraone 19:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it, and do not believe that anything I have done, so far, contravenes it. Please explain if you think I am mistaken. R.stickler (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why my attempts to point out the COI of an editor is being so heavily censored. At no time have I contravened WP:OUTING. R.stickler (talk) 20:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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 the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Unfortunately, you continued, and I had to rev-delete your edits again and block your account from editing. WP:OUTING and WP:HARASS clearly state that if a Wikipedia user never publicly identified themselves with a real-life person, any attempts to do so will be considered as outing. Martinvl was very clear on the fact that he is unwilling to disclose his real-life identity. If you still insist that his activity is dangerous for Wikipedia, you should write to arbcom. But presumably you need to have another administrator to review you unblock request first - assuming, of course, you want to file a request.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never asked for or attempted to disclose anyone's real-life identity, just that they were editing under a COI. How should I pursue that fact then, if I can't raise it anywhere? R.stickler (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:COI#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest is relevant here. L Faraone 20:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read that and followed it to the letter. And never "outed" or even attempted to "out" anyone. R.stickler (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked for an offence that I have not committed. I have not asked for or tried to find or reveal the true-life identity of anyone. All I have done is ask an editor who I know to be a member of an outside organisation to confirm that he has a COI (in compliance with WP:COI), and have applied the appropriate "Connected contributor" template to some of the articles involved. Wikipedia should not be used to promote the goals of outside organisations - should it? Let me also reassure anyone reviewing this that I have no intention of posting on public Wikipedia the evidence that links the editor with the outside organisation - because to do so would reveal his identity and I do not want to draw attention here to that. My only interest is that his COI be honestly revealed so that his contributions can be assessed in the light of it, as per WP:COI. I am however, prepared to disclose the evidence to nominated trusted parties if requested, although I was hoping that the editor would make the necessary disclosure so that would not be necessary.

Decline reason:

The very next section of the policy you are quoting in your unblock says this "Wikipedia places importance on the ability of editors to edit pseudonymously. When investigating COI editing, the policy against harassment takes precedence and requires that Wikipedians must take care not to reveal the identity of editors against their wishes." You have harassed this editor in an attempt to get them to reveal their identity against their wishes. Until you agree never to do it again and that you have a very clear understanding of this policy, you'll remain blocked. And even then, I suggest that any future admin reviewing this unblock request also check out your editing habits. Your consistently personal remarks about others, of which makes up most of your editing, is not what Wikipedia is about. v/r - T P 14:01, 14 October 2013 (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.

Ymblanter, WP:COI recommends asking the editor on their talk page about a suspected COI, so why have you censored my attempt to do just exactly that? R.stickler (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ymblanter, WP:COI recommends adding the "Connected contributor" template to affected articles, so why have you censored my attempt to do just exactly that? R.stickler (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You did once, and it was clear that the contributor is not willing to respond. Then you did again, and were warned. Then you did for the third time, and you were blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I asked, yes, but I was never warned about asking for that confirmation - if you think I was please show me where. WP:COI doesn't specify a limit to the number of times - does it? Either way, why did you completely remove all trace of my request from his talk page history - the request did not contravene any rules? The reason you gave was "Non-public identifying or personal information" which is clearly untrue - please justify that action.

And what about the other allegation that I outed or attempted to out anyone - where did that happen? R.stickler (talk) 20:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ymblanter, please review your reasons for the censorship of my postings, none of which contravened WP:OUTING. If you disagree please provide a supporting rationale. R.stickler (talk) 11:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I opened earlier the topic at WP:AN and I expect some developments later today.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, at least. Will you now take the honourable action and give me the benefit of your doubt over your own action, and unblock me in the meantime. If it is later found that I should have been blocked for outing, even though I have never outed anyone, and don't intend to out anyone, then you can block me again. As it stands, I remain unable to edit, for no supportable reason, and through no fault of my own. R.stickler (talk) 12:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I would rather wait for the second opinion, and I obviously disagree that you never committed anything blockable.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, for the sake of clarity, what blockable offence did I commit? If you still think I contravened WP:OUTING, please state who I outed, and explain in what way I outed them, given that I intentionally did not provide any detail that could be used to personally identify them (even though I do have such detail available). R.stickler (talk) 12:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TParis, this is getting ever more incomprehensible. Have you read everything I have written above? Can you view the contents of my edits that Ymblanter censored? You can see with your own eyes that I haven't asked any editor to reveal their identity - ever. Not that I would have needed to in this case as the editor in question has freely revealed their own identity. All that I have done is ask them to disclose their COI (not identity) in editing certain articles the way they have. And as I have already made it abundantly clear above, and will re-state it here: I have NO intention of revealing the editor's identity here, or anywhere. This is even though he has already revealed his own identity publicly here before. I was merely asking, as per WP:COI, for a statement of COI - nothing more. R.stickler (talk) 14:52, 14 October 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have read the WP:COI policy through again and realise how my attempt to investigate a COI may have been thought to have crossed the line into the realms of harassment. However I maintain that I made every effort to take care not to reveal the identity of any editor against their wishes. This was despite the fact that the editor that I was questioning, and whose identity I was protecting, had already revealed their own identity elsewhere in Wikipedia. Clearly if I had wanted to reveal the editor's identity I could easily have done so, but chose not to, and have not. For these reasons I hope you will understand that my actions were in no way an attempt to get the editor to reveal their identity against their wishes. I do certainly agree that I will never attempt to get the editor to reveal their identity against their will. I also believe that I have a very clear understanding of this policy and hope you see fit to allow me to edit again and to help make Wikipedia a better and more neutral experience. Perhaps, if I am allowed to edit again of course, someone with some experience of these matters will be able to help me to correctly investigate the COI that is a big concern to me, and hopefully achieve a satisfactory result all round. I am very sorry for the trouble I seem to have caused here. R.stickler (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I've looked through your edits, and my conclusion is that you overstepped the line. In this context, I'm declining your appeal to be unblocked. PhilKnight (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2013 (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 chose not to accede to demands about my real life made by somebody who I do not know and who was acting from behind a cloak of anonymity and therefore somebody whose real motives were unknown to me. Initially I ignored the demands but R.sticker did not take the hint – instead he started plastering banners about me on articles on which I was working, including one which is currently being assessed as a WP:Good Article – an assessment which, amongst other things, checks for compliance with WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. Moreover his editing pattern suggests to me that he set up a WP:Single purpose account with the main objective of harassing me.

If the administrators see fit to allow this appeal, I request that R.Stickler be banned from interacting with me. Martinvl (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Martinvl, please rest assured that I have no interest in your real life and had no previous knowledge of you before I encountered your work on Wikipedia. My enquiry on your talk page was purely to establish whether you realised that you had a serious COI between your activities inside Wikipedia and your activities outside. My intention was to alert other Wikipedians of your undoubted COI. Your edits, refusal to compromise on metric system related issues and single-minded POV pushing led me to explore some of your earlier edits on Wikipedia. [removed] I can also assure you that I have no interest in interacting with you other than in a civil and collaborative manner as necessary to forward the noble goals of Wikipedia. Please accept my apologies if my actions have caused you any unnecessary anxiety. R.stickler (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is sock of User:DeFacto NativeForeigner ^Talk 02:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So where do we go from here? Is it worth the effort trying to escalate the appeal, or is the table too heavily tilted against me now? I thought the schoolboy humour attack on my personal name yesterday was bad enough, something I have not suffered since reaching adulthood, but now I see that an anonymous coward has daubed some kind of in-joke, a slur no-doubt, on my homepage.

Seriously now, am I banned forever because I drew attention to a serious source of POV-pushing? What avenues are open to me that are likely to be worth the effort pursuing? R.stickler (talk) 06:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BASC and the cessation of socking. NativeForeigner ^Talk 07:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]