User talk:SpigotMap/Archive 3

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

Your behavior is not acceptable, please change it

Hello SpigotMap,

I just recently saw your comments on Talk:Bong, specifically when relating to the popular culture sections of the article. Regardless of the content policies, you may not engage in conversations with the other editors in the manner that you are. For instance, the following are directly in violation of WP:CIVIL:

This IS an encyclopedia, go somewhere else with crap
How about YOU obtain consensus before
so an argument of other crap exists is not valid.

My suggestion is that you immediately stop using crap as an adjective to describe anything on the Wikipedia and instead refer specifically to your objections with particular pieces of source material. Additionally, you are not welcome to set ultimatums on a talk page, such as this one: Any and all pop culture references not consistent with the content policies verifiability, no original research, and neutral point-of-view will be removed by me within 240 hours of this posting or on sight, whichever comes later."

As a member of the Wikipedia community you are required to cooperate with others in a manner that does not cause tension. Failure to abide by the community principles after warnings will result in your getting blocked. I personally suggest you go back to the bong talk page, strike out your remarks that are offensive, and appologize. While this is not required of you, it would go a long way to showing you are prepared to work as a member of this community with in it's guidelines.

Also, take a lesson from yourself on your own talk page: Please do not use such an aggressive tone on my talk page. Thanks SpigotMap 09:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Don't use aggressive language on any wikipedia page, ever.

If you have any questions about this, please leave a message on my talk page. Triddle 20:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I will continue to stand by my view that trivia sections are crap. Am I being uncivil against trivia sections? Anyways, I didn't set the ultimatum, some other editor did. I will continue acting the way I do towards the other editor involved as long as they keep harassing me. Thanks for visiting! SpigotMap 03:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
SpigotMap, this is a very poor approach to rectify this situation. To reinforce the importance of following the community guidelines I have opened up a case at Wikiquette alerts. Obviously you can not be uncivil towards a completely abstract concept (the concept of trivia sections) you are however being uncivil towards the other editors. You have been warned, I'm confident you understand the warnings, and the next time I see uncivil edits by you I will block you with out further warning. Please change your behavior for the both of us. Triddle 15:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: DSLinux

Do you care to explain how you constitute adding an unreferenced tag to an article with no sources vandalism? Maybe you should refer to wikipedia's policy on good faith and civility before you begin making such accusations. SpigotMap 03:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you care to take a moment to consider that I made an honest mistake. I didn't see that you added the unreferenced tag, all I saw at the time was '''Bold text''' added to the end of the article. Gh5046 03:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Slow down there, cowboy. I admitted to it being a mistake. Try applying that policy of good faith yourself. Gh5046 12:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Two day block

Corney? YES! Effective? DOUBLE PLUS GOOD!!!!!! Note how your actions fail every single step of this flowchart.


I have blocked you for 2 days due to persistent uncivil edits by you. I've been monitoring your behavior over the past couple days and while you did stop engaging in uncivil conversations on the Talk:Bong page, you just moved to other uncivil edits in other places. In addition to your uncivil behavior, you have used and quoted Wikipedia policy and guidelines in your edit summaries as justification even when ignoring other policies and guidelines in the process. Since you are behaving as if you understand the policies, are still engaging in uncivil edits (such as edit waring, failure to make edits in a way that would diffuse the situation, and not attempting to engage other editors to resolve disputes), I have come to the clear conclusion that you are gaming the system. As well, you did not go back and strike out your comments on the bong talk page and I have seen no other indication that you are attempting to integrate into the Wikipedia community.

After your block expires you are welcome to edit the encylopedia again however you may not continue your uncivil edits and you must become a member of the community (follow it's guidelines, etc). For what it's worth, I generally agree with your changes however that doesn't matter because you must obey the community guidelines when making them and your content is not under dispute here, your actions are. My suggestion to you is that you have an Wikipedia:Editor review done on yourself and you specifically surround yourself with, and spread as much of, Wikipedia:Wikilove if you wish to further participate here at Wikipedia. Triddle 16:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you care to provide me with diffs for uncivil edits? I think you are in the wrong. Just because I'm not nice, doesn't mean I'm not civil. I can't have an opinion in an argument? I haven't called anything crap, I haven't called anyone names or put anyone down. SpigotMap 17:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, sorry for calling vandalism crap. Next time I will be sure to call it by a less negative name, and apologize to the vandaliser. SpigotMap 17:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
This is a beautiful example of why I think you are in this situation. I have repeatedly offered suggestions to you on how to rectify this problem here and you have not done a single one of them, instead, engaging in the same behavior you have engaged in the entire time, which has got you where you are. Change man, just change. Start changing your behavior. Seek review on yourself, the people here are good at it. As for providing you diffs, no, I do not care to. Why? Because you are extremely difficult to get along with. If you weren't, you wouldn't be blocked. I'm interested in keeping Wikipedia functioning well as anyone else here should be as well. Because of that, I have specialized in things, as others have done as well. What you need are the people who specialize in difficult editors; they will be able to offer tips and advice on how to deal with others. Unfortunately for Wikipedia not everyone is good at that task, and neither am I. Look at the community portal to find all of the resources available for community help. Also, do not expect a response from me in the future, as the other members in the community are better off helping you now. Triddle 17:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
You have not offered suggestions, you left me one message stating I would be blocked if I continued being, what you consider uncivil. You will not provide examples, I have done nothing to not get along with you. You are down right rude and a bad administrator. I want to be just like you one day. SpigotMap 18:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Then I suggest you start here: Wikipedia:Appealing_a_block and see what the rest of the community has to say about it. Triddle 21:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Indeed, it's unfair to claim an editor is being incivil, and then not provide any pointers to such incivility. In fact, it's incivil.

Request handled by: jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see this thread re unblocking. Triddle 17:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Please stand by as I contact the blocking admin. Sandstein 05:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Please see this thread left with Sandstein per request and prior to Jpgordon unblocking. Triddle 17:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Reblocked, 3RR violation


You are being reblocked, specifically for a WP:3RR violation (which is itself a violation of WP:CIVIL) on DSLink:


Please read this prose, cut and paste from the 3RR policy page (emphasis mine):

An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time. Any editor who breaches the rule may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours in the first instance, and longer for repeated or aggravated violations. The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an electric fence. Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive.

You have a fresh block for 3RR - now you have another, even longer one: 7 days. Triddle 16:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you want from me? To leave Wikipedia? You are being multiple times more incivil then I've ever been. Stop crying because you can't get your way. I was fairly unblocked, and you've unfairly reblocked me for something that isn't an issue. SpigotMap 17:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Instead of arguing about how it should be fine to engage in edit/revert wars and uncivil conversations on talk pages, you could try stopping those activities. Instead of fighting tooth and nail to avoid participating in the community, you could try actually participating in it. If the world was perfect you would act with some grace, accept some feedback from others, accept that you won't be perfect and can change, and would become the perfect model of an editor on Wikipedia. To be honest, I just want you to act with the rest of the community in a manner that is more conducive to creating an encyclopedia. You are putting more value on the output of the process here at Wikipedia than you should be. At Wikipedia, the output is a product of the community guidelines - they do not change in an effort to create a better output. Triddle 17:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
You should act with grace as an administrator. Instead of getting mad when someone unblocks me then digging through my contribs just to find another reason to block me. I have not broken the 3RR, you are only trying to find a loophole to block me. Where did you bother to warn me for breaking the 3RR? That is an inactive now, You should have blocked me if it was an active edit war, not 2 days later. SpigotMap 18:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I find this to be further evidence that you are in fact gaming the system. Blocking is used to protect Wikipedia from disruption. You are correct that you should have been blocked during that revert war, just as you should have been blocked the first time you got blocked for revert waring. To assume that you will only be blocked when you are caught in the middle of a revert war involves a very naive assumption about how flexible the policies of Wikipedia is for admins (this is probably what leads to the feeling of the admin cabal). You are being blocked because you are disruptive across the entire Wikipedia - this includes multiple talk pages and multiple articles. You were blocked for the 3RR because the last admin unblocked you because I didn't specify a specific enough reason for the block; the period was extended to 7 days because you had a block for the exact same thing only a few days before, showing in my opinion that you do not wish to change your behavior. Your comments, such as I will continue acting the way I do towards the other editor involved as long as they keep harassing me and "Stop crying because you can't get your way." tell me fairly conclusively that your behavior still hasn't changed and still won't change, leading me further and further away from removing this block, and quite probably is doing the same thing for other people reviewing this case as we speak. Triddle 19:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? I was blocked for the same exact thing a few days before? The only blocks I have had recently are the first one you set and the second one you set when you didn't get your way. Care to point out this mysterious other block? I made no edits between your 1st and second blocks except thanking the admin. SpigotMap 20:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Any admins reviewing this be aware this admin is lying. My past 3RR block was 3 months ago and was an all out edit war, which stopped after the block. I haven't even broken the 3RR rule this time, and I stopped after this guy blocked me. He continues to call me uncivil but says things like I'm gaming the system, he's thinking about not removing my block, etc, when he infact is just angry that his block was lifted. And you expect me to be nice Triddle? You're being completely rude. You need to go away and let some other Admin handle this. Obviously you have something against me personally and perhaps you need help from the community, not me. SpigotMap 20:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It is in the block logs, I'll just got ahead and paste the entire blocklog now:

    • 09:57, October 14, 2007 Triddle (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "SpigotMap (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Three-revert rule violation: repeat violation, warned about civility inbetween, will not change behavior or seek further community feedback) (Unblock)
    • 08:26, October 14, 2007 Jpgordon (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked SpigotMap (Talk | contribs) ‎ (Vague reasons given)
    • 09:46, October 13, 2007 Triddle (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "SpigotMap (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (after warnings and explanation user continues to make uncivil edits and disrupt the editing process for others) (Unblock)
    • 18:15, August 9, 2007 Wimt (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "SpigotMap (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Three-revert rule violation: at Pokémon: Lucario and the Mystery of Mew) (Unblock)

See that last entry? The one that reads August 9, 2007 Wimt (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "SpigotMap (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Three-revert rule violation: at Pokémon: Lucario and the Mystery of Mew) (Unblock) That looks like a block to me. Triddle 20:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I made that last entry and it was an edit conflict with SpigotMap's edit, so I put it after his. I didn't realize it was Aug, not Oct, so I was in error there. However, regardless, there is still a case of pervasive disruption I believe. Triddle 20:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for admitting you were in error. Now, if you just settle down we can settle this as adults instead of getting mad and extending an unjust block. SpigotMap 20:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to let the community process decide if I was in error or not. The difference being, this time, the reviewing admin seems to be doing more than just reading your talk page. Triddle 20:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see this thread and this thread for information on the previous unblock requests (see also this section for the block originally in question). Triddle 17:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm looking into this now. SQL(Query Me!) 18:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
My conversation with User:SQL is here: User talk:SQL#SpigotMap. Triddle 20:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry! I meant to continue that conversation, but, I had to run into work sort of on the spur of the moment :( SQL(Query Me!) 02:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

A week long block for a questionable call of 'gaming the system' is punitive, especially when the reverting had stopped.

Request handled by: Sam Blacketer 21:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Can I advise you not to pursue Triddle about this matter, and not to edit DSLink for a while? Your conduct there in removing significant chunks of text was disruptive even if it did not break the three revert rule. Sam Blacketer 21:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, in my own defense. It seems an admin should not block people for removing content on an article in which they have listed on their own user page as a page in which they have made "Major contributions". This seems to be in violation of WP:COI. SpigotMap 03:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Mmm, no. An admin is most likely to see problematic contributions on articles they have contributed heavily to. If they are exerting ownership, that's another issue, but it would be kinda silly to require or expect admins not to act on admins in the areas they are the most familiar with. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

User Page

Can someone revert my user page please. SpigotMap 18:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Until(1 == 2) got it... SQL(Query Me!) 18:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

=Like a Boy

The tattoo list is sourced. The source is MTV News. check and see again please. Charmed36 02:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

your recent edits

I was suprised to see that you said the following:

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for your contributions. While it is good practice to fill in an edit summary and discuss changes on a talk page, these are only guidelines. Per WP:BOLD, if you want to change something, then by all means change it. The section of that article is improperly cited, if that was your reason then perhaps your best option would to be correct the citation. Again, Welcome to Wikipedia! SpigotMap 11:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

and also

01:20, 2 November 2007 SpigotMap (Talk | contribs) (108,942 bytes) (rv back to original article. If you want to change the ordering of the episodes, please discuss on the talk page.) (undo)

if you are going to revert edits because people have not discussed it on the talk page, then why did you tell the anon editor While it is good practice to fill in an edit summary and discuss changes on a talk page, these are only guidelines. Per WP:BOLD, if you want to change something, then by all means change it ??

Either discussion is required, or it is not required. Or am I misunderstanding wikipedia ? is discussion only required when related to an article that you care about? oh and since discussion is required, please discuss on the talk page before reverting the order of the pokemon episodes.Sennen goroshi 03:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Everyone is free to boldly edit as they like. The problem with you is that you are disruptive, refusing to work with consensus. I believe that specific anon editor was tagged as vandalising, when in fact they were not vandalising. As far as guidelines, they are just that, guidelines. But not being disruptive is a policy. WP:3RR, WP:OWN, WP:CIVIL.. these are policies, and you must abide by them or you will be blocked. SpigotMap 03:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't notice any vandalism tag place on the articles or user page in question. I was not being disruptive, I was being BOLD. If you are going to put statements on user pages, then being consistent is important. Thanks, and have a wonderful day Sennen goroshi 03:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
No, I do not have to be consistent. You went through the trouble to warn a new anon editor about removing a sentence without so much as a welcome. What I told that editor has nothing to do with you. You are very disruptive. Show me where the consensus is you built to change the episode numbering? And don't include the 4-5 socks you created to get around 3RR. SpigotMap 03:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
And don't include the 4-5 socks you created to get around 3RR. what exactly are you talking about? Are you assuming that every editor that does not agree with you, is a sockpuppet? and what evidence do you have to back up your hurtful accusation that I would use a sockpuppet?

oh and the IP of the editor, that I talked to, has been editing wikipedia since May 1996 - I didn't consider that to be a new anon editor Sennen goroshi 03:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

So far all you are doing is meatpuppeting the same edit warriors to come revert the article. You've started a revert war on an article you've never edited, and not even bothered to leave a reason. SpigotMap 03:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

no, since your accusation of sockpuppetry was dismissed, you now wish to accuse me of something else? I'm not a meatpuppet either, I have not been recruited by anyone, I just don't agree with your POV.

But you are right, I didn't leave a reason, however -

While it is good practice to fill in an edit summary and discuss changes on a talk page, these are only guidelines. Per WP:BOLD, if you want to change something, then by all means change it.

Sennen goroshi 04:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

While I welcome all constructive criticism on my talk page, and never expect every editor to agree with every edit I make, I would request that you remain civil at all times.

I consider the following to be in breach of Wikipedia:Civility

Hello Sennen goroshi. I see you are still trying to start debates with me, as you did on the Like a Boy page. Where do you get off saying "This isn't notable because it's only top 5 in bulgaria and Lithuania"? In case you didn't know, Wikipedia is worldwide, if something is only notable in the US, but nowhere else, does that make it a waste of space too? It is a song made by a very successful lady musician, and has made the charts all over the world. All you want to do is be disruptive, therefore maybe YOU are the waste of space. SpigotMap 15:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

but it's OK this time, I know some people get emotional at times when editing wikipedia, please be a little more careful with your comments in the future (as previously stated, I have no issue with differences of opinion, but please don't insult me)

take care, and have a wonderful day Sennen goroshi 15:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Your message

Considering the repeat removal of my warnings and comments on your talk page without a reply, along with your continued reverting of pages on my contribs, this only leads me to lose all faith in your civility as an editor. I suggest you stop, along with stopping all disruptive behaviour and harassment towards other editors. If this does not cease there will be no option other then to raise it at the administrator's noticeboard. Wikipedia needs and appreciates all editors, but if your only intention is to be disruptive, there is no reason for you to be here. This is an encyclopedia, what reasoning do you have to be disruptive at an encyclopedia? Perhaps video games are more in your realm if that is what you wish to do. SpigotMap 16:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, if another editor had left that message on my talk page, I might give it some consideration - however since encountering you in wikipedia, I have found you to constantly in breach of Wikipedia:Civility not only with user/article talk pages, but also with your edit summaries. It seems obvious you are more than willing to perform edits/reverts in order to prove a point, rather than to improve an article. As a prime of example of this, I would like to remind you of the Jenson Ackles article, an article than you were having a problem with, due to vandalism - you reverted the edit of a vandal (quite rightly so) and when the page was vandalised again, I removed the vandalism - your reaction to me removing the vandalism was to revert my edit, so that it went back to the vandalised page, and to put in the edit summary (Reverted 1 edit by Sennen goroshi; Unexplained removal of content. using TW) - well that was nice of you, would you consider that to be an act of constructive editing?

I have been civil, I have not insulted you, and I am totally within my rights to remove any comments on my talk page. If you feel the need to put a complaint anywhere you consider suitable, then feel free, I imagine they will view you to be just as guilty of incivility as I, due to the fact that you have had more than one warning about incivility and you were the one using personal insults, such as insinuating that I was a waste of space.

thanks and have a wonderful day Sennen goroshi 17:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)