Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:11, 25 October 2011

My talkpage.

I respond on your talkpage. Please respond to messages I have sent you, on my page. Do feel free to troll/harass/insult me, I'll get told off for it anyway. Colofac (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely

Because of the lack of productivity and the disruption from this account in its short 2 month life span, I have blocked you indefinitely. It is clear you are not here to contribute productively, but rather to cause and participate in drama. A discussion has been started for review at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Indefinite_block_review:_Colofac. To contribute to this discussion, please place your comments here and someone can/will copy them over for you. As always, you can also request unblock through {{unblock|your reason here}}. only (talk) 16:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

This is an unjustified and unwarranted attack on me. I have done nothing to deserve this block. I find the accusations that I am "unproductive" both disingenuous and insulting. Colofac (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

This block is completely out of order. I cannot find justification for bringing up old incidents to use against me, especially after the expiration of a block.

Decline reason:

Before and after the block, I see very little editing in main space, mainly posts to project space and user talk pages discussing events. If, at some point, you had thrown yourself into seriously editing articles, you probably would not be in this position right now. As it is, I find the block justified since I can't see how this pattern of contribution is in the encyclopedia's interest. — Daniel Case (talk) 23:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

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 not sure where I used past events "against you" in implementing this block. I said that the evidence I have seen since your previous block expired is disruptive, in my opinion, and show that nothing has changed from the behaviors that led to your previous block. This type of justification is totally acceptable here. I am not blocking you because of your pre-previous block edits, but because of your post-block edits. only (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The bringing up of my accounts age, and failing to take note of the many constructive edits made, had you done so, you would have not felt the need to claim that I am "only here to disrupt". Colofac (talk) 18:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: any reviewing administrator should be aware that there is a discussion of this block at ANI: here. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Your homosexuality and Israel/Palestine user boxes

I strongly recommend that you make a statement here promising not to add those back. I don't think there's any chance that you'll be unblocked unless you do that. You're entitled to your political opinions, but many other editors find them offensive. You should not use Misplaced Pages, including your user page, to engage in flame wars and polemics that have no direct bearing on article contents. You did draw the short straw here, as editors who engage in far more polemical disruption are given more slack when their political views are more acceptable to the average Wikipedian, but that's how the tyranny of the majority works in Misplaced Pages. It's a fact of life that you'll have to contend with if you want to continue editing here; see realpolitik. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 07:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to draw your attention to User:Nableezy and their userpage. I think you'll agree, what is on that page is far more disruptive than mine. Colofac (talk) 07:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You are unfortunately not paying attention to what I wrote, which is about what you should do. Someone else would have just pointed you to WP:NOTTHEM & WP:OTHERSTUFF. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 07:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

While the spirit of what you (and Anna) are trying to accomplish here are valid, you are both wrong. The text of WP:UP#POLEMIC and WP:NPA defines other editors/groups of editors as needing to be the targets. This is simply not the case in this instance. As repulsive as it might be/feel to you and I, it is outside the scope of WP policies, and he is within policy of having it. If you want to change this - it needs to be done at the policy level, not the user level. Please continue this discussion at the ANI, as fragmenting it serves absolutely no purpose. Srobak (talk) 08:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:UP#POLEMIC does apply. "...statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons..." Please see my reply on AN/I. Thank you. - SudoGhost 08:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but Israel/Palestine are entities, not persons. Again - this is a policy-level issue as to where the change needs to happen, not user-level. Srobak (talk) 08:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

No, this is precisely where my advice should have been given. It's clear to me that Wikipedians will never agree or at least never uniformly enforce a consistent policy on such user boxes; see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Hezbollah userbox for instance, which discusses many other userboxes, despite its title. Hence my realpolitik advice to Colofac. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 08:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I had no idea that Palestine is in fact not made up of people, and that the userbox in question in no way vilified any person or groups of people, and that nations are not made up of such. That notwithstanding, homosexuals are a group of people, which again falls under WP:UP#POLEMIC. - SudoGhost 08:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The picture on the left with its caption was found on another user's page. Of course, the terrorist vs. freedom fighter debate is a matter of who ultimately wins and rewrites history. In other news: terrorists are not people, so they can be attacked on Misplaced Pages. The only thing that is clear, is that there's a never ending shade of mockery and disguise that one can use to build such personal statements. Colofac is less adept than others, which makes him an easy target. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 08:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack noted. Colofac (talk) 08:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not sure which user you got this from, but I would suggest you leave a message on their talk page about that. However, that does not make Colofac's userboxes appropriate or in line with policy. For the sake of leaving Colofac's talk page for conversations with him and not about him, I would suggest discussing this on AN/I or elsewhere. And Colofac, you are of course more than welcome to respond to the AN/I discussion and myself or any other users would be happy to either move your comment to AN/I or direct the editors at AN/I to your comment. - SudoGhost 09:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I find Have mörser, will travel's comments on ANI regarding me "provoking fights" completely outrageous. I have never, not once provoked or goaded a fight on Misplaced Pages, and unless he can provide links to back up such a claim, it should be withdrawn. Colofac (talk) 09:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The homosexuality user box had been removed from your user page on Sep 20 by Viriditas. You have not edited between Oct 5 and 22. On Oct 22, your 2nd edit was to restore that user box . That counts as provoking a fight in my book. Good bye and good luck. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 09:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

That does not count as "provoking a fight" and has been discussed earlier, I now request you withdraw that comment at once. Colofac (talk) 09:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

"has been discussed earlier" where? Have mörser, will travel (talk) 10:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussed in the sense that other users have brought up that matter without the need to make personal attacks regarding emotional intelligence or erroneous statements regarding picking fights. I now feel your continued involvement in this matter unhelpful. Colofac (talk) 10:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

My reading of your edit history is that nobody discussed your Oct 22 edits (with you anyway) prior to your indef block. Your last Israel/Palestine user box was added at 09:54, and you were indef blocked at 16:41. At 16:51 (Oct 22) the administrator who placed the block informed you of it on your talk page. There is no other post to your talk page before that going back all the way to Sep 26. If you think that's a discussion of your latest edits, or that blocks are more helpful to your understanding than my frank remarks, so be it, I'll stay away. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 10:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it is clear that I was referring to the ANI discussions, where other users have brought up the matter sans untrue accusations. Your dramatic change of tune and selective presentation of my responses to your accusations show that you have no intention of helping, hence why I asked you to cease commenting here. Please respect that request. Colofac (talk) 10:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Quick chat

Hi Colofac. Since there's been a suggestion that I mentor you at ANI, I thought I'd come over here and sound you out. So, how would you feel about having a mentor? If amenable, how would you feel about having me as a mentor? Also, I'm curious as to why you keep coming back to wikipedia, what are you looking for if you refuse to improve it? Worm · (talk) 14:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)