Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:22, 17 November 2009

I am Otterathome, I registered in March 2008 and have been editing since. I have made over 2,000 edits.

There are a few users I dislike, namely this user and this user, but I put up with it.

I also 'lose' to vandals, apparently.

Template:Image

What?

Hey, uh, why did you post that reminder on my talk page? Coldplay Expert and I where clearly discussing the creation of an appropriate article, so what is wrong with that?--Jakkinx Happy Thanksgiving! 18:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

FAC review

Hi - you made some comments at the Feature Article review for Andrew Johnston (singer) a few days back. The nominator appears to have responded to your queries, and i just wondered whether you would pop back to the page and indicate if you were happy with their responses / strikethrough those that you feel have been adequately addressed and / or wished to support the nom. cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 01:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Fight good fights

is not constructive to your goals. Miami33139 (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring over minor talk page commentary is stupid. It doesn't help you accomplish anything. If you overlook these small things that don't matter in the end, you gain credibility when you want to make a point about something that does matter. Milowent's comment was not on-topic, but it was not over the line of inappropriate either. It was mildly sarcastic towards both of us but Otters have slick fur so mild sarcasm should just repel away without even being noticed. OK? Miami33139 (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009

Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Tubefilter, you will be blocked for vandalism. Scjessey (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

No legitimate talk page comments were removed. You really should read pages you link to, such as "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing improving the article."--Otterathome (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The policy covering your disruption and lack of civility trumps the guideline you cite for removing other people's comments. Also, you need to stop your misuse of warning templates. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing uncivil about removing off-topic comments. Also I don't misuse warning templates. You need to stop linking to and mentioning pages you keep violating yourself, it's very hypocritical.--Otterathome (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Both of you need to stop templating the regulars, as that's not nice to do. We're all veteran editors here, and we can explain to each other our grievances in a civil, constructive way. Thank you, MuZemike 18:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

Removing off-topic comments, which is permitted by WP:TALK is not in any way disruptive. Blocking admin is also clearly involved, see Misplaced Pages:BLOCK#Conflicts_of_interest.

Decline reason:

It's disruptive when you make edit summaries like this. — Daniel Case (talk) 18:57, 16 November 2009 (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.

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

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Showing that an admin is assuming bad faith and violating ] themselves in an edit summary is not disruptive. Disagreeing with admins is not disruptive. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Showing that an admin is assuming bad faith and violating ] themselves in an edit summary is not disruptive. Disagreeing with admins is not disruptive. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Showing that an admin is assuming bad faith and violating ] themselves in an edit summary is not disruptive. Disagreeing with admins is not disruptive. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

You repeatedly removed a comment that was directly on-topic. The discussion centered around the notability of Tubefilter, and the comment was related to the apparent quest by you and another editor to get the article deleted. Edit-warring this comment was an example of disrupting Misplaced Pages to prove a point. You further caused problems by templating anyone who reverted your POINTy comment removal and engaged in a "slo-mo" edit war over the comment, after being repeatedly told not to remove comments by editors and admins. Seems like a good block to me. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments "related to the apparent quest by you and another editor to get the article deleted" is helping to improve the article? That's news to me.--Otterathome (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You had been tendentiously adding Badge of shame templates and aggressively campaigning for the deletion of the article by challenging every reference that didn't meet your BLP-like standards. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

What has that got anything to do with the block and improving the article?--Otterathome (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You and SarekOfVulcan have got to be one of the most strongly bonded WP:TAGTEAM I've come across, you seem to tick nearly every box on that page. How cute.--Otterathome (talk) 19:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

"Accusations of tag teaming are likely to be viewed as uncivil. Care should be made to frame assertions in an appropriate way, and to cite evidence."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It's so obvious I said it anyway. In the same way you might call a sumo wrestler obese.--Otterathome (talk) 19:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It was not on-topic. It was sarcasm directed at users, not about improving the article. While I understand that mild off-topic commentary like that does not cross the line of inappropriate talk page behavior, please don't label it as on-topic. Otter needs to heed the advice that slow reverts over the issue are not acceptable, but a block by an involved admin is not the way to do that. Miami33139 (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This block just continues to reinforce all of my comments I left at Misplaced Pages:Administrator review/SarekOfVulcan.--Otterathome (talk) 19:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears that an offhand comment of mine caused this block after Otter deleted it SIX TIMES, so I feel compelled to explain the context for uninvolved readers. The comment at issue: "I knew you guys love the beautiful music of deletion. :-) --Milowent (talk) 14:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)" Last month, Miami33139 and JBSupreme were putting up a host of software and IRC related pages for deletion, and I jumped in to scrutinize the mass AfD and to rescue some of them. Otter got wind of it (perhaps by checking up on my recent contributions, as we've sharing opposing opinions before in AfD matters), and added his thoughts to a few. On Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/ATunes for aTunes, which is a freebie i-tunes clone audio player, i suggested that miami and otter could make "beautiful music of deletion" together, since they are like-minded on AfDs, and it was a music related AfD. Then Miami at some point happened by Tubefilter and commented. Tubefilter has become a bit of an obsession for Otter and resulted in some other blocks recently for him, I believe. That elicited the comment I made. But even Miami saw that Otter had blanked my comment about four times by then, which kept being reverted by other editors, and commented above that Otter should "fight good fights" and leave this one alone. Otter commented on my own talk page about this edit at some point and stated "This isn't Myspace or Match.com, and isn't going to become anything like it due to the many idiots like you on the site." (Apparently wikipedians are dumber that myspace members, a question we'll leave to other fora) After being told repeatedly not to keep blanking my comment, I am sure Otter knew full well that he would be blocked if he continued to do so.--Milowent (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• In reviewing this unblock request, I am concerned that the blocking admin, SarekOfVulcan, is involved in a current editing dispute with the blocked user, as shown here. Administrators are prohibited from blocking users with whom they are in a current conflict. I'm putting this unblock on hold to invite the blocking admin to comment.  Sandstein  20:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that's evidence of involvement in an editing dispute -- that's evidence of me trying to enforce WP:TPO and Otter claiming that it's MySpacing, which it clearly isn't. Note the chat-3 warning he gave me today...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The talk page is very clear that you are involved in the ongoing content dispute about the notability of Tubefilter, which sources are reliable, and whether the sources actually verify the content of the article. That is why it was inappropriate to use admin tools here. You are welcome to report an edit war on the edit warring noticeboard and let someone completely not involved handle it. There are thousands of admins, you didn't need to make this block if it needed to be made. Miami33139 (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

My last edit to Tubefilter was October 7, and my last edit to Talk:Tubefilter that wasn't restoring the deleted comment was October 20.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The block had nothing whatsoever to do with the content dispute. It was about the disruptive, slo-mo edit war that Otter was conducting by repeatedly removing a comment (despite being warned not to). Surely it is beholden upon administrators to stop disruption in its tracks? The fact that it happened to be occurring on an article which Sarek had previously edited was irrelevant. It could have been anywhere and the result would've been the same. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

So you were involved in the conversation at issue and when you later tried to get WP:AN to block Otter, you backed off when it did not have support. You are involved in a long term dispute and you should not be using the tools to enforce or advance your side of it. Miami33139 (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• To point out what might be non-obvious to others uninvolved in some of the recent events not completely related to Tubefilter, Miami33139 began interposing themselves in the Tubefilter discussions and debate only after I made a comment on Milowent's talk page here. While I have not been involved in the Tubefilter discussions directly, I've had interactions with both Otterathome and Milowent in the past so I had been seeing them fight back and forth on their talk pages. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'm taking the unblock off hold for another admin to review, and would recommend an unblock if the other admin also concludes that SarekofVulcan is an involved administrator in this case. Nothing in the above indicates otherwise.  Sandstein  22:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment This user has done the same talk-page edit warring of deleting a comment that in his opinion is not related to the improvement of the Richard C. Hoagland article. See , , , . TJRC (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock