Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:24, 18 December 2009

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Page was getting too long

The contents that I just deleted will eventually become archive 11. I can't create it, but if someone else wants to, please do so, and please add the "talkarchive" tag to the beginning and end. Thanks. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Done.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate it. Now I will talk about nice stuff and try to get along well with everyone here. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good way to go. By the way, you ever heard of this guy? Grsz 03:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd heard of the tag, but this is the first I'd heard of his name or that he'd been caught. Daniel Montano, this other Pittsburgh graffiti vandal, has been arrested and is suspected to have caused $713,801 in damage. And he even had videos made of himself causing the graffiti. This particular article says he "may be the country's most prolific graffiti vandal." Please note that the source says "graffiti vandal," not "graffiti artist." When he's not doing graffiti, he actually is a real "artist." Grundle2600 (talk) 15:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You may not remove declined unblock requests from your talk page while blocked. I am reproducing them below from your archive. Please do not delete them or your talk page may be protected.  Sandstein  22:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I see it does say not to remove it. It's my fault, and I apologize. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 01:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Merry Christmas to you too! Grundle2600 (talk) 01:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Grundle2600 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

1) The administrator who blocked me claimed that I used synthesis. Actually, I cited this source, this source, and this source, all of which made the accusation of hypocrisy. 2) The administator also accused me of edit warring. But the last time that I added any content to the article that was later removed by someone else, was 47 hours before I was blocked. It sure doesn't look like I'm "edit warring." 3) Diane Francis, the subject of the article for which I am blocked, chose to put her personal blog on the internet, where she states that she has two children. She also chose to write an opinion column for internet publication, where she states that she favors global adoption of a one child policy. She chose to put both of these things on the internet, because she wanted people to read them. I cited both of these sources in the wikipedia article about her. All I did was add to her article, information which she herself had chosen to put on the internet, because she wanted people to read it. She wanted people to read this information. All of the information that I added to the article was true, and well sourced. I did not violate BLP. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Whatever the merits of the edit, you were (a) edit-warring to include (b) contentious matter sourced only to blogs in a BLP that is (c) a current topic in US politics from which you are banned. These three issues together lead me to believe that you need a break from editing until you can convince the community that you will approach the next similar issue in a better way.  Sandstein  00:03, 14 December 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.

Grundle2600 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The reason given for refusing my first unblock request was "Whatever the merits of the edit, you were (a) edit-warring to include (b) contentious matter sourced only to blogs in a BLP that is (c) a current topic in US politics from which you are banned. These three issues together lead me to believe that you need a break from editing until you can convince the community that you will approach the next similar issue in a better way." I would like to dispute all 3 of those claims. (a) I was not "edit warring," because I voluntarily stopped making any controversial edits 47 hours before I was blocked. (b) I did not cite "contentious" material, because the only information that I added to the article was information that the subject herself had first chosen to publish on the internet. Misplaced Pages cannot be found guilty of libel for citing information that the subject herself had first put on the internet. BLP allows us to cite the blog of the subject. Also, blogs were not the "only" sources that I cited. I also cited Financial Post. Also, the "blogs" that I cited at National Review and The American Spectator are reliable sources, and the fact that they say "blog" does not change that. (c) This is not a "topic in US politics." The subject lives in Canada, and the only country that has her suggested policy is China. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You aren't going to get unblocked through this venue. I would suggest emailing ArbCom, or something of that nature. Although it's unlikely that you'll get unblocked then either, as this block was completely justified. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 16:56, 14 December 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.

Grundle2600 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy states, "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages, not to punish users. Blocks sometimes are used as a deterrent, to discourage whatever behavior led to the block and encourage a productive editing environment." Then they should ban me from all political articles from all countries, instead of blocking me, so I can still edit articles on animals, science, technology, and pop culture. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Given your prior attempts to game the system and argue your way around sanctions before, I find that allowing an unblock at this point would not be a good idea. This block is clearly to prevent disruption, and your willingness in the past to poke around at the boundaries of your sanctions shows that you are simply going to do the same thing again. You knew what sorts of behavior would attract attention, and yet it took until now to decide to avoid it? I find that unlikely, given the ample opportunities you have been given to reform. I'm not sure how you could turn an article about an animal or science or pop culture into a political battleground, but I am sure you will try hard to do so. Jayron32 22:25, 14 December 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.

Request for unblock

Grundle2600 (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=When I made edit to the ] article, I used the word "although" to combine two different facts from different sources into one sentence. By doing this, I violated the rule against ], which states, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research." This action on my part was especially bad because I also violated ]. Articles about living persons are held to higher levels of sourcing than other articles, so my action of ] in an article about a living person was especially bad. After this was explained to me, I understood why what I did was wrong. So I then made edit, where I placed one of those two facts far away from the other fact. I was praised for that edit. By having these two facts appear in separate parts of the article, there was no longer any violation of wikipedia policy. I promise not to violate ] or ] in the future. Furthermore, if you look at this of articles that I started, you will see that I love adding content to wikipedia. I wish to be allowed to go back to adding content to wikipedia, in a manner that follows all of the wikipedia rules. ] (]) 01:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC) |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=When I made edit to the ] article, I used the word "although" to combine two different facts from different sources into one sentence. By doing this, I violated the rule against ], which states, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research." This action on my part was especially bad because I also violated ]. Articles about living persons are held to higher levels of sourcing than other articles, so my action of ] in an article about a living person was especially bad. After this was explained to me, I understood why what I did was wrong. So I then made edit, where I placed one of those two facts far away from the other fact. I was praised for that edit. By having these two facts appear in separate parts of the article, there was no longer any violation of wikipedia policy. I promise not to violate ] or ] in the future. Furthermore, if you look at this of articles that I started, you will see that I love adding content to wikipedia. I wish to be allowed to go back to adding content to wikipedia, in a manner that follows all of the wikipedia rules. ] (]) 01:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC) |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=When I made edit to the ] article, I used the word "although" to combine two different facts from different sources into one sentence. By doing this, I violated the rule against ], which states, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research." This action on my part was especially bad because I also violated ]. Articles about living persons are held to higher levels of sourcing than other articles, so my action of ] in an article about a living person was especially bad. After this was explained to me, I understood why what I did was wrong. So I then made edit, where I placed one of those two facts far away from the other fact. I was praised for that edit. By having these two facts appear in separate parts of the article, there was no longer any violation of wikipedia policy. I promise not to violate ] or ] in the future. Furthermore, if you look at this of articles that I started, you will see that I love adding content to wikipedia. I wish to be allowed to go back to adding content to wikipedia, in a manner that follows all of the wikipedia rules. ] (]) 01:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

I endorse this unblock, user seems to understand his mistake, unlikely to repeat. --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I also encourage this unblock, either now as-is or within a few days through a negotiated understanding with Grundle2600 that will hopefully keep him out of further trouble. He seems to enjoy his time here and his good nature helps other people enjoy theirs (as a disclaimer, I particularly enjoy interacting with Grundle). If we can divide things into behavior and content, I don't see a problem with the behavior other than repeatedly proposing content that many or most people think isn't right for the encyclopedia. For all the fuss, the actual damage caused by his disputed content proposals and repeated rhetorical questions about the project has been very slight... so I don't see a whole lot of actual disruption, just a lot of talk about what to do about it. If you find all that problematic, a firm "no, and please stop asking" would be a much more constructive thing than a lingering block. He does add content, so his reason for being here is to improve the encyclopedia, and he wants to do it. Surely, that's a lot of ingredients to work with. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

As do I. Grundle, I also encourage you to approach one or more experienced editors for mentorship, or atleast when you have questions. I think that would be an appropriate extension of good faith on your behalf. Grsz 05:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Note for reviewing admin: There was discussion about Grundle2600's unblock requests at ANI, where some unblock conditions were proposed and discussed. I have not followed this issue, and have no opinion on the merits of the unblock or the conditions. Abecedare (talk) 06:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to address those points:

"1. Grundle is to refrain from posting his list of seven questions or referring to them anywhere on Misplaced Pages."

I agree to this.

"2. He is topic banned from editing or participating in discussion of any political or politically controversial article, as well as BLPs. This includes articles directly about politics, but also includes politically controversial topics, like climate change."

I agree to avoid editing articles about politicians from all countries, including their article talk pages. I also agree to avoiding editing articles about people from all countries whose main notability is their political commentary, such as Diane Francis, Michael Moore, and Paul Krugman, as well as their talk pages. I do not agree to any such ban on BPLs for non-political people, such as Phoebe Cates, Stephen Hawking, or Jules Verne, because the issue there for non-political BLPs (I think Tiger Woods was the only one) was not my edits to articles, but instead, some jokes I made in the comment section and talk pages. Therefore, I agree to stop making jokes about all living persons in the comment section and talk pages for articles. However, I still reserve the right to make edits about international political articles that are not BLPs, such as nuclear power, overpopulation, and sweatshops. My edits in these articles have generally been welcomed by other editors, and the histories of these kinds of articles shows that I have substantially improved them without causing trouble.

"3. Grundle agrees to take note of and adhere thoroughly to WP:SYN"

I agree to this.

4. "Grundle agrees to disengage from and avoid those he has had disputes with, especially political disputes."

I only agree to avoid having discussions with editors who specifically make such a request to me on my own talk page, and even then, I reserve the right to make one last comment to them on my talk page, to tell them that I will no longer be talking to them. Many of the editors that I have had political disagreements with, have specifically told me that they enjoy talking with me about other subjects. In addition, many of these editors have praised me for my kind, friendly behavior, and for not making personal attacks. There is no justification for keeping me away from these editors.

5. "Any posting of his seven questions or referring to them, or breaking of his topic ban, or deliberate engagement with those he has had dispues with will result in his indefinite block being immediately reinstated for a period of no less than 4 months."

I agree to all of this, except the part about staying away from other editors. If a specific editor requests to me that I avoid talking to him or her, I will honor their request. I will not avoid editing articles just because certain other editors have edited them. Staying away from articles about politicians and political commentators is enough to solve past problems with other editors. There's no need for me to stay away from other articles.

Grundle2600 (talk) 10:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock