Template:Archive box collapsable

Hi im saddened that you deemed all of my contributions to internet activism to be promotional and deleted them without so much as a discussion about deletion.

I am new to this but i am also an experienced reseracher and writer with a genuine contribution to make.

I can see how you may have seen it as promotional, but I need to know with more specificity what the key problems were.

In the absence of other input im assuming that it was not the text that i inserted that you objected to but the fact that the refrences that i made contained hyperlinks back to pages that would enbale readers to purchase the materials mentioned. if this is so i understand and would be happy to not inlcude such hyperlinks in future.

if it was that i was quoting from the same book, that is becuase the book is newly out and covers the topics in question. There were existing gaps for example in relation to anti-corporate activism, and my contributions were a genuine improvement, yet all of the text i placed has been removed becuase it was deemed promotional, seemingly without regard to whether it had intellectual value.

Would it not be better to have a deletion discussion and indicate that the hyperlinks should be removed.

Anyway, im prepared to learn by experience but i would like your honest feedback.

I would like to make a positive contribution to the pages about activism which is my academic speciality, but i could also just be discouraged.

From my experiences i can see it would be a mistake to put too much tiem into a wikipedia contribution becuase they can be axed very quickly and without discussion.

Activ9 (talk) 04:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is that you seem to be interested in using Wikipedia to promote your book and, through that, yourself. I am sure that you are able to contribute in your area of expertise without it seeming like you are trying to promote yourself, and you are welcome to do so. Please read WP:COI before attempting any more editing, though. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thanks for responding, and i have read the notes about not being promotional. i understand that you deleted it for that reason, but i was hoping for some more specific feedback ot help me know how youd like it modified. This is becuase i still feel that my text was a valid contribution to some areas in which wikipedia actually had observable gaps, (anti- corporate activism; the security risks of using digital tools) but I'm guessing that the referencing and hyperlinking appears to be the issue.Id like to stop guessing and be given some definite guidance here. Its confusing becuase everything useful has been wiped not just the parts you thought overstepped the line. Im left a little confused as to whether citing a book is OK in several different places if it doesnt have hyperlinks leading back to the books page.?? Im not trying to annoy you im genuinely seeking constructive feedback on why 100% of my contributions were removed rather than just specific parts that offended wikipedia policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.2.35.159 (talk) 03:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I get the impression from what you added that you are going to cite your own book as the source for whatever you add. If it is a good source, someone else will use it as a source here, so, given your conflict of interest, perhaps it would be best to let someone else with more Wikipedia experience fix up those articles. On the other hand, if you are willing to use other sources, read up on WP:RS and start editing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted it but it looks like someone moved it from front page first. Victuallers (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• Account activation codes have been emailed.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• The 1-year, free period begins once you enter the code.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 04:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see enforcement request here. Prioryman (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can that be possible? You are under an interaction ban which prevents you from mentioning me, which I asked for because I was tired of you lying about me. And yet, here we are again. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The enforcement request has been moved here at the request of Lothar von Richtofen. Prioryman (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

.

Please do not do that ever again. You are supposed to be ignoring Prioryman, not calling for him to be sanctioned, nor asking for his sanctions to be updated or listed properly, nor interacting with him in any way whatsoever. The sole exception to your interaction ban was and remains Errantx's talkpage for the specific purpose of discussing/appealing the terms and conditions of the interaction ban itself. Consequently your recent post on Errantx's talk was a violation of the ban, and the only reason you are not blocked for 96 hours right now is because I'm getting charitable in my old age. Believe me, were this a couple years back I would not be acting in nearly so lenient a fashion.

Whatever the problems of Prioryman's editing, the community has decided that you are not the person to be dealing with or reporting these problems, as this causes far more drama than it resolves. Disregarding the community's wishes is normally a fast route out the exit door. This is a final warning. One more violation of the ban will be regarded as deliberate wikistalking and cynical breaking of restrictions, which will earn you several months' enforced vacation courtesy of yours truly. Please bear this in mind. Thank you. Moreschi (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever noticed the amount of drama that is caused on Wikipedia because people like you don't want to deal with obvious and longstanding problems? You do what you need to do - I know how to fill out an unblock request. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Well, you were warned, and knew full well that posting on ANI was in violation of the ban, as I think your post after my warning here shows quite nicely. You then went ahead and posted on ANI anyway, comparing Prioryman to a manager committing sexual harassment, which was ingenious but also a fairly blatant troll. Your post on ANI also shows that you have no intent of abiding by the restrictions you are under in the slightest, somehow thinking yourself to be above them. You are not. Please reflect on this for the next 75 days. We will see you then. Moreschi (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To admins reviewing unblock requests; please do not unblock or alter the block length without 1) carefully reviewing the ANI thread and 2) talking to me first. Moreschi (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, you have blocked me for posting on ANI? In a thread regarding my actions, started by a person who is under the same terms as I am? You most certainly did not make clear that I would be blocked for that. I fully expected that I would not only be allowed to participate, but entitled to make statements in my own defence. Please unblock me immediately. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moreschi, DC is right. He is allowed to present his side in a dispute resolution forum. Prioryman made several pejorative statements about DC in that discussion as well and several editors called for blocks for both parties, but you only blocked DC. Cla68 (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually both he and Prioryman are not supposed to be presenting their sides in dispute resolution forums. This was made explicitly clear in the interaction ban, if you go back and find the original thread. I agree that Prioryman was in breach of the ban in posting on AE/ANI in the first place, as was DC for the post on ErrantX's talkpage that was related to Prioryman but unrelated to their mutual interaction ban. For this I was initially going to block both but then later decided to warn both, at which point I marked the thread as resolved assuming it was all over. Then DC went to troll ANI, which there is no way he could not have known would be in violation of the ban because 1) it was explicit in the interaction ban terms and 2) I'd just warned Prioryman for creating the thread in the first place. Moreschi (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moreschi, that was DC's first post to that ANI thread. If I were him, I would want to present my side in a forum where WP's administration is watching, especially after Prioryman trashed him in his comments. I don't think it is unreasonable to allow an editor a chance to present their side when they are the subject of discussion in a dispute resolution forum. Cla68 (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) There was absolutely no need to do so, as both had been warned for restriction violations and the thread was tagged as resolved and 2) he is banned from doing just that. So is Prioryman, but I cut him some slack because it was DC's initial post on ErrantX's talk that sparked this all off. Everyone is sick to their back teeth of him and Prioryman fighting at ANI, which is precisely why we have this interaction ban in the first place. I agree that 99 times out of 100 there would be no problem with someone spouting off angrily at a DR forum but this is the 1 time when they are specifically banned from doing just that. He knows this, and just in case he didn't, my warning made it very clear what the exceptions were to the interaction ban. Those do not include ANI. I am sorry, but I do not think his surprise at being blocked is in good faith, nor the unblock request. Moreschi (talk) 22:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moreschi, you know this is a bad block and isn't going to be allowed to stand. Why not just unblock now and we can skip all of the nonsense? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My outside opinion is that you should have taken the warning and dropped it. There was nothing to be gained from further commenting on the discussion. You and drama seem heavily intertwined in my experience and if the block serves to cull the drama then it's appropriate. SÆdon^talk 22:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every editor deserves the chance to defend themselves when accused of malfeasance in a dispute resolution form. Prioryman made multiple comments in that discussion, DC made one. DC was blocked for it. Cla68 (talk) 22:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this were a court of law or almost any other venue I would agree without reservation. Justice, however, is not a relevant factor here. All of our policies, guidelines and practices are built for a singular purpose: building an encyclopedia. Actions should only be evaluated insofar as they contribute to that goal, and if they don't they are not appropriate. 75 days is probably a bit much though. 30 days seems more appropriate. SÆdon^talk 23:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And editors and admins who are helping build the 'pedia should be treated fairly. Apparently, the only reason Prioryman was allowed to comment at will in the ANI thread and DC wasn't was because Prioryman got there first. Allowing DC a chance to defend himself, then moving the discussion to a conclusion, would not have disrupted the 'pedia. Cla68 (talk) 23:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saedon, without any slight intended, please stay out of this. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No slight taken and I will respect your request. SÆdon^talk 23:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

See above Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Administrator use only:

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=See above [[User:Delicious carbuncle|Delicious carbuncle]] ([[User talk:Delicious carbuncle#top|talk]]) 22:30, 3 May 2012 (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=See above [[User:Delicious carbuncle|Delicious carbuncle]] ([[User talk:Delicious carbuncle#top|talk]]) 22:30, 3 May 2012 (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=See above [[User:Delicious carbuncle|Delicious carbuncle]] ([[User talk:Delicious carbuncle#top|talk]]) 22:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

This is a ridiculous block that has little relevance to the issue at hand and will not stand. If Moreschi wants to play tough guy and refuses to unblock, I'm sure someone else will do so eventually. The community is not well served by admins who are more interested in reducing the "drama" than solving the problem. Prioryman's tiresome bleating seems to have distracted people from the central point that he agreed to abide by editing restrictions in order to be allowed to continue editing. He has repeatedly violated those restrictions and will continue to do so. This very thread is a violation of one of those restrictions. If the community was not serious about the sanctions, they should be withdrawn. If they are serious about them, they should ensure that they are properly recorded and that they are enforced. Framing this as a dispute between editors is really just ignoring what is at the root of the issue. Shooting the messenger will not solve the problem. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]