User talk:67.160.100.233

Placeholder.

Personal attacks

As you are aware you have been reported at WP:AIV for making repeated personal attacks. But you have not, so far, been warned, except for a mild comment from the subject of your attacks which you blanked. Therefore take this as your only warning: I will block this IP from editing on the next personal attack generated therefrom. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 13:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide an example of my "personal attacks," so I know what to avoid?67.160.100.233 (talk) 13:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I am going to assume that you know perfectly well what I mean. If you have forgotten, retrieve the edits which you have blanked on this page. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 14:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it was a sincere question.67.160.100.233 (talk) 14:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You are an experienced editor. Please do not pretend otherwise. My warning stands. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 14:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Hypothetically speaking, would it be a "personal attack" to point out that User:Spotfixer was probably User:Benjiboi's sockpuppet, created specifically to revert User:Schrandit?67.160.100.233 (talk) 14:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hypothetically speaking, unless you could prove it, probably yes. If you have a real point to make, please make it in the right forum. You are well aware that there are specific pages in which to report vandalism, sockpuppetry etc. Please now use them if you have a point to make. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 15:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC) --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 15:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I do not need and do not use socks, I have one doppelganger account which I do not use. Spotfixer was correct to object to Schrandit's behaviours but frankly I don't care that much. They were each causing disruption and each could be doing much more constructive things with the time. -- Banjeboi 15:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Having taken another look, I agree that Spotfixer isn't you. Accordingly, I've scratched through my comment, and apologize for having suggested it.

Now, a couple things that really bother me: 1) Your habit of deleting and or redacting other people's posts, particularly those of anons. 2) Your habit of taking anons to WP:AIV when there is no "vandalism" involved - since anons vandalize Wikipedia all the time, it seems that you're counting on administrators to take your word for it and block. The first of these is the online equivalent of placing your hand over someone's mouth when he's trying to say something, and is pretty much guaranteed to get an angry reaction - at which point you take the anon to AIV and call them an "attack sock." I had no intention at all of seeking a confrontation with you, but found myself embroiled in one when you showed up on Talk:David Shankbone and repeatedly altered my post.[1] Please refrain from this kind of behavior, and learn to treat people - including anonymous editors - with respect.67.160.100.233 (talk) 06:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a habit of removing/redacting comments per WP:Talk which are contrary to building good articles and err on attacking editors/violating BLP, whether from an anon or not makes no difference. I'd much rather make a mistake and remove something that does nothing to actually improve the article than to err on leaving something behind which seems to only make the talkpage atmosphere more toxic. We are an encyclopedia and many people treat it like many other websites where personal jabs are par for the course, We can do better. All your accusations against an editor seemed without merit and good faith and absent any indication they had anything to do with writing an article about themselves which rather defies logic on their part if they did. So ... unhelpful, antagonistic, toxic, baseless. It simply showed an offsite campaign against the editor still exists, I'm not sure anyone doubted it.

As for AIV? Those folks are the authorities as far as I'm concerned and IMHO they usually get it right. I don't want to spend time dealing with people who are degrading content but that is the price to pay as we want to let everyone freely edit. Many times I've just not bothered and hoped the user would come around to doing something helpful but alas that often doesn't happen. I don't block people, I let others who are independent of the situation take a look and if needed explain more fully my reasoning if asked. Some feel all users should be forced to use an account and the high volume of vandalism eggs on that concept. I still advocate we would lose more in the process especially as there are good editors out there who are not interested or have other good reasons not to. All in all we try to make it work. -- Banjeboi 15:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

"I don't block people, I let others who are independent of the situation take a look…"

Funny, I'd thought you didn't block people because you can't, as you're not an administrator. I'm glad to hear there is an aspect of nobility in your going from board to board asking administrators to block IPs who object to your talk page blankings.

"We are an encyclopedia…"

As if an encyclopedia would have articles promoting "DJ Pusspuss," "Sister Kitty Catalyst," "Fudgie Frottage" and the like. Real encyclopedias are written by scholars about serious topics.67.160.100.233 (talk) 08:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I responded sincerely but as you seem to want to grind some ax or otherwise disparage me I consider the matter closed. Good luck! -- Banjeboi 12:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced?

I'm not sure what you were getting at here, but what you posted was not relevant to the deletion discussion. The appropriate forum would probably be here, but unless and until your allegations are confirmed there, you should probably not be attempting to make your case elsewhere. user:J aka justen (talk) 10:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Making your allegations outside of an investigation request is very problematic. Asserting your allegations, without any apparent relevance, into a deletion discussion is disruptive. I strongly suggest you review wp:spi and pursue the matter there if you believe you have a case to make. user:J aka justen (talk) 10:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The trouble here is that the AfD moves to fast to take the mechanisms of WP:SPI into account. I'm waving a red flag - there's something wrong here. I can explain it, but it will take some time and attention. The discussion in AfD procedes from ignorance; that is, a lack of relevant information. This article is a quid pro quo. If we decide this isn't important, I'd like us to do so having been informed of the facts.

Blanking people's topical comments is disruptive, and more importantly, a disservice.67.160.100.233 (talk) 10:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to respond to a couple of your points... Until you actually "take the time" to prove your sockpuppet allegations at wp:spi, making them in a deletion discussion is a violation of policy. Further, your comments aren't "topical" to the deletion discussion... You've made no effort to point out why your allegations are relevant to the retention or deletion of the article in question, and even if you did make that argument, without confirmation from wp:spi, you're still violating policy. user:J aka justen (talk) 10:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(←) I've brought up the matter here. user:J aka justen (talk) 10:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for disruptive editing and harassing User:David Shankbone. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. AdjustShift (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Note to other admins: please analyze the report at ANI, and my conclusion.[2] AdjustShift (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

So, why do you use proxies "AdjustShift"? What's your former username(s)?

Hey, look, you need IP block exemption because you use proxies.[3][4]

67.160.100.233 (talk) 13:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: "After my block, this was the response of the IP."[5] Erm, yeah, but it’s true. Why don't you tell us your former username, "AdjustShift?" You passed RfA by pretending to be a new user.67.160.100.233 (talk) 14:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)