User talk:Revolving Bugbear/Archive 10

Hey Bugbear, haven't seen much of you lately. We need to talk soon about WikiProject European history. But on another note, you'll see a retracted warning on my usertalkpage where apparently User:Wikipedian64 refactored my block message here and another editor didn't look close enough and templated me for it. I know this will be considered pretty stale at WP:AIV and I am now involved so I won't address it myself, but wondered if you'd look into it and warn, block, or block and protect User:Wikipedian64 as you deem appropriate. The user only comes around every couple of weeks but whenever he or she does, there is inevitably vandalism. You may want to review the user's contribs as well as the other warnings on the talk page. Interestingly, the user refactored my block message to make it appear that I had made the same personal attacks that he or she was blocked for leaving in an edit summary. I believe it's a vandal only account and should be long-term blocked or even blocked and locked but then, I'm biased. :-) Thanks for taking a look.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

He refactored again, I've reverted and will refer the matter to WP:AIV; thanks.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Even with a recent edit, another admin saw it as no big deal and said wait for him to respond to warning (I reverted his most recent refactoring and left a level 3 warning - highest refactoring warning available).--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You are so right! I'm, learning the hard way, and I don't know what I can do about it now. You can't stuff the toothpaste back into the tube.

Any advice you can give now? I don't feel like I have anyone in my corner, and if I seek support I get accused of canvassing. What do you do when the people who watch you and mess with you already have their support system established so they don't HAVE to contact them? And here I am with my chin hanging out.Rosencomet (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am still unclear about the canvassing policies, which seem just plain screwy to me. For instance, some editors seem to keep their friends on a watchlist, or drop hints about things they'd like others to help with or votes they'd like them to weigh in on. Some act in obvious cooperation. Some just plain ask for help. I get accused of canvassing when I try this.

In a case like mine, where a decision is being made about blocking me (in a conversation that seems to include my whole history, not just the canvassing issue, and I'm being tarred by association with the Ekajati Sockpuppets, something I had no knowledge of back then), under what circumstances and in what manner could I suggest either to those who supported me in prior mediations or arbitrations, or have simply been civil and helpful to me in the past, that this case is even happening? Pigman, who opened the case, is already counting up the block votes mere hours after I posted my apology and just one day after opening the case.Rosencomet (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you at all; my question had to do with what I can or can't do NOW as far as asking for support, not whether I was wrong about the e-mail. I admit I was wrong, and I apologized for it on the case's page, and have contacted the people I e-mailed and told them I was wrong to send it and asked them to ignore it and take no action about articles I might have written. I will not violate your trust. I'm just wondering if I should ask Fred Bauder, Thatcher, and Newyorkbrad to weigh in, too. Fred has always been particularly kind to me. There are also a few editors like Septagram and Wjohnson who have been supportive. Is there a way to bring this case to their attention in an appropriate manner before it is closed?

One thing I would like to note: I only e-mailed a few people, and reached about 5 or 6. None have expressed an interest in the project; of course, I took it back within a pretty short time. One of these friends, however, misunderstood the nature of my suggestion and posted it on four yahoo groups he's a member of. This (besides the fact that I did something so ill-conceived and inadvisable in the first place) is what caused the problem. He has apologized to me, but the damage is done.

I will not violate your trust; I said in my apology that I'll never violate canvassing policies again, and I will abide by that. I greatly appreciate your understanding. Rosencomet (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Will do; and thank you again.Rosencomet (talk) 22:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know what I can do to help my case. Here is a snapshot of my actual editing since the Arbcom. The impression being given by Mattisse, Pigman and Kathryn (who have shown their attitude towards me numerous times, and which I will document if necessary, including recent tandem tagging of over 35 articles I work on and several nominations and re-nominations for deletion, all done in a space of a few days), is that I have not changed my editing since the close of the Arbcom that ended Mar. 29th, 2007. Rather than judging the sriousness of my blunder, they are retrying me on everything I've been accused of since I came here, including giving only one side of the entire conflict between Mattisse's army of sockpuppets and Ekajati's. Thatcher and others can tell you that laying all that on my shoulders and believing everything Mattisse decides to select from that whole mess is grossly unfair; I was a newby, knowing nothing of sockpuppetry when all that went down, and little of wikipolicy and wikipolitics at all.

I don't know where it would be appropriate to place this, but here is a snapshot of my editing since then. It is alphabetical and presently includes just the articles I originated, but I will gladly continue it until it includes every article I've written or edited, so anyone can see that starting from the first edit I've done and dragging us through the entire Mattisse - Ekajati/999/Hanuman Das thing in this one-sided way that they are doing is unfair. My editing has not been contentious; Pigman, Kathryn and Mattisse have tried to provoke me into revert wars and other contentions, and I have restrained myself in almost all cases while asking for help from Arbitrators like Fred Bauder, Thatcher and Newyorkbrad. Getting little help, and having Pigman, Kathryn and Mattisse ignore Fred Bauder's statement that I was free to edit responsibly but continuing to accuse me of violating Wikipedia policy, I looked for help first from other editors and then from friends I hoped might become editors. I didn't understand the seriousness of this action, and I have apologized for it.

But the truth is, my editing has improved a great deal since the Arbcom. I have been mostly writing articles about people that have NEVER been to one of the events I've worked on, I have NOT been adding even internal Starwood links to articles much less the external ones that the Arbcom was about (I've even occasionally deleted some existing ones myself), have NOT reverted anything more than once (not just once in a day, but at all, and that rarely), and except for vigorous support on discussion and nomination for deletion pages I have stood by and watched as work I've done has been deleted without opposing it even when I thought the motivation was personal or the basis was flimsy.

Here is a record of my edits on articles I've written since the Arbcom. It contains 69 articles, 4 of which have been deleted (3 recently). Twenty-seven have been created since the Arbcom, and only 5 of those had any connection to ACE or Starwood. Please use it in whatever way it can be helpful, and tell me if you want me to complete the list and/or include articles I didn't create but edited. I not only do want to improve, I HAVE worked to that end. It is Pigman, Kathryn and Mattisse who simply won't recognize this and insist on instigating conflict in the hope of pushing me to do something blockable... and I must admit they are very good at it.

Thanks, Rosencomet (talk) 03:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I took no offense at your comment, really! Too close a supervision of an ANI issue such as this can indeed be a problem, particularly when my long history of conflict with Rosencomet on WP is taken into account. Thank you for your observation and suggestion. Cheers, Pigman☿ 17:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me if this or any part of it would be a help, and where it would be appropriate to post it. I feel the need to try to get the discussion about me to recognize that I have greatly improved my editing since the Arbcom (which is even stated in the Arbcom's results with a 4 to 0 agreement), and that retrying me for the activities that preceeded it and associating me with sockpuppetry I was not even aware of is unfair as part of this discussion. I will also complete the list above of my edit records on articles I've created since the Arbcom.

Thank you for all your help and support. Had I gotten more of this kind of interaction in the past from Arbitrators and Administrators, I feel things would have happened much differently for me.

• Comment concerning my editing since the Arbcom.

Here you will find a record of all the articles I’ve written. If necessary, I’ll create one of all the articles I’ve ever edited.

Since the Arbcom, I have written or re-created with improvements 27 articles. They are: Ted Andrews, Badi Assad, Pamela J. Ball, Chas S. Clifton, D. J. Conway, Vivianne Crowley, Nevill Drury, Ed Fitch, Gnosticon, Grey School of Wizardry, Laura Huxley, Amber K, Sirona Knight, Lehto and Wright, Nicholas Mann, Al G. Manning, Sally Morningstar, Dorothy Morrison, Morwyn, Ann Moura, Red Dog Experience, Gabrielle Roth, Fred Schrier, Bernie Siegel, Luisah Teish, Patricia Telesco, Amber Wolfe Of these, 5 have or had internal links to either Starwood or ACE:

Amber K – I posted this one from old notes, and forgot it mentioned her appearance at Starwood. Pigman deleted it, and I did not revert or comment.

Lehto and Wright – had a “Performance Venues” section containing 18 venues, the Starwood Festival being one of them. Pigman deleted entire section as “listcruft” and unencyclopedic. I neither revert nor comment.

Fred Schrier – contains mention of his obituary/memorial of partner Dave Sheridan printed in ACE periodical Changeling Times in 1982, in text of article along with every other magazine he has written or contributed to. Not controversial IMO.

Patricia Telesco – recreated from text that pre-dates Arbcom, which included a mention of appearances at the Starwood Festival and Pagan Spirit Gathering.. Pigman deleted a good deal of the data Jan 26th, 2008 as unsourced. I replace it with citations. He has edited it since, but has not deleted the mention.

Amber Wolfe – contains an ACE link due to 3 ACE/Llewellyn Collection tapes. Not controversial IMO.

Let me also state that on Michael T. Gilbert, due to a deletion by Calton of a pre-Arbcom mention that Gilbert appeared at Starwood, the article had the non-sequetor “He also contributed to their magazine, Changeling Times.[1]” with citation. I changed “their magazine” to “the ACE magazine” with the word ACE linked to the ACE article. He reverted it to the non-sequetor, with the comment “spam spam spam spam”. (I don’t think mine was a promotional move, or an illogical edit.)

The notion that I am only creating articles to spam Wikipedia with Starwood promotions or fighting with editors about it is just not true, and certainly does not recognize the changes and improvements in my editing since the Arbcom. I think this is an attempt to re-try an Arbcom that certain editors did not like the results of. Since then, I have only written 27 articles (my total is about 70), and 85% had no connection to Starwood or ACE whatever. Of the remainders, 2 were deleted by Pigman with no opposition, one was a link to an article the subject wrote in 1982 (hardly something that could be said to “promote” anything), and one was a link to a Discography item.

I have certainly opposed deletion of articles I thought notable when they were nominated. I improved them, and argued for them on nomination pages. Some survived, others did not, and I disagree with some results and not with others, just like many of you would. If you examine the above list, you will see that since the Arbcom I rarely interfered with the deletion of Starwood etc data, though in some cases I thought the basis for it was incorrect. For instance, the Paul Krassner article simply mentioned that he frequently appeared at the Starwood Festival and WinterStar Symposium (insertion predates Arbcom). When deleted, I pointed out on the Talk page that he had appeared at six out of the last ten, it was the only Neo-Pagan event he had ever appeared at, that he had written about his experiences there in High Times Magazine, The Nation, and Arianna Huffington’s Blog (all properly cited in the article), and that it was his introduction to the Neo-Pagan movement which he has now written about as well. Pigman did not reverse his deletion, and pointed out that even though his bio mentions having gone to a Neo-Pagan festival it doesn’t mention Starwood by name. Paul Krassner himself (and I did NOT ask him to do this) posted a letter verifying everything I had pointed out, and saying that Starwood WAS the festival referred to in his bio. Nonetheless, Pigman would not reverse his action, and I did not revert it.

I have had a lot of contention with Pigman, but in my opinion that it is not because I have not changed my editing since the Arbcom. I plainly have. But he, Kathryn and Mattisse will not accept this fact, and keep trying to bring me to task for that which should have ended with that Arbcom. They also keep trying to anger people by associating me with the sockpuppetry of Ekajati (who was blocked indefinitely), which I had nothing to do with and no knowledge of at the time, and ignoring the fact that Mattisse used even more sockpuppets, actually wrote dummy articles and blamed them on me, and was NEVER blocked for it. She has also said above: “* Addendum: Nearly all the above mentioned sock puppets were almost exclusively editing Rosencomet/Star Festival articles, voting in those articles' AFD's, etc. -- Mattisse (Talk) 16:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC) This is manifestly untrue, but I don’t know how to show you the editing records for Ekajati, Hanuman Das, and 999 (and others). They were extremely prolific editors who were working on Wikipedia well before I ever came here; I can hardly believe Mattisse would make such a claim.

Again, this has nothing to do with the canvassing I just did, for which I am truly sorry and vow never to repeat. My point, though, is that this should be the only issue before us, not COI issues that pretty much ended with the Arbcom. I know Pigman, Kathryn and Mattise think that ANY editing I do is by definition aggressive, and Kathryn has stated that I should not even be allowed to edit any articles by authors that Llewellyn has ever published or that ACE has ever sold a book of. This position is not shared by either Thatcher or Fred Bauder, who I have gone to repeatedly when these conflicts come up; they judge an edit on the merits of the edit itself. Thatcher has told Pigman on occasion that I was not actually violating policy (in reference to COI, not this canvassing issue), and Fred Bauder has said that I am free to edit articles even of associates as long as the editing is responsible and not original research. I do not contest anyone on the need for citations and references, try to find the best ones I can, and have improved a great deal in these respects with experience.

I hope this helps correct the impression P, K & M have been trying to create that I am filling Wikipedia with Starwood spam, have learned nothing from the Arbcom, have been aggressively editing, have been writing or editing only Starwood-related articles, or whatever else they wish to keep heaping on the pile. I absolutely accept responsibility for my canvassing, and will accept the consequences. I can only hope that some of you can take into consideration that I have had a lot of pressure put on me by the constant edit-following, accusations, tagging-sprees, deletion nominations, associations with sockpupptry I have not engaged in, and other behavior by P, K & M that has made Wikipedia at times a hostile environment to work in, and helped provoke me to extreme reactions. These are the same people who dragged me through two mediations (dropped as soon as they didn’t go their way) and an Arbcom, the results of which IMO they keep misrepresenting, and the end of which IMO they refuse to recognize. Rosencomet (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to ask again what the best use can be made of the data I've provided above for the case against me. I have posted it to you for advise, but have not as yet linked it to the case. What is best: putting it on my talk page with links, or just to here, or somewhere else? Is only some of it appropriate? Is this something I should do, or perhaps you might? Please advise.

Also, has Fred Bauder and Thatcher declined to comment about this case? Is there anything else I should do to help my situation that I simply don't know about?

I thank you for whatever help and advice you can give me. -- Rosencomet (talk) 03:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I absolutely swear that I have no idea who User:70.243.80.195 is. It's obviously someone who knows their way around Wiki policy better than I do; I know nothing about Wiki copyright violation policies and such. As loathe as I am to pass up help from any source, I don't know if this IS help and I'm afraid he/she may be angering editors as much as anything else. Please don't make decisions based on his/her zeal; it's not coming from me. All I'm doing at this point is trying to document that in contrast to the impression that some editors are trying to create, I HAVE improved my editing over the past year, and I hope people will not be drawn into re-trying the Arbcom and assuming that just because I am accused of continuing the same behavior re: Starwood-related articles that it is actually so. Also, I have not been contentious; in fact, through more than 50 articles my work was deleted from and nearly ten nominated for deletion, I have either not commented at all or simply discussed them on talk pages in all but a few cases. I also clearly HAVE "ventured outside of my walled-garden of interests" (not that Wikipedia requires this). And I have never even been accused of responsibility for Ekajati's sockpuppetry, which far preceeded and was far broader than my editing.

This has nothing to do with the fact that I should not have sent that e-mail, and that it WAS canvassing, for which I sincerely apologize and vow never to do anything like it again, and must accept whatever is decided. I just want to point out that this should be the only issue on the table, not Ekajati's sockpuppetry from a year and a half ago or false statements that my editing hasn't changed since then. -- Rosencomet (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You said If you want to have any sort of future options on Wikipedia, you need to demonstrate -- not just say, but demonstrate -- that you accept and understand not only what you have done wrong but also why it was wrong.

How? What can I do to take back my canvassing? I have sent e-mails or spoken to the people I sent the e-mail to telling them that what I did was a violation of Wiki policy and that they should disregard and not act on it. As far as I know, not one person I've spoken to about this has actually acted to become editors or input anything on Wikipedia. If words are not enough, what more must I do that will demonstrate my committment not to engage in canvassing again? -- Rosencomet (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Please update the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.134.102.27 (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. If I wasn't prepared to know what ground I'm standing on, I wouldn't have accepted your nom to run as an admin. Cheers. --Rodhullandemu 20:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Was a decision made with regard to Rosencomet's AN/I, or did it simply scroll off again? Pigman put it back at least once, but I don't want to be presumptious, especially as I just want him to act differently, not get blocked, which is where it looked like things were going the last time I looked. -- Davidkevin (talk) 00:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe it just went stale. He is not blocked but has no contributions in the last couple days. I think I would like to try to work with him, since he seems to trust me. I will approach him about that soon. - Revolving Bugbear 16:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I have hopes for your working with him. Much obliged. -- Davidkevin (talk) 06:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

Im highly interested in admin coaching, as i would like to become an admin in the near future and also to learn about an admins roles, dutys and ethics. Following instuctions on the coaching page it was suggested that I contact an admin who hasnt got any coachees instead of waiting for things to be done for me. I was wondering if you had the time to admin coach me, I look foward to your reply, Cheers Prom3th3an (talk) 08:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bugbear,
Could you please take a look at the International Sports Federations bit in the Reaction to Kosovo's Declaration of Independence article. I proposed a change a while ago - people have mostly agreed, but not all. I'm not sure whether the disagreements would rule out an editprotect request or not. Your sage advice required!
Many thanks, Bazonka (talk) 19:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

i understand what you mean. However it is unfair when certain editors object to an edit request per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I will do the good thing and remove my comment. Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

So, as per your reasoning on the kosovo reaction talk page, it only takes one person's objection to prevent an edit no matter how many agree with said edit? Canadian Bobby (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

That was asking for clarification. I've seen it be 5/6 to 2 and the edit still killed because the 2 were so vociferous and obstructive. There is a very small nucleus of rabidly pro-Serbian editors who who obstruct anything remotely positive for Kosovo as much as possible. Canadian Bobby (talk) 23:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I really dont like saying bad things about other users as this is not fair. But you are not familiar with user Tocino. He has admitted that when/if the page is unlocked he will edit it to suit him. He is not a neutral editor at all. He will find the smallest thing to disagree on something he does not like. Just look threw the archives. He disagrees on everything which seems to be good for Kosovo. He disagrees for the sake of disagreeing. Some may call him a Troll.
Its not that i dislike the guy, i like him when we are discussing non-kosovo related subjects. He just seems to go mad on Kosovo related articles and he acts as if Serbia has sent him to cause disruption to the articles and he wont stop until he has succeeded. Maybe i am going over the top slightly, but he is by far no means NPOV. Just watch in future. He will oppose all positive things for Kosovo. He takes it too personnel.
Then maybe do I. Haha.
Remember i don't dislike him, i just think hes too anti Kosovo and thats not good for the sake of the article. It could be so better if people didnt oppose for their own means. Anyway peace friend. ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I just lost teh game (talk) 17:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Some anon keeps deleting my comments on the talk page of the International Reaction article, check out the history for proof. Also this same person keeps demanding me to answer him on my talkpage. I have no idea what he wants me to answer about. Ohh and while I was making this edit, the anon deleted all of my talk page. Thanks. --Tocino 18:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Ohh, he just did it again. He replaces my talk page with the following: 'YOU DON'T BELONG HERE! GO! FOREVER AND EVER! ONCE AND FOR ALL! --Tocino 18:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I made a spelling error on an article. I spelled Border as "Boarder". If you look here User Marelug has gone out of his way and produced a dictionary definition of my spelling mistake to humiliate me on the article talk page. Personally i find this unnecessary and out of order. He should be discussing the article rather than humiliating myself on wikipedia talk pages. This is really unfair on my part. Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey man, would you mind dropping in your opinion here? Thanks. GlassCobra 01:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Please add Sierra Leone. 84.134.87.152 (talk) 19:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Revolving Bugbear, thank you for the note concenring my 3 most recent talk page entries in the matter of Sierra Leone recognizing Kosovo being missourced and the demands being made that Wikipedia act on these inferior sources. I admit the tone was harsh, and I will refrain to the best of my ability from doing it again.

However, I think I was commenting on the edits and not the editor, albeit disparragingly. Both editors were demanding that we act on uncertain news (one even wrote "I want Sierra Leone in the article"). I have been accused of being a pro-Kosovo editor, and in this instance I was expressly finding fault in pro-Kosovo demands, in Ian's case, an editor who is editing this article intensively and if should know better. His claim that he could not identify by looking whether the sources were all in Albanian was disingeneous, and, too, influenced my say. But I will refrain in the future. Best wishes, --Mareklug ^talk 00:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see User:Prom3th3an/coaching Prom3th3an (talk) 02:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

User:69.29.70.177 is deleting my comments on a talk page.

• 15:26
• 15:49

I asked him why he deleted my comment and he just deleted that too. 15:48

This is his page. Will you please sort him out and tell him not to delete my comment and edits in the future? Thankyou.Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. Since people can't read my signature, I won't bother to write it, just read my IP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.70.177 (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Prom3th3an's Coaching Page has been Updated Prom3th3an (talk) 10:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to work with you on some issues. However, I'd like to know if this can be done through e-mail discussions rather than talking through talk pages. I feel that my words get dissected and twisted, and any slip of the phrase gets misrepresented somewhere down the road as some sort of attack or admission of "bad attitude" or "wrong thinking". I'm tired of my motivations being analyzed and hearing that I should know such-and-such by now, in this esoteric environment that is a whole different world for those of us who only have so much time to devote to it, compared to others who seem to make it their life's work.

I'd certainly like some firmer guidelines from someone objective about when I've edited within policy and when something I plan to write violates some actual rule. I've had mixed signals about a lot of things, and quoting arbitrators seems to get me nowhere, and quoting multiple examples of similar editing on similar articles just gets me told "other crap exists" is no support. I'd like to discuss this in a manner where the very fact that I ask a question or disagree with another editor won't be twisted into "aggression" or "contention" or some other characterization.

I consider you to be honestly trying to help me out here, and I appreciate that, especially considering the work load you give yourself on Wikipedia. Rosencomet (talk) 00:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)