Tombaker321

(already two days late, for the first time in months) ... While we're waiting ...

This message has been sealed ... to keep the heat in :)

Proofreader77 (talk) has given you a fresh piece of fried chicken! Pieces of fried chicken promote WikiLove and hopefully this piece has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot piece, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit! Spread the tastiness of fried chicken by adding {{subst:GiveChicken}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Just a finger-licking comment from someone who's about two edits away from 10,000 ... Few things are more maddening than some fool Wikipedian with a gazillion edits saying to "step back" or "calm down" or "take a wikibreak" etc ... to which the only satisfying answer is KMA :) ... ... so I'll just say that it takes awhile to get the hang of things (and don't follow my example lol). We'll start playing more formally by the rules in a day or two (or a more lol—when I start getting sore wrists, I know it's time to slow down) ... Meanwhile, remember the information under contention is not in the article. Yet. :) Enjoy (the hot KFC lol) Proofreader77 (talk) 06:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Kind of insulting. You mention how many edits you have, as though that makes you superior to the newer editor. You tell them to step back and calm down, while you constantly try to find a way to add in information to downplay the severity of the horrible crime. And the information is not in the article, yet? It will never be in the article, because there will always be reasonable minded people to revert it, and you know very well it does not belong there. Dream Focus 10:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

FWIW dream focus, I take the remark about his 10,000 edits that his experience gives him the advantage, but he is not ignorant enough to tout that or rely upon that. He has called it out in the discussion after I apparently did a phopah by quoting his text with his signature file which confused some readers to as to if it had be written again by him, and thinking I should have just used italic. I will still quote but use do it with more clarity. Like indenting etc.

As to the substance of what I have said about his alternative motivations Proofreader77 is using to introduce a wedge so as to later drive reader perception...Proofreader77 has never addressed. The interjection of her appearance is to do the wiki definition of blame the victim. This is indeed a rape case, that was only plead down to statutory because of victim request. The look of the victim does not mitigate in anyway, and Polanski never sought to mitigate or defend on this basis. Polanski never said she looked older. At least he did not go about unbolding things, and he only crossed out things where he thought them in bad form.

I think his position is screwed up, but I do think he thinks he can win on the objective merits...and I disagree. DreamFocus I sure hope you continue to contribute your voice of reason within this Polanski affair (well its not an affair, which was ironically Polanski's continued defense) --Tombaker321 (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Wanted and Desired was available as a view instantly from Netflix last week, just fyi. Oberonfitch (talk) 20:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

FWIW I just viewed online, there are some really interesting items of bias I have already found. IE the girl in the picture, in Germany, is 15, maybe 16 by then, Natasha Kinski. This is the reason I got the movie to see that pic, which is notably absent from online resources. BTW I have the online version, if the DVD has clean copies of the source material....IE the originals of the articles in old newspapers please tell me. They way they have them for the movie is a zoom across for effect, making them only partially readable. thanks --Tombaker321 (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Am I reading you correctly? You are trying to find the original articles? I couldn't find any of that online except for that one person who has transcribed the articles (and thus, who knows about accuracy). Perhaps you would like to assemble all this stuff into a book; someone is going to do it. I don't have the stomach for it, can't even look at the criminal assault page without shuddering. Oberonfitch (talk) 05:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sometimes a documentary that relies on documents, on the DVD, they include stills of all the documents. There are some documents in Wanted and Desired that they pan across. It would be in a section called special materials or like that in extra features. I would have hoped the DVD included all the base material, the DVD has plenty of room. --Tombaker321 (talk) 00:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Tom, we are trying to clean up the cites to the sentence in Polanski that discusses what he did. We have four links for one sentence. The current suggestion is to drop everything but the Post, but apparently you wanted to keep in the original research. I think that original research is linked to in other places in the article. I'd value your input. Oberonfitch (talk) 15:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

May I suggest that any consolidations of links, be then transferred into the discussion pages a block, so that if anyone did want to do research that there would at least be a nice roadmap. Just toss them in, as a set, not to be commented on. So long as the remaining cite fully covers the sentence. --Tombaker321 (talk) 00:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

That may work. I think that it would take a concerted effort by several people to go through the citations because they are a mess. So, reviewing them as a block of material in talk may work, but it might make things worse. I am not at this time familiar enough with the software to be able to feel comfortable with anything other than rudimentary changes. Please feel free to float your suggestion. The Wiki Ancients may have some ideas. Oberonfitch (talk) 02:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Software? There is software? I basically think there is nothing wrong with a large bibliography. Especially when its electronic. --Tombaker321 (talk) 02:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Check out the special pages to the left. There is, what I believe to be, enhanced HTML which enables moving text without dropping cites, and stuff like that. I'm not touching it until I have some time to sit down and learn it. There are also pages for tracking vandals, (in case you feel a calling to remove foul language and racial slurs, which happens rather regularly), and I'm sure you've familiarized yourself with the admin pages by now, which make for interesting reading.

I don't have a problem with a large bibliography, provided that the cites do not link to op-ed pieces, or Aunt Jane's blog, etc. Also, I am fussy that the stuff which links to the cite actually be found in the cite, (silly, I know), which has not always been the case. One of the interesting things I have found (frankly sick of reading about Polanski) is that the Wikipedia article, and text which is not validated, has shown up verbatim in a couple of articles. So, we can quote those, and then it will all be okay. :O Oberonfitch (talk) 03:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yah wiki is based on articles based in wiki, its one of the reasons I have objected to the interjection of her appearance. It was never disputed by Polanski as to her look and her actual age. Angelic Huston only remarked on her age when she thought it would make a difference for her friend. If you still have the documentary freeze the frame on the article which is written by the Gossip columnist. Its quite interesting in the 75% if the article that is visible. --Tombaker321 (talk) 04:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I'm afarid that I've had to revert much of the recent change you made to the Polanski article - the wording was too close to that of the original source. While you did reference it, which was great and makes it clear that it was done in good faith, it needs to be extensivly rewritten in order to meet with the COPYVIO|copyright requirements. The version I've replaced it with says pretty much the same thing, although it a bit less detail, so the basic gist of the text should still be mostly the same. - Bilby (talk) 02:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

For one that I perceive as even handed, could I get your impression of what is going on with the Polanski page. We had near a perfect section, with complete details explaining much in few words.

Now a NPOV dispute with stated objectives. And the wholesale deletion of content based on a 500 word goal. No group process on what is deleted or not. Whats your take? TIA --Tombaker321 (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi i want to interject here that that 500-word goal was never my intent for the article but a comment instead on the lengthy talkpage posts - my apologies that it was misinterpreted. I am still very open to including NPOV and RS content that Polankki felt he was innocent or similar content as we cannot censor his views away. I hope in hindsight you may see I was only trying to remove unneeded content from his article that likely should be in the case article. -- Banjeboi 02:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I understand what you said above. I think it is important to have a certain level of information on the Polanski page itself, it is after all very current news, so on this we disagree. I believe we had a very compact section on the entire matter, verifiability documented as a nice stand alone, we are only talking about 6 sentences, I can remove 2 about the settlement. To balance NPOV I have no issue of addressing specific or adding specifics, so we agree here. I spent over an hour researching and documenting an posting that the judge ended up being removed. I don't think you thought you edits would be the new baseline for use in the NPOV dispute. --Tombaker321 (talk) 09:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Cease disruptive removing of POV tag for Sexual assault case section. NPOV is disputed and you are a disputant. Repetitions of false assertion there is no basis specified is noted. Proofreader77 (talk) 02:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

There is a process, please follow it, do not Tag without stating specifically what you objection is. The NPOV Dispute is not intended to be a standing dispute. If you continue to remain uninformed of the guidelines, please take the time to read them. --Tombaker321 (talk) 04:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Tombaker321. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Banjeboi 23:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Alright, no problem here --Tombaker321 (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

• I am stunned to see Proofreader77 ask administrators to admonish you for "asking for more eyes". A true WTF!! As I said on the ANI board, "I think Benjiboi's raising of his concerns here to be earnest, and well stated." Please understand I still disagree with the edits for compression, however those were (without you knowledge) engulfed into this NPOV whatever-it-is-thing. I still believe that I can lobby for inclusion of necessary items, with you and others.
• Please read

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation/Vulnerability_of_short_pages_to_attack,_UD_overflow,_and_other_issues_of_Boke

It yields a lot of insight, and ironic deja vu Best regards, --Tombaker321 (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

No worries, I feel there is room to well state more information and add the NPOV nuances that are missed. My concern is that all discussion is compromised and realy not worth having until the extra talkpage "stuff" is eliminated so we can just focus on content issues. If needed, like if this simply won't let up, we start a separate page where just you and I could sort out issues and present each agreed change in turn bit by bit and let the chips fall where they may. At some point all the archives will have to be resorted to see what valid bits were shuffled away. -- Banjeboi 01:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

No separate page for me, but I agree the current state of the talk page, makes attempting exchange now worth it. Which is why after I my failed reverting of the weed whacking (your term) I have not attempted to go at the specifics, yet. We'll first see what the administrators view is --Tombaker321 (talk) 11:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

If it ever strikes you to want a picture of some kind on User:Tombaker321, you can take a look at WP:Featured pictures. (Look at link for featured pictures by day, too). No reply necessary, just in case you're interested. Note: Way to display is with [[File:xxxx|500px]] - replace xxx with picture name, and 500 with pixel width you like). Happy holidays. Proofreader77 (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

It appears the circumstances have changed with respect to the placing of the tag. Note: My recent countering of your removal was based partly on this administrative comment. Given the aforementioned "changed circumstances," I am not averse to it being removed... other than a gentle reminder that tags aren't usually to be contended so vigorously. (E.g., Got another POV-check on Al Gore, and have given a week for someone to say something on talk about things to look for ... and will probably wait 14 days ... or 30. Left the last one up 40 days and 40 nights. lol :) Cheers. [no response necessary] Proofreader77 (talk) 23:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I am aware of the rules, and have over days been addressing this. The editor now wants to delete the entire article. The editor is first touched this article on the 19th. Drive by tagging is just that. All of the tags concerns have been addressed in full. Please read the NPOV notice section. This editor is using a shotgun approach opening up multiple avenues for the same goal. They also have an ANI board section. The flag can not remain just to be a stamp. --Tombaker321 (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Note: "circumstances have changed" includes "AfD" idea. :) I.e., There is a line, and it has been crossed ... indubitably. Proofreader77 (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Note: Correction re "AfD" idea. Upon further reading, I have learned that in the case of problematic BLPs, AfD may in fact be a "solution." I.E., AfD is not "beyond the pale." See for example the bottom half of the bottom paragraph from this discussion archived recently from Jimbo's talk page. This is not to say Roman Polanski is in that state, but Wikiwatcher1 was arguing that that level of undermining was in effect, and hence AfD was reasonable. (Meanwhile, remember holiday season, and there is no rush ... and current events are very much in flux. Quarter turn left. :-) --Proofreader77 (talk) 08:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I won't go into Polanski right now while you're working on it, and perhaps cause an edit conflict, but it's not necessary to use something like "(a sedative drug and muscle relaxant)" - this sort of definition is usually not used. You could easily put a parenthetical comment after every blue link for those who may not know the meaning of the word. In this case, "quaaludes" is linked for anyone wanting a definition, but it is also redirected to Methaqualone which may be even more confusing that simply saying that he gave her sedative drug. The name or type of the drug isn't necessary. I also notice the reference to Polanki's biography and the Vogue Hommes comment. I have the bio and will try to find the reference and page number and add it as a second citation. Rossrs (talk) 07:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Found the Vogue Hommes reference. If you could just add this after the existing citation. <ref>''Roman by Polanski'', pp 403-404</ref> Thanks Rossrs (talk) 07:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Inserted the page numbers, thanks. I think its also in the documentary too. Reworded the Quaalude line too. --Tombaker321 (talk) 08:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I also found this [1] from the Justice Dept, U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration which lists methaqualone as "antianxiety", "sedative", "hypnotic". I think it would be more accurate on methaqualone to say "Methaqualone is a drug with antianxiety, sedative and hypnotic properties ^[1] that is similar in effect.... " This makes me wonder how best to say it on Polanski's page. Maybe "quaalude" is best after all. We don't say "the alcoholic drink champagne", so maybe we could just say "the drug quaalude". What do you think ? Rossrs (talk) 08:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

It is defined as a hypnotic for the most part, although Bilby says his research says it is a hypnotic-sedative. Since alcohol and the drug combined to create an increased effect, I think it should be shown. --Tombaker321 (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think it would be far safer to take the definition from a reliable source, which I've given, and not go through the anguish of deciding which property is the stronger, and how it reacts with alcohol. Clearly it should be shown, I agree, and anyone reading it should recognise that the alcohol and the drug is not a good mix. I think that part reads well in Roman Polanski, but I'm still not sure it's right in methaqualone, and I will give that some more thought. Also, for what it's worth, I hope you know that I believe you're acting in good faith. I've made some strong comments to you in the past, but I don't question your intentions, even if I don't agree with every edit you make. Rossrs (talk) 07:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Likewise to your well intentions, despite some editorial approach choices, which always exist. I still don't see any major issue with moving early life to the top. Moving a chunk to the top, and retaining the rest of the structure seems easy and conservative. I have to look back but I believe when it was moved, that Proofreader reverted it. It may be worth putting up in discussion again....or not. --Tombaker321 (talk) 11:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Oh well. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 10:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

You are removing sourced information for unsourced information. When I put in a sourced piece of information that Rossrs contributed on you removed it. I was addressing as you saw his concerns about the information on Quaaludes, at first I just put in parentheses where they needed to be put, I then researched the term, and as Wikipedia defines it is a hypnotic, I did not just make it up. Bilby confirms also. I do not understand why edits that are backed up, are being removed. Please do not just go about reverting just because you can. --Tombaker321 (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

That's an impressive diagram you added to Hypnotic. I wonder if Melatonin should be included. (Tho it's OTC in North America, it's a drug or unavailable in most countries.) - Hordaland (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

As it turns out the diagram itself was removed, because of an allegation that the content is original research. The diagram was on other Wikipedia entries. Since its more or less a simple hierarchical listing of drugs, I do not believe its in the category of OR, but this remains to be determined. I do think the diagram simplifies a maze of words well. --Tombaker321 (talk) 07:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

This is your quote:

"Regarding your latest Vogue Homme article, it indicates the editors were joking with him, and Polanski was aware of that. It also says that Polanski was trying to start a movement where adults had sex with underage girls, to lash back at women. It does provide some insight on the situation, but still shows that Polanski was operating on his own. --Tombaker321 (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)"

I responded by asking what "my" latest Vogue Homme[s} article referred to. I presume that you have me confused with someone else? Aside from that, I am trying to figure out if what you are saying is that there was a recent VH article in which it is claimed that Polanski was trying to start a man-girl movement, and that he was angry with women. I intend absolutely no disrespect, I am very curious as to whether such article exists, as I have been unable to find it online (but may not be looking in the right places.) Please kindly provide link if you have it, or offer further clarification.Oberonfitch (talk) 01:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

This was a reference in the article, which I had not noticed that Proofreader inexplicably deleted. Here is the reference that was deleted. http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=HSgVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Q_sDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6871,3279026&dq=polanski+vogue-homme&hl=en --Tombaker321 (talk) 05:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for sharing article, Tom. I was looking for a new VH article, obviously that wasn't going to work. LOL Oberonfitch (talk) 05:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

As I have mentioned you at ANI and perhaps you didn't notice I thought it only fair to let you know . Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 06:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

You need to stop adding this disputed content, you are doing it repeatedly and each time it is removed, you then fail to seek support for your edit and come back after a few days and insert it again, seek support for your addition of the talkpage, if you have no support then stop adding it. Off2riorob (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

What is your dispute with the content? Each time it is removed, it is from your removal. Nothing about the content is in dispute, if you want to have a content dispute raise it. You have repeatedly stated to me, that my edits have no support. This is false, though certainly you may not support them, the revert warring that you are doing is not appropriate. You raised these questions already it seem to me in a ANI. You can raise a content dispute without reverting. Removing content is not your job. --Tombaker321 (talk) 22:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Is a free man, its totally relevant, stay away from my talkpage, you know we dint get on, sorry if it didn't go your way. She freed him from house arrest, freed him from any and all bail conditions and gave him his millions of dollars in security bonds back and said that America can also not appeal. Off2riorob (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

The edits that you are saying are needed, have nothing to do with what I simplified. Your wording is wordy and bloated. Refused to extradite is synonymous with refused to extradite. My version also says he was removed from house arrest, which is synonymous with bail. Please deal only with the edits, and not with your agendas. --Tombaker321 (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry Tom Baker but you are the single purpose account over this issue, I was just reading the talkpage and looking at your edit history, quite interesting looking back, anyway as its over I don't expect you will edit hewre anymore, so take it easy and best wishes. Off2riorob (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have warned you again, for the 2nd time. I see you think this is a contest...it is not. Behave appropriately --Tombaker321 (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Your childish worthless warning are laughable as is re reading your talkpage, hilarious, goodbye to uyou. Off2riorob (talk) 20:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have asked you not to post on my talkpage and you have reverted something on my talkpage, I am allowed to remove whatever I like from my talkpage . Do not revert or add anything to my talkpage or I will report you. Off2riorob (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

If I am required to notify you as I have, I will notify you, and that also going forward. That is all. --Tombaker321 (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Don't notify me of anything. I am happy Polanski is a free man it replaces my faith in humanity, stay off my talkpage, goodbye, move on to your next issue. Off2riorob (talk) 20:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Another warning, do not touch my comments, if you don't like them add a comment to that affect but do not touch them. Off2riorob (talk) 21:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think lots of editors understand what you're trying to do. Posts like this will not get you what you want. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Gwen again with being cryptic language, will you please communicate clearly? What is that you are asserting I am trying to do, whom do you think you are the spokeswoman for (ie who are these editors), what is it you speculate that I want? Please respond distinctly.

As far as your posts on the talk pages of Polanski, is there some sort of contribution you want to offer? I again ask you seek a mentor and ask them for some better guidance to that which you are displaying. They may agree that seem to be asserting ownership of this article.

Lastly, you are welcome to ask me questions for clarification, rather that using poorly thought out presumptions as your guidance. --Tombaker321 (talk) 21:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

You've been blocked before for edit warring and disruption at Roman Polanski. Since you seem to be set on carrying forward with disrupting that article, to stop you from doing so I've blocked this account from editing for a week. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Tombaker321 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

1. This block is completely without merit, it relates to a to a discussion page, where I entered in a reliable source for information relating to entering in some NPOV text to the current Roman Polanski article, specifically that the system by which the Swiss appraised the defense attorney's request stop extradition was a radical departure from the standard, with Swiss critic stating problems, and potential long term ramifications to the extradition treaty. For Polanski the rationale of what was done by the Swiss provides legal argument to the merits of the case and sentencing of Polanski, which is a case which was never before the Swiss court, nor was it argued, nor did the court have standing to do such. As written the Polanski reference is skewed heavily.

2. Gwen Gale is an administrator who is heavily evolved with the Polanski article. She does not contribute content, but seemingly wants to be the judge of what can or can not be included. She seeks out making many administrative actions on the article. I have prior interaction with her, to which I have needed to talk to her via her talk page about issues. In this way she is not a disinterested admin, to either myself or Polanski.

3. The reason Gwen Gale gave for blocking me does not have to do with editing the article space. My live edits are not in question, to which I have made some, and they remain in the article.

4. I began I discussion section in the article to discuss the information from multiple reliable sources, my concerns with the current article, and sought out consensus for changes, prior to making changes. Again this relates to discussion of changes IN ADVANCE of any changes being offered.

5. It was after I responded to Gwen Gale's message to me on my Talk page, some 64 minutes later I was blocked. She had said that many editors thought the same as her about what I was doing...to which I asked for clarification. She did not clarify to the questions I ask, she blocked instead.

6. My actions do not relate to any of the guidelines for block for disruption listed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BP#Disruption

7. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BP#When_blocking_may_not_be_used

a. Gwen Gale is engaged with me on a content dispute, as such she should have handed off her concerns to a different Admin

b. Gwen Gale states she is using this block as a cool down block (reasonable paraphrase), this is specifically prohibited.

c. Gwen Gale is using this block for recording the block log, which again is not the proper usage of a block. She does this by even reference other blocks solely as her rationale.

8 The section I created, which caused the block is contained here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roman_Polanski#Sexual_Abuse_Section_-_Swiss_Rejection_of_Extradition_Request.

9.The section of my Talkpage which content seemingly is the catalyst for Gwen Gale's actions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tombaker321#disruption This is where she assumed bad faith somehow, without examining the sourced information I was bringing to other editors via the talk page.

This block is not merited by my actions by raising content discussion on an articles TALK page. Gwen Gale is an interested admin, who needed to bring this issue to another admin to examine. Gwen is does not WP:OWN either the article space or the admin functions for the pages. This block is not appropriate, not warranted, not properly justified, and does not conform to the guidelines shown above for blocking editors. Thank you. --Tombaker321 (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Decline reason:

There are numerous problems with the tome you have written above. I'm not going in to all of them.

To be unblocked, you must convince administrators either (a) that the block was made in error or (b) that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for and you will not repeat that behavior or otherwise disrupt Wikipedia again and you will make productive contributions instead. Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Toddst1 (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

---

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.

{{unblock|There remains no actions identified to why the block was instigated by Gwen Gale. Toddst1 declined to give any reason for his decision which compounds this resolution process. "Not going into all of them" was in fact, not stating any of them. As outlined above this block violates the blocking guidelines, clearly and multiple times. How did any of my actions warrant a block, what was communicated to the editor as the actions needing changing? I think it reasonable to ask for a review that provides basis. How can a review of the merits of the block be done without the very basis. --Tombaker321 (talk) 01:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)}}.Reply

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Tone aside, one week was too long and failed to consider your attempts to understand other editors' issues with actions (issues that are still not entirely clear to me). Also, as you noted above, few of your recent edits have been to the actual article, so I don't see what necessitated such strong action. Request handled by: -- tariqabjotu Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

You've received warnings (which you removed from your talk page, so reviewing admins will need to peruse the history) to stop harassing another user. By words and actions you have clearly refused to cease. Therefore, your account is blocked to prevent a continuation of harassment. Secondarily, in reviewing the editing history of this account, I see that it has done virtually nothing productive. The body of edits mainly consists of attempts to add content to Roman Polanski that violates biography of living persons policy. As this is a single purpose, disruption only account, the block is indefinite. I am purposefully not providing further details of what the violations to BLP are because it would be a further violation to post and discuss the problematic content here. Reviewing administrators are welcome to contact me by email. Please do not unblock this account without such consultation. Jehochman ^Talk 11:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Tombaker321 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Note: This is a complex request, which needs a reasonable amount of review, its not a quickie, and I request a review by an admin that has the time. Thank you. :This is a highly improper blocking by Jehochman, which is abusive and overkill which clearly demonstrates Jehochman's interested take on my editorship, which by Wiki guidelines should mean that this is handed off to an uninterested admin, without blocking. This block should be reversed if for nothing else to allow me to respond. This stems from myself asking an admin why I was blocked, a block which was overturned on its merits. I was asking the blocking admin, what my actions where that caused the blocking. Gwen Gale never asserted that she was being uncomfortable, that she took this as anything except related to her admin function, and never even hinted she felt harassed in any way. Further my interactions with her were above board, polite, and on topic. Jehochman indefinite block is uncalled for, and should be rescinded, either by himself doing the right thing, or by review on merits :Further details: ::1. Toddst1 is a common associate with Gwen Gale, whom was an interested party in reviewing her blocking of me. That block was reviewed by an uninterested admin who rejected the block. Toddst1 was the first to suggest there was a problem with my interactions with Gwen Gale in asking for clarification. My question on the block, related in part to his review of the block, making him very interested in my questions of the merits of the block. Toddst1 should have never been the review for a Gwen Gale ::2. Jehochman is an interested admin with whom I have had interactions with on this topic, and with Gwen Gale at the same time. This history is ample bias, and goes far in explaining the overkill usage of an indefinite ban. ::3. Jehochman without acknowledge our history, assesses my editing as not productive. My edits remain in place in live articles, and my contributions are needless dismissed. Allowing an indefinite ban to be support by these charges by an interested admin, are wholly unfair. ::4. Jehochman asserting he can not reference in any manner what are the causes of why my edits have been a BLP violation is a complete farce. This is the exact issue which occurred the last time, and for which I was never given any explanation. LETS BE CLEAR, any concerns or issues can be raised in a manner that does not cause a furthering of a BLP issue. Making generalized statements is not a stretch, and there is no reason why they should not be offered, as explanation to what is going on. It is my asking for explanation which is at the center. How can meritorious request for explanation become the object for a indefinite ban??? ::5. Jehochman breaks protocol and request that other admins communicate with him, via email. There is no reason why Jeochman action as admin should not be done via the normal Wiki process of openness. ::6. Jehochman is an associate of Dave1185. Dave1185 is who Jehochman seems to be referring to as warning me. Dave1185 fashions himself as some sort of vigilante. He began by entering items on my talk page, then asserting I was harassing, then writing on Gwen Gales page that I was harassing, then bragging to Gwen Gale that I was indefinitely blocked. After I was block Dave1185 returns to my Talk page, deletes content, and puts his Vigilante signature on it. you bag'em, we tag'em~! I am being gamed by Dave1185, and its improper to give an indefinite block based upon this kind of chicanery. Dave1185 changing of my TALK page after instigating a block on me, is some sort of victory dance, that is clearly improper. Summary: The indefinite block of me for reasonably asking the original block admin for the reasons why I was blocked is improper and uncalled for. Gwen Gale is capable of speaking for herself and doing it direct to me. Toddst1 is an interested admin who's actions were rejected by an uninterested admin. Jehochman and I have a history, and his blocking of me, based on the urgings of Dave1185 of me is not proper. The usage of an indefinite ban is clear overkill, and demonstrates Jehochman's prior involvement where this matter should have been handed off to another admin to review and for an uninterested admin to take or not take any action. I request this indefinite ban be lifted, for the merits above. Asking an admin whose block was overturned, for information as to what caused the original block....should not be CAUSE for an indefinite block. That is what has happened. ::SEE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale :Notes on the above page which Jehochman justifies his indefinite block: ::1. My request is reasonable and polite. ::2. Gwen Gale in the "trolling" section created by the instigation of Dave1185, states that she is not bothered by my request on her talkpage. ::3. Toddst1 reviewed the case and his review was overturned, his opposition to my request for clarification in that light, is not proper. ::4. I make a final attempt at getting a response to the reason for the admin blocking of me, and then say I will no longer ask her on the talk page. It is after this, where Jehochman indefinitely blocks me. How is that called for? ::5. Gwen Gale and Dave1185 after my last post undertake a discussion of the Star Wars movie in the same section where I had been asking for clarification. This is clear evidence that there is no perception of harassment. It does indicate they don't consider my direct question to warrant a direct reply. ::6. In the final section "trolling" Dave1185 is laughing about his edits to my Talk page, after the block, Jehochman is touting his indefinite blocking of me. And the tag team celebrates. ::7. Dave1185 is tossing out WP:CPUSH and WP:TE or whatever else they can get to stick, for my asking for why I was blocked. That block is not explain to this date, and Jehochman only want to EMAIL out explanations, behind the scenes. --Tombaker321 (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Decline reason:

Procedural decline: Please address only your own conduct, not that of others (WP:NOTTHEM) and try to be briefer.  Sandstein  21:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

---

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.

As a block reviewer, I agree that this user's WP:HEAR issues with Gwen Gale justify a block for harrassment. However, it is not immediately evident what the persistent BLP violations to Roman Polanski - an article last edited by this user on July 13 - that would justify an indefinite block are.  Sandstein  21:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sandstein: Thank you for reviewing this. I will form a new unblock request to as briefly as possible, address the blocking.

As to the WP:HEAR ...I attempted to find out the rationale for a block from Gwen Gale. That block was considered and reversed, after which I wanted to give Gwen Gale the opportunity to explain the reasons why she blocked me. She responded that it was a mistake to have been reversed. However the reviewing admin, gave their clear reasons why they reversed it. Instead of jumping to the next level after my block was reversed, I did ask Gwen Gale why I was blocked, I did this professionally and properly on her talk page, as she had suggested to do exactly this before. It turned into a dead-end...I said that on her talk page, and that I would not continue the topic there and I moved on.

Gwen as an administrator never implied she felt harassed and in fact said subsequently said she was "not bothered" by my inquiry on the talkpage. (see: Trolling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale )

Regardless, I finished my exchange, and told Gwen I was moving on, and I moved on. It was after this, that Jehochman chose to indefinitely block me. I don't understand how my action to discover why an admin blocked me, where a reviewing admin reversed that block...should cause me now to have an indefinite block. It seems like double punishment...for asking for clarification. I will form the simplified request. Thank you --Tombaker321 (talk) 09:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Tombaker321 seems to have edited Wikipedia primarily for the single purpose of adding derogatory content about the life of Roman Polanski. There's no shortage of negative material to add, and many decent people would agree that Polanski has done evil things; however, we are a serious encyclopedia and one's personal views should not be allowed to sway article contents. I've been watching this account for quite some time, but never felt the need to place a block because Tom seems to make attempts to use sources, and other editors have rapidly corrected article issues. I was willing to tolerate editing flaws, but am not willing to tolerate mistreatment of other editors.

Looking at the entire body of contributions from start to finish, once again, I do not get the impression of an editor who is here to build an encyclopedia. Rather, I get the impression of an editor who's on a mission, a mission that takes precedence over WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP, to slam a BLP subject as hard as possible. Maybe Polanski deserves to be slammed, but it's not Wikipedia's purpose to deliver justice. (Here's one of the very few non-Polanski edits [2], showing that even if there were a diversification of interests, there might still be serious problems.) Whenever challenged on a content issue, the editor immediately becomes combative and attacks other editors.[3][4][5][6] There is no indication that the pattern of combativeness and the recent harassment of User:Gwen Gale would end. That's why I chose an indefinite block.

If the user wishes to edit again, they must post a proper unblock request addressing their own actions, not the actions of other editors. Unblock conditions must include:

• Leave Gwen Gale be.
• Topic ban from Roman Polanski for one year. The editor has been edit warring and getting into conflicts there. It would be best to avoid such a challenging editing environment until the editor builds up more experience.
• Be civil to all other editors.
• Disclose any past accounts that have been used. This user seems excessively familiar with Wikipedia policies and processes considering his limited experience.

I hope this helps. User:Sandstein, you are now welcome to amend the block as you see fit. Other admins, be sure to contact me before making adjustments. Jehochman ^Talk 09:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

...and his recent addition to my own talkpage was a mere continuation of his tirade. I've never edited Polanski, merely reviewed an issue, and yet his WP:SOAP continued. Net negative to the project, does not get what Wikipedia as a whole is about, and does not seem able to change. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)Reply