Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
m Vincent Vega moved page User talk:Bsharvy to User talk:VanishedUser 261249: Automatically moved page while renaming the user "Bsharvy" to "VanishedUser 261249"
 
(20 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown)
Line 1:
June 1915
I consider [[User:Life.temp|Life.temp]] my main account. Please leave comments there. [[User:Bsharvy|Bsharvy]] ([[User talk:Bsharvy#top|talk]]) 07:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 
The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock
<div class="user-block"> [[Image:Stop x nuvola.svg|40px|left]] You have been '''blocked indefinitely''' from editing in accordance with [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|Wikipedia's blocking policy]] for {{#if:Abusing [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry|multiple]] accounts: [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bsharvy]]|'''Abusing [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry|multiple]] accounts: [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bsharvy]]'''|repeated [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|abuse of editing privileges]]}}. If you believe this block is unjustified you may [[Wikipedia:Appealing a block|contest this block]] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --><nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki><!-- Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --> below. {{#if:|[[User:Slakr|<span style="color:teal;font-weight:bold;">slakr</span>]]<small><sup>\&nbsp;[[User talk:Slakr|talk]]&nbsp;/</sup></small> 11:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)|}}</div><!-- Template:uw-block3}} --> &mdash;[[User:Slakr|<span style="color:teal;font-weight:bold;">slakr</span>]]<small><sup>\&nbsp;[[User talk:Slakr|talk]]&nbsp;/</sup></small> 11:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
By T. S. Eliot
 
{{unblock reviewed|1=I previously gave this argument under my Life.temp account, but was told to do it under this account. So here it is again... What is the point of a policy like "ignore all rules" (IAR) if admins never look past the rules? Here are the facts: There is no documented disruption in this case. None of my accounts were used to double-vote, or misrepresent a level of support for a dispute. My last block was in Sep. 2007 (as bsharvy). The only exception is the Rachel63 account. I've been checkusered twice in the last three months, and neither supported that sockpuppet allegation (it isn't mine). Yet, there is no other case of bad-faith editing in this entire matter. Just the facts. In summary, I was mistakenly blocked for sockpuppeting with Rachel63; I invoked "IAR" and made good-faith edits with other accounts; there are no blocks or double-votes with the other accounts; two checkusers have failed to confirm Rachel63 (it isn't mine). It is unfair to use checkuser only as evidence of guilt and never innocence. Review the case in the spirit of IAR, looking at contribs and block logs, please|decline=Declining due to [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bsharvy]]; [[WP:IAR|ignore all rules]] does not mean that you can [[WP:EDITWAR|edit war]] and violate [[WP:3RR|3RR]] with multiple accounts. — <small>[[User:Seicer|<font color="#CC0000">seicer</font>]] &#x007C; [[User_talk:Seicer|<font color="#669900">talk</font>]] &#x007C; [[Special:Contributions/Seicer|<font color="#669900">contribs</font>]]</small> 17:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)}}
 
{{unblock reviewed|1=Seicer, I didn't edit war or violate 3RR with any accounts, as the contribs and block show. I didn't even use my accounts simultaneously. Look at the facts, as shown by the contribs and block log.|decline=The history of Anti-Americanism ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Americanism&offset=20080317234810&limit=500&action=history see]) very clearly shows you were edit warring. Even if this account was not in itself involved, you were clearly abusing multiple accounts and openly admit to sockpuppetry. [[WP:SOCK]] clearly outlines appropriate reasons to use multiple accounts. My current usage is one of them, protecting the administrative account [[User:Hersfold]] by using a less secure and less important account without admin rights. Editing articles to edit war, then using IAR to claim it's acceptable is not appropriate; IAR applies only when common sense directs you to take an action that policy would otherwise prevent. Common sense does not say disruptive edit warring is acceptable. As for your checkuser claims, we often apply the [[WP:DUCK|"duck" test]] - the edits made by Rachel63 closely match your own, after an edit summary by another editor threatened to take the issue to [[WP:ANI]] for review. It's far too much of a coincidence to believe that was ''not'' you, or at the very least someone else editing [[WP:MEAT|on your behalf]]. While not currently logged into my admin account, I decline the unblock. — [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <small>[[User:Hersfold non-admin|non-admin]]</small><sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/[[User:Hersfold/a|a]]/[[Special:Contributions/Hersfold|c]])</sup> 00:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)}}
 
S’io credesse che mia risposta fosse
The edit history linked to above doesn't show edit warring that is unique to me, or that violates policy. There aren't even more than two edits made in a 24 hour period. What to do when admins go out of their way to avoid fact and reason... Make a new account? Wikipedia policy is good at creating incentives to make sockpuppets.... [[User:Bsharvy|Bsharvy]] ([[User talk:Bsharvy#top|talk]]) 14:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
A persona che mai tornasse al mondo
Questa fiamma staria sensa piu scosse.
Ma perciocche giammai di questo fondo
Non torno vivo alcun, s’i’odo il vero
Sensa tema d’infamia ti rispondo.
 
Let us go then, you and I,
They checkusered again? That's probably why they finally unblocked me. You should try requesting an unblock again. They unblocked me, so maybe they are realizing they made a mistake. I am trying to get the simplest neutrality tag back on the AA page. At least Equazion isn't there any more! [[User:Rachel63|Rachel63]] ([[User talk:Rachel63|talk]]) 09:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
When the evening is spread out against the sky
Like a patient etherized upon a table;
Let us go, through certain half-deserted streets,
The muttering retreats
Of restless nights in one-night cheap hotels
And sawdust restaurants with oyster-shells:
Streets that follow like a tedious argument
Of insidious intent
To lead you to an overwhelming question . . .
Oh, do not ask, ‘What is it?’
Let us go and make our visit.
 
In the room the women come and go
Talking of Michelangelo.
 
The yellow fog that rubs its back upon the window-panes,
The yellow smoke that rubs its muzzle on the window-panes,
Licked its tongue into the corners of the evening,
Lingered upon the pools that stand in drains,
Let fall upon its back the soot that falls from chimneys,
Slipped by the terrace, made a sudden leap,
And seeing that it was a soft October night,
Curled once about the house, and fell asleep.
 
And indeed there will be time
{{unblock reviewed|Huh, if you're going to unblock Rachel63, you should unblock me, since that is the only case that would constitute disruptive use of multiple accounts, if it were true. As I've pointed out several times: nobody has actually made an effort to document any disruption since March (the Rachel63 case). I haven't been blocked for 3RR in a year, and never been blocked for vandalism or other disruption. I used no accounts to edit the same article simultaneously, so never used them to evade 3RR rules or fake shows of support. The page [[User:Hersfold/t|t]] links to above as proof of "clearly edit warring" doesn't show more than two reverts in 24 hours. Gee, make an effort.... It doesn't really matter, but it would be nice to see some acknowledgment of the point that ''nobody'' has even ''tried'' to ''document'' any disruption by since ''March''. |decline=The fact is that Rachel63 is you, Bsharvy. The CheckUser evidence is, in my opinion, strong in linking you together, and I would happily mark this one {{confirmed}}. The fact that that account was unblocked, has edit-warred again and has been reblocked leaves no reason at all to think that you will contribute helpfully. [[User:Sam Korn|Sam Korn]] <sup>[[User talk:Sam Korn|(smoddy)]]</sup> 22:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)}}
For the yellow smoke that slides along the street,
Rubbing its back upon the window-panes;
There will be time, there will be time
To prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet;
There will be time to murder and create,
And time for all the works and days of hands
That lift and drop a question on your plate;
Time for you and time for me,
And time yet for a hundred indecisions,
And for a hundred visions and revisions,
Before the taking of a toast and tea.
 
In the room the women come and go
Oh, what do you know, Marskel, of all people, re-blocked Rachel63 over the very article he has been editing, and disputing, for years, and did so without warning, because she made 1 revert a day. What a class act. What a waste of time. Do admins really take seriously the charge of policing themselves, or are these appeals just opportunities to rubber-stamp approval for buddies in the clubhouse? [[User:Bsharvy|Bsharvy]] ([[User talk:Bsharvy#top|talk]]) 11:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Talking of Michelangelo.
:Thing is, you definitely ''have'' socked (even if you exclude Rachel). Take a peek at {{User|Bshanvy}}, for example. <p>The fact that I unblocked Rachel was out of pure [[WP:AGF|assumption of good faith]] that the user wanted to edit productively on the encyclopedia. Naturally, the user made a b-line directly back to that same article, despite my numerous warnings that that would probably be a bad thing to do, and another admin blocked, again assuming it was you. Basically this just helps solidify my original suspicion that Rachel was you, because I don't know about anyone else, but if I was unjustly accused of something I didn't do, I would, at all costs, avoid the literally one in two millionth article on the encyclopedia for fear of getting blocked again. --[[User:Slakr|<span style="color:teal;font-weight:bold;">slakr</span>]]<small><sup>\&nbsp;[[User talk:Slakr|talk]]&nbsp;/</sup></small> 21:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 
And indeed there will be time
*Having multiple accounts isn't the same as abusing them: I didn't use any multiple accounts to double-vote, avoid 3RR, or anything like that. There is no policy violation, except evading the initial (wrong) block, and given none of the accounts were used disruptively, it is a case of IAR.
To wonder, ‘Do I dare?’ and, ‘Do I dare?’
*If you are going to say things like "The CheckUser evidence is, in my opinion, strong in linking you together" it would be polite to tell me what the evidence is. Sometimes there are misunderstandings, which people are entitled to explain. To my knowledge, the only checkuser evidence I need to explain is that we live in the same country.
Time to turn back and descend the stair,
*I see one revert a day by Rachel, to one article, while editing other articles constructively. If she was warned not to edit the article, then a more polite and reasonable approach would have been a topic-ban, or a mentor, or some middle ground. You aren't going to get that when Marskel is the one doing the blocking--according to Rachel without any warning or discussion. Marskel has a flat-out conflict of interest; it is a violation of policy for him to be blocking editors on that article, for making edits he opposes on content grounds.
With a bald spot in the middle of my hair—
*Following the rules is a standard admins apply to everyone but themselves.
[They will say: ‘How his hair is growing thin!’]
My morning coat, my collar mounting firmly to the chin,
My necktie rich and modest, but asserted by a simple pin—
[They will say: ‘But how his arms and legs are thin!’]
Do I dare
Disturb the universe?
In a minute there is time
For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse.
 
For I have known them all already, known them all—
{{unblock reviewed|1=This doesn't appear to be going anywhere, but I can't stand leaving factual distortion uncorrected. 1) The only remotely suspicious checkuser result is that Rachel and I live in the same country. We said that before the checkuser, so there is no new information. If Sam Korn has other checkuser evidence, it's a secret. 2) Rachel63 didn't edit war. Marskel, the blocking editor, has previously called an editor a motherfucker ("nowhere mf on this article"} [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-Americanism&diff=prev&oldid=205023524]. The context? The editor thought the article wasn't neutral. It's a textbook case of ownership by Marskel. Rachel63's lone edit? To add a "Neutrality is disputed" tag. Now she's blocked and denounced for edit-warring. 3) Blocks are for ongoing disruption. I've done nothing disruptive in a year, as the logs show. Even granting the Rachel63 allegation theoretically, I've done nothing disruptive for 6 months. Rather, I've bent over backwards to use dispute resolution [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=219403240#Anti-Americanism:_Marskell_.26_Colin4C] . This is a block in the absence of disruption, based on "rules for the sake of rules", pushed by an admin--an ADMIN--who feels entitled to call an editor a motherfucker and block on the basis on content. Follow your own policy.... [[User:Bsharvy|Bsharvy]] ([[User talk:Bsharvy#top|talk]]) 03:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)|decline=Checkuser results, history of edit warring; unblock template abuse. <b>[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo<font color="#D47C14">itsJamie</font>]] [[User talk:Ohnoitsjamie|<sup>Talk</sup>]]</b> 17:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)}}
Have known the evenings, mornings, afternoons,
I have measured out my life with coffee spoons;
I know the voices dying with a dying fall
Beneath the music from a farther room.
So how should I presume?
 
And I have known the eyes already, known them all—
{{unblock reviewed|1=For all the reasons given in the body of this page, none of which have been addressed. It is false I have a history of edit warring, false I have a history of vandalism, false I have a history of abusing multiple accounts. It is false any checkuser result shows any abuse of multiple accounts. Rachel63 and myself don't even share a computer. It is true I edited while blocked, but that is not itself disruptive. It is false I used any multiple account to double-vote, fake show of support, or violate any policy other than editing while blocked, which I did non-disruptively. In the entire body of this page, one admin has produced one diff to attempt support of one allegation--edit-warring--except the diff showed no violation of policy. That doesn't cut it. The most basic principle of fairness is that you support allegations with diffs, links, quotes, or other evidence. Unsupported accusations are insults, a policy violation. Document the accusations or retract them. Thank you.|decline=Agree with all of the above admin reviews. Confirmed checkuser, disruption, incivility, etc. — '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 10:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)}}
The eyes that fix you in a formulated phrase,
{{UTRS-unblock-user|19815|Nov 22, 2017 18:49:00|closed}}--[[User:UTRSBot|UTRSBot]] ([[User talk:UTRSBot|talk]]) 18:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
And when I am formulated, sprawling on a pin,
When I am pinned and wriggling on the wall,
Then how should I begin
To spit out all the butt-ends of my days and ways?
And how should I presume?
 
And I have known the arms already, known them all—
I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do. The message says the review is closed.
Arms that are braceleted and white and bare
{{UTRS-unblock-user|20117|Dec 20, 2017 00:24:11|closed}}--[[User:UTRSBot|UTRSBot]] ([[User talk:UTRSBot|talk]]) 00:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
[But in the lamplight, downed with light brown hair!]
Is it perfume from a dress
That makes me so digress?
Arms that lie along a table, or wrap about a shawl.
And should I then presume?
And how should I begin?
 
. . . . .
{{unblock|1=I would like to edit Wikipedia from time, mostly contributing to articles about music and whatever I can learn from. Although my understanding of how Wikipedia works was very bad, and my behavior was according arrogant, I learned a lot about specific subjects by editing and I think it's a great way to learn about things I don't know much about. My main change would be to understand and accept the limits and strengths of collaborative work.}}
 
Shall I say, I have gone at dusk through narrow streets
And watched the smoke that rises from the pipes
Of lonely men in shirt-sleeves, leaning out of windows? . . .
 
I should have been a pair of ragged claws
Scuttling across the floors of silent seas.
 
. . . . .
 
And the afternoon, the evening, sleeps so peacefully!
Smoothed by long fingers,
Asleep . . . tired . . . or it malingers
Stretched on the floor, here beside you and me.
Should I, after tea and cakes and ices,
Have the strength to force the moment to its crisis?
But though I have wept and fasted, wept and prayed,
Though I have seen my head [grown slightly bald] brought in upon a platter
I am no prophet—and here’s no great matter;
I have seen the moment of my greatness flicker,
And I have seen the eternal Footman hold my coat, and snicker,
And in short, I was afraid.
 
And would it have been worth it, after all,
After the cups, the marmalade, the tea,
Among the porcelain, among some talk of you and me,
Would it have been worth while
To have bitten off the matter with a smile,
To have squeezed the universe into a ball
To roll it toward some overwhelming question,
To say: ‘I am Lazarus, come from the dead,
Come back to tell you all, I shall tell you all’—
If one, settling a pillow by her head,
Should say: ‘That is not what I meant at all.
That is not it, at all.’
 
And would it have been worth it, after all,
Would it have been worth while,
After the sunsets and the dooryards and the sprinkled streets,
After the novels, after the teacups, after the skirts that trail along the floor—
And this, and so much more?—
It is impossible to say just what I mean!
But as if a magic lantern threw the nerves in patterns on a screen:
Would it have been worth while
If one, settling a pillow or throwing off a shawl,
And turning toward the window, should say:
‘That is not it at all,
That is not what I meant at all.’
 
No! I am not Prince Hamlet, nor was meant to be;
Am an attendant lord, one that will do
To swell a progress, start a scene or two
Advise the prince; no doubt, an easy tool,
Deferential, glad to be of use,
Politic, cautious, and meticulous;
Full of high sentence, but a bit obtuse;
At times, indeed, almost ridiculous—
Almost, at times, the Fool.
 
I grow old . . . I grow old . . .
I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled.
 
Shall I part my hair behind? Do I dare to eat a peach?
I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each.
 
I do not think that they will sing to me.
 
I have seen them riding seaward on the waves
Combing the white hair of the waves blown back
When the wind blows the water white and black.
 
We have lingered in the chambers of the sea
By sea-girls wreathed with seaweed red and brown
Till human voices wake us, and we drown.
 
== ArbCom 2019 election voter message ==
 
<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;">
<tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">[[File:Scale of justice 2.svg|40px]]</td><td>Hello! Voting in the '''[[WP:ACE2019|2019 Arbitration Committee elections]]''' is now open until 23:59 on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2019|end}}-1 day}}. All '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2019#Election_timeline|eligible users]]''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
 
The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|Wikipedia arbitration process]]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
 
If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Candidates|the candidates]] and submit your choices on the '''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2019|poll}}|voting page]]'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
</td></tr>
</table>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2019/Coordination/MMS/03&oldid=926750323 -->
 
== ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message ==
 
<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;">
<tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">[[File:Scale of justice 2.svg|40px]]</td><td>Hello! Voting in the '''[[WP:ACE2020|2020 Arbitration Committee elections]]''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2020|end}}-1 day}}. All '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020#Election timeline|eligible users]]''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
 
The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|Wikipedia arbitration process]]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
 
If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020/Candidates|the candidates]] and submit your choices on the '''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2020|poll}}|voting page]]'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 01:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
</td></tr>
</table>
<!-- Message sent by User:Xaosflux@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2020/Coordination/MMS/02&oldid=990308077 -->