User talk:Off2riorob

Welcome to Off2riorob's talkpage. If you are unable to post here follow this link to post at my unprotected talkpage.

(Manual archive list)

BLP assistance

Thanks for the BLP assistance, at Virginia Lamp Thomas. Unfortunately, the WP:UNDUE WEIGHT material has been added back in, again, dominating the majority of the entire contents of the Personal life subsection. Thoughts? -- Cirt (talk) 00:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't support it being there at all, but you know what wiki is like when someone waves a citation around, it clearly shouldn't be any bigger. I see a little discussion on the talkpage what I sometimes do in such circumstances is leave it a month and then when it is dated its lack of biographical value is more clear and there is usually less resistance to removal when it is historic, as Jimbo said about another article last night last night on the BLPN - "the transient nature of the event becomes ever more clear with the passage of time". if anything changes I will join in there on the talkpage, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 10:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Insane Clown Posse

I'd like to politely suggest that, if you're going to revert changes to this article, you should join the discussion. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You're suggesting that if Off2riorob wishes to remove the sentence "The Dark Carnival has been revealed as a metaphor for God, so the lessons are about repenting so as to avoid eternal damnation." then Off2riorob should participate in the discussion here or here? Off2riorob has participated in both. Regardless, one comment that jumps out from WP:BLPN is "If RS'es differ on a matter, list all the RS viewpoints and let the reader come to their own conclusion." I can't argue with that. It does radically differ from your bold statement that "The Dark Carnival has been revealed as a metaphor for God, so the lessons are about repenting so as to avoid eternal damnation", however. You're parroting the Guardian as fact, whereas reality is slightly different. I'd recommend showing that the Guardian's version is a minority version, not shared by the band. Then, maybe, you won't get reverted. Then, maybe, you'll find other editors to support you. TFOWR 02:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm "parroting" Joseph Bruce's explanation of the meaning of his own lyrics as fact. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Really? Because I'm only seeing the Guardian cited, and at WP:BLPN I'm seeing quite the opposite, for example this. TFOWR 02:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The article is cited because it contains the interview in which Joseph Bruce made these statements. As for the link you just posted, it's irrelevant. Nobody ever said he was a regular churchgoer. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

And the point is: you're stating a claim, strongly suggesting it's fact, whereas it's heavily disputed, attribted to one source. And you're complaining that an editor who's been participating on the talkpage and elsewhere isn't discussing the issue. TFOWR 02:31, 22 October 2010 (PUTC)

Nobody disputes that Joseph Bruce said these things. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

So you can provide further refs for "The Dark Carnival has been revealed as a metaphor for God, so the lessons are about repenting so as to avoid eternal damnation" that demonstrate it's not merely a position advanced by the Guardian? TFOWR 02:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that you go read the article's talk page, where this has all been discussed. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest if that's your answer then this discussion is over. It's no coincidence that I linked to the talkpage and WP:BLPN ( the discussion here or here) when I first commented. TFOWR 02:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I agree. If you won't participate in the discussion on the talk page, this discussion is over because you just walked away from it. You're welcome to join us, though. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. TFOWR 10:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that I am in the discussion TFOWR, at the BLPN and I have commented on the talkpage and again there today. 10:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries. If you're curious how this came to be on my radar, I've been following the "How do fucking magnets work?" nonsense at the reference desks (I saw someone collapse what looked, to me, to be an innocent question, then I stalked the explanations on various ref desk editors' talkpages), I'd seen an ICP question at Talk:Main Page (an IP wanted to know how to use {{edit semi-protected}} - their question at T:ICP got archived before they got a response), and then I saw ICP pop up at WP:BLPN - with a Jon Ronson angle, too! (I'm a Jon Ronson fan, though I think he dropped the ball a little on this issue). TFOWR 10:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the mystery tour. I see it as a fringe opinionated editorial that is strongly denied by the living subjects and see you are perhaps better informed to keep a look on it but Mr Flaherty seems to be strongly wanting to write it up. A little more discussion is in order I think. Sometimes more bending is better and less discussion.Off2riorob (talk) 10:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not that well informed: I hadn't heard about ICP until the ref desk question popped up. Definitely wait and see what consensus emerges at WP:BLPN, but that goes without saying. Jon Ronson is something of a Gonzo journalist - great writer, but a little off the beaten track of mainstream journalism sometimes. There were a couple of great suggestions at WP:BLPN - I don't see why one or other of them couldn't be used - it provides as much information as the reader needs to make up their own minds. Obviously we shouldn't be presenting one opinion as fact, which is what the edit that led to your revert did. TFOWR 11:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that is the point about write in an uninvolved way, users that believe something strongly are always going to find it hard to NPOV present it as a fringe position unsupported by the mainstream reports. Off2riorob (talk) 11:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Stephen Barrett

Actually, I'm not a major contributor to the article. I stepped in to help resolve the disputes on the articles related to Barrett. It took us a very long time to settle those disputes, including an ArbCom. I still monitor the articles to help prevent the problems from getting so out of hand again. --Ronz (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I just saw almost a hundred contribution to the article and I think you are the seventh largest contributor to the BLP. But your comments go a way to explaining that, no biggie. Off2riorob (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It was a big lesson for me, trying to resolve disputes where multiple editors were working together to edit articles in bad faith (and against COI's in a few cases). It was such a huge mess when I arrived that there was already a strong consensus to allow coi-editing, personal attacks, and BLP violations. All that had to change, and more.

I see similarities with these Weston Price discussions. Editors working incredibly hard to defend their personal opinions, rather than finding, evaluating, and incorporating more and better sources. It's the focus on sourcing that resolves these disputes. Eventually, the editors will learn this. Hope it doesn't take years. --Ronz (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that will take a while (yes, perhaps years) but I very much have come across the situation more than once, sometimes I just take them off my watchlist. I respect you as an editor Ronz, and I hope you don't let it upset you. Sometimes on a talkpage, I turn a small blind eye, and focus on any major violations, it is impossible to police them all. I find solace in the fact that those pages are all no-indexed and then I follow it up by archiving anything undue as soon as I can, in the dark of night..etc.Off2riorob (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a nice approach to managing such situations. --Ronz (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Review

Thanks for supporting on the Wisden 100 issue. This reviewing business is a thankless job!

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 10:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes it can be. The hundreds of unconfirmed users that were able to add something that was correct .. and me .. salute you, best regards. Off2riorob (talk) 10:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your kindness.

Oh, no! Check out his most recent comment on my talk page!

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 11:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Fancy a cheap ITN credit?

There's an item at WP:ITN/C which appears to have support for posting, but hasn't been updated - Burma/Myanmar changed their flag a couple of days ago. People keep piling on to WP:ITN/C to say they support it, and I keep pointing out that the article needs to be updated to mention the new flag and - better still - have an image of the new flag (it did a few days ago, but that seems to have disappeared).

If you're up for it, I'd be looking for 4-5 sentences on the new flag and the image of "the new flag" updated so it really is the new flag and not the old one. If you do that, post at the WP:ITN/C to say you've updated it (include a diff of your update, ideally) and a friendly admin will probably post the item and give you a bright, shiny ITN credit. (If you can suggest a "blurb" as well that would be great, but the ITN regulars will probably find it easier so I'd be inclined to leave it to them).

I'd so it myself, but I'm snowed under in real life right now - and I wouldn't give myself an ITN credit ;-) Don't worry if you can't/won't - I appreciate this is outside your normal areas and part of me thinks the editors who want this posted should get off their backsides and update it themselves...! TFOWR 13:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

pictures there now .. no detail about it though.. ah, User:Strange Passerby has added a working on it template, so I think its in hand. Off2riorob (talk) 14:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Aye, the image is the right one now! I've told StrPby I'll post as soon as someone suggests a blurb. TFOWR 15:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thaks for the offer anyways, appreciated. I want to get a couple of those in the news to get some experience of that area. Off2riorob (talk) 15:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Fact tag

Howdy, we don't usually add content (particularly potentially negative content about a living person) to articles with a {{fact}} tag included. Even if true, content like that needs a reliable source. As a general rule, you should never be fact tagging your own sentences. (I realize, of course, this is demonstrable on wiki using primary sources, so I can see where you're going, but a reliable source is still needed before content is added.) --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Its totally indisputable, added fact tag and will cite in the near future. Off2riorob (talk) 21:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree it is silly to argue about BLP in this circumstance. But absent a source it is still original research, which is impermissible on Wikipedia. If you have a reliable source which indicates it (off Wikipedia), then add it. If not, then I would request your revert yourself until you do have such a source. Thanks, --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Please note, I am not going to revert you since you have a source. But I may block you if you continue to revert. TeaDrinker (talk) 21:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked you for 24 hours. Please note this is not a reflection of the value we place on your contributions or a particular viewpoint on your recent edits, only as a protective measure. If you promise to revert yourself (if necessary) and take the matter to the talk page, I would be happy to unblock you. You may also request an unblock using the {{unblock}} tag. --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Formal notice

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Climate change if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change#Final decision. T. Canens (talk) 22:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

This is pretty disappointing, as it's clear that the motive for those edits was malicious. In my view, any repetition of this behavior is likely to get you either topic-banned from the CC domain or blocked for a substantial period of time. Looie496 (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed one of your posts on NYB's talk page: "I see it as users should be aware that they are not editing in a dark sock and that their actions do have an effect in the real world and they should expect it to be reported in a way they may not like and that users actions here may have an effect on their real life, as the contributions of users to the articles of living people here has an effect on the subjects of our articles. Off2riorob (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)". That almost seems like you think you are giving WMC the punishment he deserves for the edits he made. I would strongly suggest that you avoid this line of thinking and indeed avoid editing this article entirely. You are certainly usually an excellent editor as far as BLPs go (the barnstar I believe I once gave you about that was certainly well deserved), but I think that there is something about this subject that has made you weaken your usually admirably firm principles. NW (Talk) 02:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I have watched user William M Connelly use the wikipedia to slur and insult living people that are opponents of his for two years. Perhaps that was what affected my judgment. The editing restrictions that have been imposed on him are being reported in the media and they can and imo should be added to his BLP. Which is what I was doing. Off2riorob (talk) 11:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Off2riorob

I wanted to notify you of this discussion concerning you at the Administrator's notice board. I know that you're currently blocked, but it won't go anywhere until you have a chance to respond. My offer to lift your block if you promise to desist the edit war still stands as well (Any admin has my permission to carry this out as well). --TeaDrinker (talk) 06:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't wish to respond there, the community consensus is welcome to restrict me in whatever way it wishes. I will say that to be placed on a 1RR restriction for this is imo totally excessive and if that is the communities decision I will take the advice and go contribute elsewhere.Off2riorob (talk) 11:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

offline. Off2riorob (talk) 11:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Rob, I've not studied your CC contributions, so I've no reason to complain about them. However, as an uninvolved admin I've been trying to de-escalate this, on the basis that no matter who's right and who's wrong the community has rather had enough of it. I wondering rather than topic bans and 1RR, you might be willing "for the sake of the peace" to agree to move away from CC for a self-declared number of months. If you are willing to do that, I am willing to close down all discussion of whatever it is that they are discussing on AN, and which I am not even going to bother looking at. As I say, I've no reason to think you've acted inappropriately here at all - so I'm uninterested in rebuking you. If your answer is no, then I respect that and I withdraw.--Scott Mac 12:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)