User talk:G2bambino/Archive 8

Blocking

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).

G2bambino (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This block has been implemented by an unbiased admin who demonstrated his support for the user whom I am accused of "running off" Wikipedia, and b) without any evidence sought or presented to back up claims of stalking, frivilous complaints, or indeed any forcing of any editor to leave. The blocking admin's admission of this being a way to allow his preferred user return is grounds enough to demonstrate that it is based on personal preferences rather than impartial project improvement. --G2bambino (talk) 21:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The block is clearly justified based on your previous behavior. — MBisanz ^talk 21:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

---

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.

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).

G2bambino (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

No evidence has been presented to support the accusations leveled, namely stalking. --G2bambino (talk) 21:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I have examined the RfC and block as an entirely independent party, and have formulated the following response to your unblock request: No. Think youself lucky it's only for three weeks. — Fritzpoll (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

---

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.

G2Bambino - it's really unfortunate to see things come to this. But the very short of it is that people just don't accept it when your response to Roux's baiting is to sink to his level. It is - perhaps - unfortunte, and with the cadre that've shown up here, I don't think you can hope for an unbiased admin to sink in and unblock you. Maybe you could go to ArbCom, but since everyone's behaviour has been poor, it's not really clear that you could expect much of a better result. It'd be unfortunate to lose a good contributor over what seems like a bad temper. Please do take some time to think about why people object to your actions, at a level that leads to these kinds of blocks. WilyD 22:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

No matter, Wily. After four years of some downs but mostly ups, in the last six months this project has taken a massive nose dive and become a place not for me, nor, evidently, me for it. I've tried, but no amount of self-reflection and adjustment in behaviour seems enough, or can be done fast enough, to counter the ceaseless and recently exponentially growing onslaught of attacks on my moral fiber. A tipping point has been passed, and I now spend more time defending myself against character assassinations carried out by miffed users with both a grudge and the ability to win hearts by crying victim the loudest. It is a losing battle; I simply have neither the time nor the energy to carry on, and my image is tarnished beyond repair; put simply, it has been made evident that I am considered a bad person. It is also not what I wanted to do here, nor what I wanted in return. So, it's literally with a lump in my throat that I say goodbye, and cheers to those who worked with me; I hope I was of some help to you, and I learned much. --G2bambino (talk) 23:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It is unfortunte, but once you develop a reputation as a troublemaker, it's very hard to shake. A schoolteacher finding two kids with long records fighting in the schoolyard is always going to punish them both. The place (and articles on the Monarchy) will be worse off without you, but it's our own doing. WilyD 23:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Take time to think, friend

Don't be hasty. Take this as an opportunity to take a break and reflect. If I could offer some words, as, I hope, a wiki-friend as well as a sometime sparring partner(I do love our discussions)?

• Three weeks is not a long-time. It will be good to distance yourself from this community which often takes itself so seriously. It is not the world, though it often kids itself that it is. Spend some time in the 'real world', and then come back refreshed and centred.
• Often an 'I'm sorry' works wonders.
• Don't be bitter. When we're bitter we hurt ourselves.

Cheers!--Gazzster (talk) 23:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It's frustrating to see both G2bambino & Roux resigning from Wikipedia. I like Gazz's views on Wikipedia participation. Don't take it so seriously. GoodDay (talk) 00:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I second Gazzster. The block was definitely not meant to drive you away too. Contact me if you want to talk. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I await your return

A three week ban, fighting and persecution...this is all very tragic. Yet I have faith that after the three week period you will be back- you've been here to long to give up now because a hate-mob has riled against you. You will be back, I promise you, and we will be glad to have you! (This edit was removed by another editor who informed me that I should probably put it back but not include "hate-mob" as he feels it is uncivil. I agree, the wrong choice of words- however it would be a little duplicitous for me to change it now so thus, I will leave it there so that people can see that I am not some hit-hide vandal. I apologise for any offense the words caused and indeed, for using them!) Gavin (talk) 02:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed your two Canadian friends have retired from wiki after a bit of a spat. Shame, it appears they are both very good editors who should have taken a step back. There must have been enough articles they had in common to avoid each other, for a time anyway. It may have been against some rules or other, but an agreement between them to split these articles in two and one edits half the articles and the other edits the remaining articles. It wouldn't have gone on forever, but at least it would have given them a break from each other. It's certainly better than both of them leaving, do you think they would go for that? Titch Tucker (talk) 13:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC) PS: I've had no interaction with either editor, I just thought it was a shame that by all accounts two good editors have decided to leave. Titch Tucker (talk) 15:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Three weeks? That's ridiculous! Ironically Roux has made blockable comments on his talk page too now, after having left...Best, --Cameron* 16:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest that you strike that. Roux has not edited since he cleared his user pages. Mayalld (talk) 17:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

If you give somebody permission to add the comments, it's more or less the same thing. If I order someone to be killed, it's not like it's only the hitman that's going to get into trouble... :) --Cameron* 17:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Packing it in? Throwing in the towel? That's not the G2bambino I know. Looking forward to your return. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to reply to Titch, there could have been an effort to avoid each other, but I think the problem was one of them would feel attacked if the other even made a tiny edit to the page- thats the degree this thing got too. However, I know G2 will be back, perhaps better than ever...( I think Roux will be back too now that he has learned G2 has been banned for forcing him off- or atleast thats how the Mod felt about it... I think this might set a dangerous precedent for people "leaving" so that they can have other users punished but hopefully in the long-run they will both come back and edit again, perhaps a little wiser than before. Gavin (talk) 21:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gavin, if the both of them do come back, which is the ideal situation, then we must tell them they have to edit different articles. If they don't, they will surely be banned indefinately. This will be their choice of course, and if they agree to it and fail they will have nobody else to blame but themselves. When all is said and done, they are both adults, and adults should be able to come to terms with a little disagreement. Titch Tucker (talk) 01:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh I agree to some extent- but even this idea of avoiding each other is not ideal they should be able to contribute to the same articles without a ruckus kicking off. However, one of the problems is Roux has stated that every time he sees G2's user name he feels physically sick etc...and if they both come back it is inevitable that they are going to bump into each other again and if that is the attitude of one of them, there is bound to be trouble ahead. Yet, hopefully if G2 reads our messages during his ban he will consider all things and decide just to let Roux, should he return, have his own space. (I think much of the dispute comes from Roux feeling G2 is 'invading' articles just to ruin them and destroy Roux's work- a little paranoid but, that seems to be the feeling.) I think what is clear though is one of them has to be able to stop reacting to whatever the other one does and given how this dispute has spiralled I think that the burden will be on G2 to leave Roux alone- Roux doesn't seem able to get along with G2 no matter what. The real tragedy here is, it could have all been avoided if they listened to GoodDay. Gavin (talk) 02:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Week 1

It has been one week since this three week block was imposed and I declared my departure from this project (for many more reasons that simply the block itself). I see there has been activity here since that time; thanks to each of you who commented. Taking my own reflections, as well as those added above, into account, I have come to a new conclusion: I will again volunteer my efforts to Wikipedia; upon doing so, I will keep in mind that I must not try to resolve disputes purely on my own; that I must not lose patience, even when being taunted; and that I must not use reverting to resolve an issue (though I was already well on the way to making that a habit). However, I will only do so if the odious, and equally ridiculous, charges and sentences of stalking and harassment are rescinded and declared an error. Whether or not the block is lifted is a matter for others to decide; regardless of the outcome, I will still refrain from editing beyond this page for the next two weeks, and, following that, remain on the 1RR etc. restrictions earlier imposed until their agreed upon time of expiry. I hope others are still watching this page, and I will check in here to participate in discussion, should any follow. --G2bambino (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Who accused you of stalking and harassment? --Cameron* 19:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Lets not re-open old wounds Cameron, suffice to say some people did. That issue should not be discussed anymore! Roux is back and G2 will be back properly after the ban expires, all that happened before that should be forgotten so we can all get back to doing constructive, friendly editing. Gavin (talk) 19:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

More than just accused, it was what I was blocked for three weeks for. I too hope everything and everyone can move on with the past (mostly) forgotten (especially after another two weeks of my absence); but I will not be able to forget these baseless and damning charges (some of the most serious that can be laid on a Wikipedia editor) until they've been retracted. If that's not done, they will haunt me for the rest of my time as part of this project, as I well know past convictions can do, and I do not want such a malignant and, most importantly, undeserved shadow hanging over me. I don't believe the admin who laid the charge was aware of the full scope of the situation and only made a quick decision in light of what had happened just moments prior; perhaps a good faith gesture to end a dispute, but not at all proportionate, nor justified. --G2bambino (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I was just wondering: in the interest in involving burnout of either of you two, would you be interested in self-banning yourself from pages where the other has been a major contributor in the last two weeks? I'll be asking the same question of Roux. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 22:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Howabout a weekly rotation of articles between G2bambino & Roux. PS- You scared me G2, I thought you were retired. I even recommended removing your seat from Wikipedia: WikiProject Commonwealth. -- GoodDay (talk) 23:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

NW, “self-banning” may be unnecessary, if Roux sticks to his expressed desires, and I to what I said I'd do above. The proposal does, however, highlight the lack of merit in the indictments laid against me: I would have to enact a self-ban from articles to which I was a major contributor long before Roux even started editing Wikipedia; in other words, I did not follow him to those articles, it was he who arrived at them after me (not to say in the least that I feel he was stalking me; it’s merely chronological fact). Hence, what happens after the end of the next to weeks is irrelevant as long as the stalking and harassment charges remain; I am very serious about my refusal to participate in this project until those mistakenly laid condemnations are rescinded. --G2bambino (talk) 20:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

If it'll make ya feel better, G2. I recently had to self-ban myself from United Kingdom, England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Ireland, Republic of Ireland & related articles. I even put a reminder on my Userpage. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] The blocking admin asked that he be contacted should I have any questions or qualms. Could someone please do me the favour of drawing his attention here, as I cannot do so myself? It would be appreciated, thanks. --G2bambino (talk) 21:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I've notified Administrator Future Perfect at Sunrise. -- GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, GD. --G2bambino (talk) 02:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

G2, I have no idea what is the crux of this situation, or what the problems are between yourself and Roux (especially since you both seem to share similar POV), and I don't know anything about Roux, but my suggestion would be to avoid directly conversing with him and have a mediator handle any future disputes, because it would be impossible for you to avoid him unless as you say one of you quits the monarchy articles, which for you I think is unlikely since you are the primary contributor to most if not all the Canada monarchy articles, and this can be verified through WikiDashboard [1]. So I would say show that evidence to administrators, because it would be very strange for you to stop editing monarchy articles, since you wrote most of the text there, and have spent what appears to be enormous amounts of hours adding text to these articles. That's only if it is suggested to you to avoid monarchy articles. But in lieu of that, in future disputes you should definitely make use of some kind of a mediator like I did with the republican guy instead of responding one-to-one, this way you avoid any problems. I still don't know what all of this is about really, but from what I have read so far, this is my suggestion. But I wouldn't quit WP like I did last year after you know who. I still am afraid to contribute anything significant because all my hard work could be undone in a second. But you don't have that problem since you've been around for a long time and you've added most of the text to these articles. Laval (talk) 04:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Laval, for your views; I generally agree wit them, but at the moment I'll refrain from commenting further as I'd presently just like to focus on the charges that have most recently been laid against me. These must go if I'm to ever contribute here again. --G2bambino (talk) 16:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Matters of blocking

I've been asked to comment here. G2bambino, I have nothing against lifting the block early, if that should make you feel better, but I don't see you are in a position to demand apologies and retractions here. My decision to block was based mainly on what I had seen of your behaviour in the RfC and the immediately following interactions, and I think I'd still uphold my criticism of you in these situations. I frankly do not claim to have a full judgment of what went on between you two before that, who was following whom into what disputes and so on; from all the comments I've seen from people who know the case better, it of course very much looks like a situation that had developed and escalated on a mutual basis. The problem with you guys is that you are both intelligent, articulate contributors, and each of you sees himself equally as the victim, and expresses this feeling in equally convincing, highly emotional ways. This makes judging the whole situation quite difficult for the outsider. I can only go by what I saw during the immediate build-up of the last days before the block, and on that basis I still maintain the block was justified. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

FP@S: Firstly, thanks for providing your insight; it's of much benefit. Perhaps before we go any further, we could just clear up the matter I find most personally upsetting at the moment: as, after my own analysis of the proceedings, I still can't understand how it came to be, could you please explain what exactly you saw in my behaviour in the RfC/U (I assume you mean the one about Roux, and not the one about me) and immediately following that demonstrated to you that I was stalking and harassing anyone? By my interpretation, stalking and harassment is tantamount to purposefully following someone for no other reason than to cause them distress, which I still strongly believe I have never done, nor feel myself the type of person to ever do so.

I remain convinced that what appeared to you to be stalking was actually two editors in a volatile dispute who couldn't avoid each other unless one of them quit editing all-together, because, so ironically, they share the same fundamental interest and thus haunt the same articles. Roux, to his credit, even attempted to stay clear of those articles which I frequent, but still, a scant few days later, ended up involving himself in a dispute with me, and then seemed to realise the impossibility of us never crossing paths as long as we both edited here (at least, that's the impression I got from his now permanently deleted email to Mayalld in which I seem to recall he lamented about me "following him" to Canadian royal symbols).

So, it appears to me as more of a capricious but essentially unavoidable cohabitation rather than stalking and harassment. If you, though, still have a different view of the affair, I hope you can explain it to me, as I take such negative perceptions of my character very seriously. --G2bambino (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Week 2

At the end of the second week since my blocking for stalking and harassment, the charges remain standing and, despite my explanations of how these denunciations are misplaced, there seems to be little interest (from any admin, at least). Thus, for the sake of trying to draw some attention to the matter, I will make another unblock request.

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).

G2bambino (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The reasons given by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) for the block were Wikistalking and harassment. WP:HAR outlines that harassment constitutes "a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to... have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons... for the purpose of threatening or intimidating the primary target." WP:HOUND makes clear that Wikistalking is "singling out one or more specific editor(s), and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit (often unrelated), or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor." My interpretation of these guidelines leads me to conclude that I have been charged with maliciously following someone for no other reason than to cause them distress.

FP@S was witness to only the last 48 hours of a dispute that had gone on for three months, arriving coincidentally just before the point where one party declared with much emotion that he was quitting Wikipedia as he felt I was following him. With the intensity of the moment, an accusation laid, and an unfamiliarity with the entire affair, I could understand how one could immediately jump to the conclusion that I had been doing what I was indicted with. The fact of the matter is, however, that what was taken to be stalking was actually two editors in a volatile dispute who couldn't avoid each other unless one of them quit editing all-together, because, so ironically, they shared the same fundamental interests and thus haunted the same articles. The other user, to his credit, even attempted to stay clear of those articles which I frequent, but still, a scant few days later, ended up involving himself in a dispute with me, and then seemed to realise the impossibility of us never crossing paths as long as we both edited here (at least, that's the impression I got from his now permanently deleted email to Mayalld (talk · contribs) in which I seem to recall he lamented about me "following him" to Canadian royal symbols). A check of edit histories will reveal that I never followed this other user to any of the articles he edited, nor engaged in any debate he was participating in, beyond those that fell within the scope of our shared monarchical interests.

This is a misunderstanding that has resulted in some very serious condemnations being laid inappropriately, and should thus be rescinded to make things right. With this done, I will still voluntarily refrain from editing for the next week, in atonement for some of my actually evident, less than admirable behaviour, as well as to continue the so-called "Wiki-break" that was recommended to me some time ago. --G2bambino (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Having looked at the case as a neutral admin, I can't in good conscience overturn this block. You nearly drove a longtime contributor off the project. And considering your block log, I have to agree with Fritzpoll--you're very, very lucky because if it had been me it would have been indef. — Blueboy96 17:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

---

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.

The "longtime" contributor was here but a fraction of the time that I've been (my 3 years, 9 months to his 7 months). Perhaps I'm not making myself clear enough, but I am without doubt that I did not purposefully follow or harass anyone, not for any reason. Because one user perceived that to be the case does not make it true. Conclusions formed after skimming, made-in-minutes "reviews" of a widespread, months-long affair doesn't necessarily make it true, either. This is a highly detailed issue, and thus, while I am trying to keep my explanations to a minimum length, I need reviewers to bear with me and dedicate a little more time to the matter. And, please, take that time; as I said I won't edit here for another week anyway.

Now, the RfC/U on Roux seems to be the only "evidence" brought up (only peripherally to me, oddly), with claims that it was an intended form of harassment on my part. Putting aside that this still doesn't address the stalking accusations, an RfC/U about someone's chronic incivility seems to be no more harassment than one about someone's tendentiousness. The one on Roux, which falls into the first category, has its legitimacy in the form of support from other users who had experienced the same uncivil behaviour from the RfC/U's subject. Further, and uniquely, it was explicitly stated in the RfC/U itself that it was to be read in conjunction with the RfC/U on me, thereby making it the completion, as closely as I thought possible, of the earlier suggested joint RfC on both Roux and myself; it did, in fact, lead to an eventual merger (of sorts) of the two RfC/Us, which resulted in the added restrictions upon each of us. It's not offered as any excuse, but it should be considered that it was Roux who accepted little to no blame, refused to participate in any joint RfC/U, and filed an RfC/U against me alone, this after explicitly expressing desires to see me gone from Wikipedia, baiting me with threats of unending reports, and making no less than four reports regarding me on three different forums (not including what may have been said about me on IRC).

Whether or not I put it together well enough to communicate the intended message, its point was to get wider community commentary on Roux's intolerable rudeness, both in general and within the context of the affair that involved us together. As such, it was not meant, in the least, to be determined nuisance-making, and thus does not serve to support the charge of harassment laid against me. --G2bambino (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Hope to see ya back on December 4 (2008), G2. GoodDay (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

You can rest assured, GD, that so long as the stalking and harassment charges remain, I will not. I have done some reprehensible things in my time here, but there's a difference between having been irresponsible a few times too often and being judged as the kind of person who would willfully pursue another for the sole intent of causing them distress; the latter says I want to hurt others, and I find that typecasting to be beyond revolting. --G2bambino (talk) 03:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as explanations aren't forthcoming, it don't look good. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't the 3-week block expired? GoodDay (talk) 01:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Expires at 21:38, December 4, 2008, current time is 01:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC). MBisanz ^talk 01:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake. Just a little anxious, on my part. GoodDay (talk) 01:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Me too. I'm already waiting for you over at Monarchies in the Americas! ;) Best, --Cameron* 13:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I assume he's unblocked, now. As the appointed time, has passed. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am. But my opinion remains: I won't edit here as long as I remain accused of having been a stalker and harasser in the eyes of the community (though I did slip up and make one edit today...). I can't tolerate such unfounded and damning charges, nor a system that imposes them without accountability or recourse. Of note, though, I caught up on some of the recent goings-on around the project, and saw I'm not the only one to suffer this kind of fate: User:Giano II, User:Matt Lewis, and User:SlimVirgin, particularly. Very disappointing, overall. --G2bambino (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if this is rather frank G2 but I wouldn't wait for apologies. Wikipedia is just like real life: there are always going to be people who don't like you. If you discontinue editing you are letting the bullies win, try to concentrate on editors who really appreciate and admire your work here, like me and GoodDay! I sincerely hope you will consider returning. Best regards, --Cameron* 18:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

As I've said earlier G2, it don't look like any answers to your questions are forthcoming. Thus the choice is ultimately yours; rejoin the Project or retire. GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not looking for apologies. I what I feel necessary is at least a note in my block log that says the charges of stalking and harassment are untrue. I don't care how right some admins think they are, I am not a vindictive, malevolent person. --G2bambino (talk) 13:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the software is capable of adding notes to block logs. --Cameron* 14:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it isn't, but what is usually done is that a one second block is implemented with the accompanying note stating that the previous block was wrong for whatever reason. --G2bambino (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Someday, somebody will be making changes to Canadian monarchy related articles. Changes, making Elizabeth II appear as the Queen of the UK over the other 15 Commonwealth realms (for example). Who's gonna stop those attempts? GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

CNN's description of Elizabeth II

Have ya seen CNN description of Elizabeth II as Britain's Queen, in their story about what happening in Ottawa? GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Not suprising. CNN don't do any research, they frequently refer to HM as the Queen of England or Her Royal Highness. --Cameron* 21:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)