User talk:Curious bystander

Please don't be mean to me, I'm the new guy! I'll try to be good, but if I haven't been, please leave me a note. Curious bystander (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Obama article size

I see you attached a toolong tag, and someone reverted. If you expand the FAQ at the top of the talk page Talk:Barack Obama, question #3 regards article size. It points out that the 60K limit is for main body content, and we're well within that limit. What makes the markup version so long with so many bytes is all the references. That's considered okay. Our mission is to make it a good article for the reader, not the editor. We editors just have to suffer with all those citations. (note - I revised the answer slightly before pointing it out to you). It probably could be trimmed here and there, but the editor who reverted you probably agrees with the FAQ that the problem isn't so bad that it needs the tag and the more urgent action that implies. Hope that helps. Wikidemo (talk) 00:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Awesome Skyline!

That has to be one of the most impressive pictures I have ever seen. Thank you for sharing it with us.Die4Dixie (talk) 00:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I regret that I didn't take it myself, but I've seen that sort of view many, many times. I had a fabulous little studio on Central Park West that was rent-controlled from the '70s. Passed down to me from a kind older gentleman who was on his way to a retirement home and saw me being evicted from my old place, because I couldn't afford the rent! Those were the days. Curious bystander (talk) 01:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Advice from Curious bystander

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, please stop edit-warring on the Barack Obama article. Take it to the Talk page and reach consensus before making these edits. I have been watching this page for weeks and WB74, while troublesome, is not entirely to blame for the acrimony there. You haven't been entirely civil yourself. Curious bystander (talk) 23:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It's a nice place; a good way to get started is by familiarizing yourself with some of its guidelines.

I can't help but notice from your edit history, that your edits have consisted largely of restoring material added by WorkerBee74, who has been repeatedly banned for edit-warring, and has used frequent sock-puppet accounts over her/his edit career. You might want to be careful in editing pages that have seen frequent edit conflict, and have been plagued by WP:SPA's. All the best, LotLE×talk 01:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to kick in here:

So far I count one recent reverse (hardly to connect to WB74) [1] and none else in his/her history.

Where are the other one's you're talking about, Lulu? I just don't get it and if you can point them out for me and of course to Curious bystander it would be helpful. Don't let it end up as an baseless accusation (of meat puppetry) of another editor. Thanks, --Floridianed (talk) 04:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

My edits have "largely consisted" of articles about homosexuality and the history of GLBT rights (and the oppression of sexually unorthodox people) in America. A review of his history shows that LotLE has been blocked several times, and warned numerous times, for his failure to adhere to WP:CIV. I'm not a sockpuppet, and I resent the accusation. If you feel strongly about it, and that you have sufficient evidence to support it, there's a way to resolve it. But Floridianed is right; I've only restored material added by WB74 once, and it was because LotLE was edit-warring — in violation of another policy. Curious bystander (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk page edit

Please self-revert your last edit immediately. You have replaced comments that have previously been removed at the request of an administrator. MY response was placed in the correct section ("involved editors") and I do not appreciate you singling it out in an edit summary. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Please consider self-reverting this edit,[2] which reverts material removed by a couple editors as being out-of-process in the RfC. WorkerBee74, after stating his case, asked that further RfC discussion be limited to people who had not previously edited the article. Although dubious, that request was initially honored by all but WorkerBee, who responded a couple times. Three editors removed his subsequent comments, and asked if he objected - he has not (see User talk:WorkerBee74). Subsequently, some editors began commenting in a separate section created for involved users. If WorkerBee74 wishes to complain he can; and if he wants to comment in the "involved" user area he can too. Your reinserting his comments in the "uninvolved" section and adding yours there will likely cause the process to break down. Therefore, please remove his comments again, and if you wish to comment add your own in the "uninvolved" section. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Since so many involved editors have ignored WB74's request and commented, there is really no excuse for leaving WB74's comments in the deletion bin. Since I didn't participate in the months of acrimonious debate you people have waged, I feel that my comment is in the correct section. I'm really new to this process, and to the debate on Talk:Barack Obama, so it's possible that I could be wrong. But I'll let an administrator decide if you don't mind. Best regards — Curious bystander (talk) 15:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You can do what you like with your comment, but please remove the WorkerBee74 comments immediately. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I've stated my reason for restoring them, and it's a very good reason. If you don't like it, Rick Block appears to be available to resolve this dispute. Best regards — Curious bystander (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the comment on your behalf. No thanks are required. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

(to Curious bystander) If you're truly new to this process you may want to consider avoiding becoming part of the acrimony so quickly, and keeping some willingness to consider the effects of your edits once experienced editors have cautioned you that they are provocative.Wikidemo (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

My main purpose here is articles about homosexuality and the history of GLBT rights (and the oppression of sexually unorthodox people) in America. See my comment above, in response to the fairly hilarious claim that I'm a sockpuppet. If you don't mind, I'd like to get back to that. But what's so provocative about it? His comments were deleted because involved editors weren't supposed to participate according to his request. Then several involved editors, including you, decided to go ahead and participate anyway — a decision which I find genuinely provocative. Since you've decided to ignore his request and participate, I see no good reason to leave WB74's remarks in the deletion bin. I do not care for this bullying by the two of you. If you don't like it, take it to Rick Block and let him decide. Curious bystander (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Nobody "participated anyway" except WorkerBee74 himself,[3] whose edits were removed, then Looneymonkey, whose comments were quickly put into a new section for "previously involved editors",[4] and now you. By restoring WorkerBee's comments against the wishes of at least three other editors (without, I note, restoring a complaint about them[5]) you're gaming the system and breaking down whatever process there had been. You triggered a revert war on the RfC talk page in the process. Your edits and WorkerBee's stand as the only two substantive breaches of the request - and now mine in response to the obvious breakdown in process. Further, in the middle of the RfC you're now accusing two editors of "bullying" over this matter[6] - please refactor that comment at once. If you're going to participate on such an important page, please be more more careful to avoid clashing with other editors. If you want to be argumentative about process, this is not a good page to do that. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Some real criticism?

I wanted to ask you what you mean by this comment in one of your last posts[7]:

...adding some real criticism.

Please do not take this an attack or anything, but I would like to know what you mean by adding some "real" criticism? Brothejr (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, and please consider removing a comment

Hi Curious bystander,

Thanks for the compliment. I think I'll just keep my background info where it is though, partly because I'm on one side of this. I'm concerned about a comment you put on the page that I think is turning up the heat too much: Since the consensus vote seemed carefully timed to occur during WB74's block, it's obvious (at least to me) that he was deliberately excluded. We've had a lot of problems keeping cool on that page, and it would really help if we try to stay away from comments that don't focus on the proposed inclusion and are directed at editors' past conduct. That comment won't help us get to any consensus and it will just make editors less likely to be flexible about their own opinions. Would you please redact it? I think it would help a lot. Noroton (talk) 19:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom report

Please note that I have added this account as a party to the ArbCom report filed by 74.94.99.17. You may find the discussion here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Barack Obama. Additionally, I really would appreciate it if you could remove your accusatory comments from the Barack Obama talk page, and desist from unarchiving the WP:RfC on that page. RfC is a preliminary dispute resolution step, with WP:RFAR being the final step. Now that there is an arbitration request, there is nothing to be gained by further discussing the same issue on the article talk page. Wikidemo (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. After a review of the Arbitration Committee's documents, I've learned that they carefully avoid deciding any content disputes. A review of their recent cases confirms this. But RfC is expressly designed to resolve content disputes. If you don't mind, I'll add this to your User Talk page as well, to be sure that you see it. Curious bystander (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks but no need - I'm watching your page for any reply, and the article talk space obviously. Do you have any intent to withdraw the accusations you have made on the talk page? Wikidemo (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

A note about the role of admins

Hi - It seems from this thread above that you're a little confused about the role of admins here. In content disputes, admins have no more authority than any other editor. In particular, my participation at the talk:Barack Obama page is as an editor - with no more (but no less) authority than any other editor (admins generally have a lot of experience editing here, so tend to know the ropes). I'm certainly willing to give advice if asked, but admins have no authority to resolve disputes. The mechanisms for resolving content disputes are discussed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: BLP

1. [8]

2. [9]

3. [10]

4. [11]

I'll ask MastCell to put a similar note here. Noroton (talk) 00:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Added 3 & 4. Cheers, Noroton (talk) 03:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

ANI thread

Regarding your invitation here, Kossack4Truth is topic banned from Barack Obama, including ANI. I suggest just self-reverting the invitation, although you don't have to. Regarding the ANI thread itself, many people won't read it because it's just too long.--chaser - t 17:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, CB. I think it is easy to mistake WP:AN/I as a place to take complaints about user behavior. It's easy to think so, because it is often done, and a lack of what might be called discipline at AN/I is a real problem, causing real situations that need immediate action to pass unnoticed, sometimes until it's too late. However, the fact is that it's a terrible place to try to establish problematic long-term behavior that does not flagrantly violate guidelines. Again, you may have been misled by, say, the topic ban against K4T. When the conditions have been set up by prior events, or sometimes just by natural prejudices of those who participate at AN/I -- and administrators are human too -- sometimes such decisions are made there, but it really wasn't designed for it, and, quite simply, it isn't the place to present large chunks of text at the outset. If you want to pursue the matter, I'd suggest two things. First, decide if there is an immediate emergency, some ongoing situation where damage is currently taking place. Don't choose a content dispute, AN/I is explicitly not about content disputes. I.e., that an article is allegedly POV isn't an emergency. A Biography of a Living Person with improper, defamatory material would be an emergency, but the BLP Noticeboard is for that, WP:BLP. If there is an emergency, it should be possible to describe it in a few words, with only minimal evidence, sufficient to establish the immediate problem. What happened six months ago, or a month ago, will be irrelevant, unless, perhaps, we are talking about something easily established about an editor, such as a block history. (I.e., if you think the remedy is a block, that an editor was blocked before would be relevant). Wikipedia does not punish, period, so an offense that is not on-going, i.e., likely to be repeated, won't be relevant at AN/I. I have no idea if there is an emergency involved here, but I'll say this: your AN/I report did not appear to be about an emergency and specifically described long-term behavior. It's as if you called 911 and said, I need a police officer, and, then, when the operator asked why, what was going on, you started talking about what happened last week, presumably to establish that the person you were dealing with is a bad guy and should be arrested. There "might" be some situation where that would be appropriate, but if you can't establish it quickly, and these were volunteers, you might be on a dead line pretty quickly.

Then there is the possibility of RfC. It would seem that you have an issue with the long-term behavior of an editor. You should carefully read WP:DR and follow it. Don't skip steps. There is a point where the evidence you collected, if relevant, would be useful and would be produced, typically at WP:RfC. Again, that pile as the "charge" in an RfC would be too much, but charges can refer to an evidence page. If it's going to be effective, though, it will have to be better organized, and probably should focus on the most problematic events that can be most clearly established. It's a difficult process. Meanwhile, by raising the report at AN/I as you did, you have attracted negative attention, and some of your comments there could be considered uncivil. I'd highly recommend that you review them and strike was is not necessary. It's not that you don't have a right to complain, you do, but there is also political reality. There is an old saying, "If you want to shoot the King, don't miss." If you want to reform Wikipedia at higher levels, including bringing down abusive administrators, you should be aware that attempting to do so will bring an abundance of negative attention to your own behavior, and if you are not scrupulously in conformity with WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, you could be blocked, properly or otherwise. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

So, I'd recommend getting the help and support of some experienced editors you trust. If you try to do it on your own, well, you will probably be tilting at windmills.

Nothing I have written here should be taken as being either in support or in opposition to the complaint you filed. I didn't read it, in detail. Why not? Well, I've got a lot of other fish to fry, and it was enough for me to see that it was going to be moot, which I could tell, just about immediately, because of how it would intersect with the real community at AN/I. Plus, of course, I'm not an administrator, I don't have those buttons (and don't particularly want them.) My interest here is in attempting to guide you into using your obvious energy productively, which may or may not ultimately result in administrative reform. I can say this, though: trying to take out an individual "bad guy" administrator isn't going to have much effect, there are over 1600 administrators, and they all have the same buttons (except, of course, bureaucrats and a few other classes have a few more buttons.) It's like Whack-a-mole, hit one and another pops up. I have no opinion about the vast majority of administrators, because most don't make themselves very visible, you only see a few who are commonly in the visible places like AN/I. I do know that there are large numbers of administrators, though, who do, clearly, have the best interests of the project and the community in mind, but, if you are going to recruit these to some cause, you will need to consider what they need. Which is, among other things, cogent reports, made in the proper places. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

They closed that thread within something like 24 hours after it opened, so didn't really have a chance to comment. I did add one comment anyway since I didn't realize it was closed at the time. Anyway, I'll just say that admin action is highly unlikely to help here because to fully appreciate the problem would mean fully appreciating the content disputes as well and admins just don't have the time and interest for that. This Abd user sounds extremely reasonable and you're fortunate to have gotten as much attention as he's given to you, in fact, given how summarily most admins operate, and it's likely out of respect for the number of hours you spent putting together your AN/I report (note that one person didn't read any of what you compiled, and instead just looked at your edit count, as if that's all they needed to know about the merits of your complaint). Your best bet is to try to argue on the Talk pages and just go ahead and edit, consistent with Wikipedia policies. Make sure you are familiar with WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:NOTABLE. If you happen to agree with the soundness of my edits, for example, you'd better serve me, and more importantly them (the edits), by speaking up for them on the Talk page or supporting them by editing actions than by trying to get an admin to help. If an admin just looks at something superficial (e.g. that user that just counted your career edit count) God only knows what that admin might conclude such that the admin might actually take the other side which would, of course, just make matters worse. This isn't to suggest that you were incorrect to suspect that nothing short of an admin action will ultimately overcome the obstacles created by LotE (and Scjessey).Bdell555 (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The Obama Nation

Perhaps you fail to understand: I mad e the revert initially after WorkerBee made an edit BEFORE consensus was reached. I was reverting UNTIL we had consensus on HIS edit, not mine. The version I keep reverting to is the original. I won't make any more reverts, but if you're gonna template me, template WorkerBee too. He started it. Wikilost (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe you may have forgotten that under the terms of the article probation, all Obama-related articles are under 1-revert rule. While I assume this was a good-faith oversight, I would strongly recommend that you self-revert to avoid a violation report and possible block. Also, please don't template the regulars. A personal note is preferred in those circumstances. Thanks, --Clubjuggle ^T/C 20:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

(this one is, or should be exempt from WP:DTTR) -

Also, since you felt compelled to leave a warning for Wikilost about the 1RR rule, I might point out that this is a case of "physician heal thyself." He made exactly as many reverts as you did (which is two). --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Article probation notice

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, that an article to which you have recently contributed, The Obama Nation, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Please note that some probation terms extend to related articles and accept this as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. - please note, again, that this template is not an accusation of improper editing, just confirmation that you are aware of the terms of article probation. - Wikidemo (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

This edit[12] is edit warring - your fourth revert in just over a day, three times over the same material.[13][14][15] In addition, the edit summary (in part, "why does this garbage keep getting shoveled back into the article?") is unduly confrontational. You are aware of the article probation and the need to avoid edit warring. Please stop. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 23:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Please stop being accusatory and confrontational with users at Talk:Barack Obama. People are working in good faith in resolving issues and may falter as they go. Inserting inflammatory comments mid-discussion is not helpful or constructive. .:davumaya:. 08:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm inviting your comment

Here (and also, if possible, here?)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 05:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for participation in User:Abd/RfC

Because my participation as a Wikipedia editor has been questioned, and if I continue as I have in the past, I can expect future challenges as well, I have begun a standing RfC in my user space, at User:Abd/RfC. There is also a specific incident RfC at User:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block. I understand that you may not have time to participate directly; however, if you wish to be notified of any outcome from the general or specific RfC, or if you wish to identify a participant or potential participant as one generally trusted by you, or otherwise to indicate interest in the topic(s), please consider listing yourself at User:Abd/RfC/Proxy Table, and, should you so decide, naming a proxy as indicated there. Your designation of a proxy will not bind you, and your proxy will not comment or vote for you, but only for himself or herself; however, I may consider proxy designations in weighing comment in this RfC, as to how they might represent the general community. You may revoke this designation at any time. This RfC is for my own guidance as to future behavior and actions, it is advisory only, upon me and on participants. This notice is going to all those who commented on my Talk page in the period between my warning for personal attack, assumptions of bad faith, and general disruption, on August 11, 2008, until August 20, 2008. This is not a standard RfC; because it is for my advice, I assert authority over the process. However, initially, all editors are welcome, even if otherwise banned from my Talk space or from the project. Canvassing is permitted, as far as I'm concerned; I will regulate participation if needed, but do not spam. Notice of this RfC may be placed on noticeboards or wikiprojects, should any of you think this appropriate; however, the reason for doing this in my user space is to minimize disruption, and I am not responsible for any disruption arising from discussion of this outside my user space. Thanks for considering this. --Abd (talk) 02:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for 24 hours for edit warring on Barak Obama. Repeatedly re-inserting the same contentious paragraph, against consensus on the talk page, and in spite of the fact that the article is under article probabtion. When the block expires, please review, again, our policies on WP:Edit warring, WP:Consensus, and the provisions of Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. --barneca (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I should also note that if you repeat this action, I will block this account indefinitely ban this account from all Barak Obama-related articles (broadly construed) until November 5, 2008. --barneca (talk) 21:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Unhelpful talk page comments

These kinds of provocations violate article Obama article probation.[16][17][18] You have just come off a block for your behavior there. The featured article review you filed in response to not getting your way in the edit war were of quesitonable good faith. Please desist. Wikidemon (talk) 19:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Second warning - these edits[19][20][21][22]. By reopening a discussion that has been closed three times as unproductive and disruptive, you are renewing a disruption. By unstriking a stricken personal attack for the second time you are making that attack for the third time. Giving me a supposed "warning" for my being the first of three editors to close the discussion, and the first of two to strike your personal, attack is simple tendentiousness. If you wish to continue contributing you should edit in a more civil, less disruptive way. Wikidemon (talk) 22:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban from Barack Obama, related articles, and talk pages

I have carefully reviewed your contributions, and believe the best course is to topic ban you from Barack Obama, Talk:Barack Obama, and related articles (broadly construed) until November 5, 2008. You are not to edit those articles, or participate on their talk pages. I believe I have the authority to do this based on Talk:Barack Obama/article probation.

I have taken this action for the following reasons:

• You are a single purpose account
• I have recently blocked you for edit warring on Barack Obama, and warned you that a topic ban was the next step if disruption continued
• You have been tendentious editing; that is, refusing to listen to other editors and repeatedly saying the same things over and over, exhausting the editing community's patience (particularly with regard to Rezko)
• You have repeatedly violated WP:SOAP
• You nominated, in bad faith, the article for WP:FAR
• You have made attacks and insults to other editors, and when they have been struck out, you have unstruck them; admittedly, most of them were borderline, but this has now happened multiple times
• You are doing all these things on an article under probabation, where editors are explicitly expected to be on their best behavior, and were you have been specifically warned that this was the case.

If only one or two of these things were true, I would not be implementing this topic ban; it is the combination of all of them together that makes your behavior cross the line to disruptive.

If, when the topic ban expires, you wish to re-engage productively, you will be welcome to do so. If you resume being disruptive, the topic ban will be extended indefinitely. Violation of the topic ban will lead to your account being blocked.

Because this is the first time I have topic banned anyone under article probation, I will be opening a thread at WP:ANI for a review of my actions. You may, of course, participate in that thread. --barneca (talk) 01:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban

(copied from my talk page; I'm going to archive soon, and not sure if you saw the response or not)

Unlike many other Wikipedians, I do not have the time to homestead here, so I missed your notice. I also notice that several of the editors who have been pushing like bulldozers to eliminate criticism from Barack Obama instantly supported your topic ban. MastCell said it was a borderline case. You have yourself admitted that the alleged personal attacks were borderline cases. (If I'm getting a topic ban for saying "misrepresentation," why isn't Scjessey also getting a topic ban for using that word first?) In general, despite my unswerving support for Obama I find that many others here (unlike myself) have miserably failed to check their biases at the door, and they WP:OWN the article. Curious bystander (talk) 23:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite comfortable with the topic ban decision. If you disagree, you're more than welcome to bring it up again on ANI, now that you're back online. --barneca (talk) 23:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I remember you

From a certain forum (Captiol Grilling) off-wiki. JustGettingItRight (talk) 23:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)