User talk:C. W. Gilmore/Archive 44

Restoring a challenged edit
Uhm, CW - our DS state: must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article, so what was this? Atsme 📞📧 23:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If there is a challenge, then consensus is first made on TP before changing the text. To make major changes without consensus, is vandalism of the article and should be undone, User:Atsme, this is only proper to return the article to it's most stable condition.  C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Apparently that only applies to long standing content, not new content. Did you ever give any further thought to creating a collapsable TP banner (a template?) where we can list consensus results? I see where there is a notice about reviewing consensus 1st at the bottom of the article edit view DS warning: Please review current established consensus before editing this article, especially the lead section. Changes against established consensus without prior discussion can be reverted on sight and such reverts are not limited by WP:1RR restrictions. What we don't have is an organized list of RfC and local consensus results. Do you know how to make TP banner templates? Atsme 📞📧 02:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Those are good questions to bring up at the Teahouse as my technical skills are terrible (research and history, being my subjects), they are more able to help. As to the revert, on any article, if there is a conflict of thought; the article is returned to the most stable version and consensus is sought on the TP.  If I had not done it, then an Admin would have done the exact thing.  C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll take it to VP Tech and see what comes up. It's Friday night, so I'll probably wait until after the weekend. Thanks! Atsme 📞📧 02:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Confederate flag
Go ahead. I put in that when Trump arrived at some destination, I forget which, there was someone waving a Confederate flag. Got taken right out. deisenbe (talk) 01:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Lynching
Please add them. There are hundreds more. Category:Lynching deaths in the United States by state deisenbe (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry but add them where? What order is this list in?  It's not by state or date or ????  I can't figure out where things should go.  My I suggest that the list be reorgainised by state and then by date with a table at the top of the article for quick access?  I'm not very good at layouts, so I fear I would only make a mess of it.  C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Out of curiosity...
How did you notice my discussion(s) on TB's talk page. Since I got so many random responses from other editors who were apparently his talk page watchers, I assumed you were more of the same, but you don't seem to have ever edited that page until just now. Combined with this cryptic message you left on my talk page a few months back ... well, it honestly kinda weirds me out. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have been following them and other editors for quite some time that is how your comments have come to my attention even when you do not name me as you accuse me of dancing on a grave. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I wasn't talking about you at all, and had completely forgotten about the incident in February (that was the only reason I wrote the above). I don't recall if I mentioned the name of the editor I was talking about,, explicitly, but it was obvious from the diffs who I was talking about. I have no idea why you have been following for two months, but would I be right in assuming it had something to do with this? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:21, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No User:Hijiri88, you are agian mistaken. I had nothing to do with TB's post (or vote) and I don't dance on graves either.  Anything around that subject, I only watched from afar and said nothing. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Hijiri88 - That comment on your TP (22 Feb), you then went on to an Administrator's TP and said I was 'grave dancing' necaise of that comment. I dropped it because I thought I was the only one.  Now I find out you accuse even more! C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh... you meant this. I get it now. In the future, providing the diffs up-front would be best. Anyway, please leave me the heck alone, as I have been trying to do for you for the last two months -- I literally had no idea who you were when you showed up on TB's talk page this morning (hence my above message that I tried to blank once I remembered who you are). Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "Leave you alone? Hijiri 88, you are the one who accuse me wrongly of Grave Dancing' and continue using such over the top language in your claims in the ANI you started.  Stop your actions and I will be very glad to forget all about you once more. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 06:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I was not wrong. Celebrating the site-banning of a user by sending "friendly" messages to the users who !voted in favour of the banning is grave-dancing. But I had completely forgotten about that until you followed me to TonyBallioni's talk page today. I would be happy if you'd forget me for once, but saying you will forget me "once more" makes it very difficult to trust you when you followed me to TB's talk page today. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 06:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

What part of the fact that I was following, do you not get? So when you pipe up on someone's TP accusing people of Grave Dancing, you will get my attention. Please start assuming good faith. - C. W. Gilmore (talk) 06:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If you want to "follow" TB that's between you and him, but you never edited his talk page until today. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 06:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hijiri 88, you never make over the top comments about grave dancing on his talking page before. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 06:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I literally posted on his talk page two weeks ago about several IPs dancing on the grave of a YouTuber who died in 2014. And over the past several months I've made no end of "over-the-top" allegations of plagiarism on his talk page. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 06:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Hijiri 88 Please stay off my page unless require Thank you.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 06:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear?
There are projects I was in the middle of doing on Meta-Wiki and it will be acceptable to continue? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure. You’re not blocked there.— CYBERPOWER  (Around ) 12:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Lovely retaliation for pointing out, you- [User:Hijiri88], have been making claims of Grave Dancing as a habit of course. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruption per this ANI discussion. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. — CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 21:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry it had to come to this CW. I don't like seeing you getting blocked, but this is something now only the community can rule on.  If you want to appeal the block, it has to be to the community now, as they are the ones who supported your block.  Please be aware you may only appeal every 6 months.— CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 21:02, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Strange that a total of 5 votes is all it takes to end everything, but that appears to be the wiki way. Banning policy C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Good Luck everyone and thanks to those that tried to be helpful and thoughtful, it is appreciated. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You are only blocked. Not banned.  If you were banned, I big notice would be plastered on the top of your user and talk pages.— CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 18:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Given that only two people spoke up for me, and "... where no administrator would be willing to lift the block, the user is effectively banned by the community." -Blocking policy I thought it best to prepare for this as if it were a ban.  I had hope someone might notice that I had been trying hard to avoid conflicts and controversies and the 'dirt' brought up was from last year, but few seemed to care are even fewer seemed willing to vote.  The silence of the AN/I was quite loud and clear, thank you.  C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Anything is possible. I know another user who managed to get himself globally banned and nearly banned a second time after being unbanned the first time.  With that being said, I gave the user one last chance, putting him on some sever restrictions, and he turned around and became a productive user.  My point is the community CAN forgive and forget.  I'm sure you will be back in the game before long.  I can't unilaterally unblock you, so I am waiting to see you file a successful appeal. :-)— CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 18:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

related issues

 * Apology to User:TonyBallioni for causing a dust-up on their talk page (that was inappropriate venue) and a mistake on my part. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Snow Rise's critique was very insightful and helpful. Given that many of my edits are in contentious areas it has been difficult to avoid conflict, which is why I had recently attempted to focus more on the talk pages of these articles; ex: Louis Farrakhan and work with Admins to deal with contentious edits   .  This shift to avoid conflict is why the article space - not-article space ratio optics appear off but explainable as the last thing I desired was to be the centre of conflict.  C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a battleground, perhaps all the problems are not entirely mine -
 * Editing other users' talk page, after requested to stay off. - -Example of more WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior.

A final quote on blocking and banning

 * "Some editors, even some administrators on Wikipedia forget why we are here and begin to adopt a punitive model for Wikipedia politics. They support blocks, bans, and enforcement of Arbitration Committee sanctions in order to exact retribution on "bad users" rather than helping to create and improve encyclopedic content. This is regrettable and problematic, not to mention contrary to the reason for blocks, bans, and enforcements as stated in the Wikipedia guidelines and policies linked in the previous sentence." - WP:PUNITIVE
 * What is done is done, and so, it is time to move forward and do better tomorrow - C. W. Gilmore (talk) 08:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Antisemitism in the Labour Party
Please could you have a look at this Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party. Attempts at trying to achieve the neutrality you requested are being thwarted by a number of editors. Garageland66 (talk) 07:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Sadly, I am unable to assist. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Confederate monuments
I was hoping you'd comment on a matter at the Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials talk page.--MagicatthemovieS


 * Sadly, I am unable to assist. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

July 2018
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Hijiri88 - deleting content from my TP:  After being asked to 'STAY OFF' and being warned by others not to do similar things on another editor's TP:


 * Again, with making Wiki into a WP:BATTLEGROUND with anyone, you think has crossed you, even their TP is your battle ground:

Staying off the TP, includes deleting my edits on my TP - Thank You

 * Deleting entire sections of my TP - violates this request.  Thank you for staying off my page unless required.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * If you don't like what I have collected as evidence then please fill free to delete me from your 'watchlist'. In fact I request that you delete my pages from all your lists. - Thank you. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * "Everyone brings joy to my life, most when they enter it, and some when they leave it." C. W. Gilmore (talk) 07:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Your talk page
If you're going to make an unblock request, I suggest you make it. Complaining about Hijiri88 isn't part of the unblocking process. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Collecting evidence is part of the process and is related directly to my Block; the fact that Hijir88 refuses to stay off my TP is further evidence that all is not as pleasant as it appears with the one that brought the AN/I in the first place and was one of only three that supported a Block. This is to show a pattern of passive-aggressive retaliation against those that Hijir seems to think has crossed them some how.  Not complaining, merely gathering 'evidence'.  Thank you, NinjaRobotPirate for your understanding of this being 'directly' related to my BLOCK and it will be many months before I'm allowed to request an un-block. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "Some editors, even some administrators on Wikipedia forget why we are here and begin to adopt a punitive model for Wikipedia politics. They support blocks, bans, and enforcement of Arbitration Committee sanctions in order to exact retribution on "bad users" rather than helping to create and improve encyclopedic content. This is regrettable and problematic, not to mention contrary to the reason for blocks, bans, and enforcements as stated in the Wikipedia guidelines and policies linked in the previous sentence." - WP:PUNITIVE
 * "They support blocks, bans, and enforcement of Arbitration Committee sanctions in order to exact retribution on "bad users" rather than helping to create and improve encyclopedic content." -

Please stop
Please stop talking about Hijiri88. It is generally considered unfair to ask someone to stay off of your talk page and then to keep talking about them, and especially pinging them.

I am watching this page now and if Hijiri88 posts here (other than things like ANI and AN notices -- he has no choice and must post those) I will bring it up at ANI. I don't think that he will. Now please do your part and stop talking about him.

If you reply to this, don't mention he-who-shall-not-be-mentioned in your reply. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Guy Macon - Deleting entire sections of my TP months after being asked to stay off, is not appropriate, and I only pinged AFTER this, to STOP editing my page again.  Someone appears to be twisting the reason I restated my request. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * To your point, I shall not mention, 'he-who-shall-not-be-mentioned', and will not ping them again as long as they 'STAY OFF' my pages so I do not have to repeat my request for a third time. Thank you for your time, Guy Macon.  C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * @Guy Macon, I have already asked 'he-who-shall-not-be-mentioned', to remove me from all their lists including their 'watchlist'; it is my hope that this is done, but per this-, it seems unlikely. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 06:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You're still talking about someone when you use a euphemism or speak about them tangentially. DrKay (talk) 08:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * DrKay - And I am still having my TP edited months after asking it to stop, and I'm still being followed after asking that this be stops as well. This WP:Hounding by them needs to end.  C. W. Gilmore (talk) 08:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you demonstrate where your talk page is being edited other than to remove content talking about them? If you have no such evidence I strongly suggest you drop this and don't talk about it ever again. As already mentioned, you should not be talking about someone if you've asked them to stay away. It should be obvious that this is fundamentally unfair and the fact this wasn't obvious to you could perhaps be a sign of why you're indeffed. (Or actually IIRC it was a cban.) And on that point, if you are indeffed you're not supposed to be using your talk page for anything other than requesting unblocks anyway. So a double whammy. This doesn't mean it was okay for Hijiri88 to make that edit, but it remains dumb of you to make a fuss of this rather than just apologise for your clear error and promise to never repeat it. All it's likely to lead to is to you losing talk page access. As for being followed, while it is a concern in general, as long as you are indeffed it's frankly a moot point. If you ever successfully appeal your block or ban, then it's the time to worry about it. Note that even if the editor is going around reverting historic edits of yours, it's still not your concern. It is our concern, but we don't need your help. Nil Einne (talk) 08:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Nil Einne, What is fundamentally unfair is to bring an A/N against someone that can not defend themselves. I have only been linking to evidence of similar passive-aggressive activities against other users and have not mentioned anyone directly so if a person in question were to not have me on their 'watchlist' as I requested, there would be no problem at all, thanks. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 08:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to the fact a thread was opened on AN about you posting inappropriate stuff to your talk page? Nil Einne (talk) 08:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * (EC) BTW, while allowed to make an unblock request, you have very little latitude to use your talk page for "gathering evidence" concerning other editors, especially those you've asked to stay away from your talk page if you are indeffed. I suggest you use some sort of private storage system elsewhere. Also the chance that gathering evidence on alleged wrongdoings of another editor is going to help your unblock request is close to zero. We are interested in how you're going to correct your misbehaviour, not whatever anyone else has done wrong. Frankly even if you had a chance of being unblocked anytime soon before your recent series of edits, you've almost definitely lost that chance by what you've done recently. In fact, your apparent believe that this silliness is somehow "helping to create and improve encyclopedic content" rather than being a utter waste of time is for me enough evidence that you're not ready to edit again. And on that note, this will be my last comment. Nil Einne (talk) 08:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Nil Einne - "Some editors, even some administrators on Wikipedia forget why we are here and begin to adopt a punitive model for Wikipedia politics. They support blocks, bans, and enforcement of Arbitration Committee sanctions in order to exact retribution on "bad users" rather than helping to create and improve encyclopedic content. This is regrettable and problematic, not to mention contrary to the reason for blocks, bans, and enforcements as stated in the Wikipedia guidelines and policies linked in the previous sentence." - WP:PUNITIVE -"They support blocks, bans, and enforcement of Arbitration Committee sanctions in order to exact retribution on "bad users" rather than helping to create and improve encyclopedic content." -  C. W. Gilmore (talk) 08:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The fact is that I ONLY linked to materials on Wiki and never made made mention of others, if anyone does not like what is on my TP, "PLEASE" take me off all you watch lists and stay away from my page, Thanks. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 08:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I take that as a yes to my question. I intended to make above my last comment but I had to say this. Frankly the "bring an A/N against someone" silliest thing you've said thus far. You got all up in arms about Hijiri88 editing your talk page then you complain that they used the only reasonable avenue open to them namely open an AN//I thread. If you want an editor to leave you alone, leave them the fuck alone as well. (That means no gathering evidence publicly anywhere etc, and no it doesn't matter if you just post links and they shouldn't notice.) If they continue to bother you, post any evidence to a AN//I thread. If you've left them alone, it's likely to be a slam dunk case. If you can't post evidence because you're indeffed, that means it's none of your business as the only thing the editor can really do to bother you is to keep editing your talk page which will quickly earn them a block probably without needing your involvement. BTW your claims is also clearly wrong, since the norms are that if an editor has something to say to an AN//I thread that concerns them and they are blocked, they are allowed to post on their talk page asking someone to cross post it for them. 99.9% of the time this is when there is a request for a removal of a cban. For this to happen because an editor is posting "shit list" stuff about another editor who they've asked to stay away from their talk page, while blocked; well that takes the cake really. I'll emphasise again what I said below. If you had any chance of being unblocked, I'm sure you have none now. And not sure why you are reposting that punishment thing. I clearly already read it hence why I directly quoted what you said. In case you still don't understand it's clear that you are not going to be able to create or improve encyclopaedic content because you clearly have zero idea how to collaborate here successfully. You're showing this time and time again with your comments. Most of us don't want to punish you, we just want wikipedia to be a place where everyone is free to create and improve encyclopaedic content without having to deal with editors who are unable to work here. At the moment, it's clear to me you're in that list. Whether other editors are in that list or not, is none of your concern as long as you are not. Note that the only reason I am saying this is because I'm hoping you will one day be an editor who is able to create and improve encycoapedic content. It's clearly have a lot to learn, but it's hopefully not an insurmountable task. Nil Einne (talk) 09:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * -"Frankly even if you had a chance of being unblocked anytime soon before your recent series of edits, you've almost definitely lost that chance by what you've done recently." -Nil Einne  "Some editors, even some administrators on Wikipedia forget why we are here and begin to adopt a punitive model for Wikipedia politics. They support blocks, bans, and enforcement of Arbitration Committee sanctions in order to exact retribution on "bad users" rather than helping to create and improve encyclopedic content. This is regrettable and problematic, not to mention contrary to the reason for blocks, bans, and enforcements as stated in the Wikipedia guidelines and policies linked in the previous sentence." - WP:PUNITIVE C. W. Gilmore (talk) 09:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * What I care about is that the record be set in an honest and true set of facts for the way things came about, and I donna care if it will take a decade to appeal my BLOCK, for doing it. Some editors make ALL Wiki their battle-ground, even user's TP and that goes too far.  C. W. Gilmore (talk) 09:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked
I think I was fairly clear with my warning. Please see User_pages, and use Unblock Ticket Request System if you wish to appeal this decision. Thanks, Alex Shih (talk) 11:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Now, if everyone will leave me in peace, or delete me from their 'Watchlist', if not - Thank You
I wish to be left in peace and if someone is offended by something I have linked to, then perhaps they should not have been a party to it in the first place, or un-watch my page in the secound. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 09:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)