User talk:CarolSpears/archive-04

a citation call
I have been having a problem with some of my ways. The thing that is bothering me the most right now is that I have made citations to papers in which I only read the abstract of.

My instinct tells me to remove the access date from it and that will be more honest.

If you know what to do in this situation, can you tell me? If you don't know what to do, I would be happy if you made a call on it.

The citation formalities -- they were all hardcoded before the web was even imagined. Possibly, adding a url location to the existing databases everywhere that used them was or even is quite a challenge. -- carol (talk) 13:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it should be ok if you leave the access data in. To be clear, do you mean the date you accessed the online abstract of the paper? If a url exists, access data should be included for the eventual day when that website moves or changes its structure, so that readers and editors know when you used that url so it can possibly be extracted from the internet archive. My sense is that it is best to give as much info as possible. Any one citation style (MLA, Chicago, etc.) is not endorsed by the Wikipedia MoS, so you're free to use whatever citation style you feel most comfortable with. The important thing is to make it consistent within the article, which you've done a great job at doing. Did that answer your question? --Rkitko (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, I am quite certain that I have gotten my volumes and issues mixed up -- perhaps consistently at least. It does answer my question, it makes sense and I am not happy with it.  Thank you very much! (I had enough 'access' where I used to live to be able to write an article with only papers that I actually read.) -- carol (talk) 16:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, do what makes you happy if it's reasonable. If providing access data is a bit more trouble than you want to deal with, then don't include it. I don't think it hurts anything if excluded. A determined editor or reader could always find the information from other citation data given. I sympathize with your difficulties in accessing journals. I no longer have free access to JSTOR, Proquest, etc. through an academic library. Until I go back to school, that probably won't change so I have to make frequent trips to nearby libraries (including some to your old stomping grounds in Michigan, I believe). --Rkitko (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The library that I would have tried first is a little hidden from the rest of the world. Part of my job for a while was to copy the abstracts each month from the journals as the scientists I worked with requested them.  It infuriates me that there are things here (wikipedia) that are being called 'from the government' when anyone who worked for the government could look at it and know it is not one of theirs.  What area are you at?  I had the feeling you were on the west coast, I don't know where that feeling came from.  The snow photographs from there this year have been beautiful and more like when I was a child.  I really despise being here, the situation that brought me here, some of the things that has happened and the situation that I found once I got here.


 * I don't need to be happy with everything, in fact, that is usually not good. I do feel more comfortable with citing abstracts; it would be nice to know that there was something real in the paper also -- they are like advertisements somewhat, abstracts.  When I was copying them, I started to lose a little respect for some of them (the journals) also.  Nature's treatment of homeopathy in the late eighties was the exact example.


 * Rkitko, are we playing pokemon? -- carol (talk) 18:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Possibly! I used to live in Olympia, Washington. About 8 months ago I moved back to Ohio. I'm much happier to be here than when I was on the west coast, so I can perhaps understand a bit of how you feel. Regardless, let me know if there's anything else I can help with here. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not fond of that game. I watched the 'toon and I was disappointed in a message for children to send a small creature with one or two special powers to fight battles for them.  In reviewing the 'toons I watched when I was a kid, they were mostly sexist and racist -- things that can be gotten over.  But using little imaginary creatures to fight battles with -- it is a terrible message about what growing up should be like. Especially if you would like to enjoy life as a grown up. -- carol (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

? (restored to address issue still hanging)
Please continue this where ever it was that it was started. Thank you all for your time, consideration and opinions. When you would like my opinion, feel free to ask it here. -- carol (talk) 07:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Dichelostemma congestum
It is not necessary to leave unconfirmed information in an article for it to be checked, particularly by an editor who needs to have the information confirmed by someone else first. You simply contact your mentor with your suggested changes to the article along with your sources and wait until they get time to verify its accuracy. Your taxonomic information in Liabeae was so far off of what the article actually said that it is not advisable for you to edit prior to checking with someone knowledgeable about plant taxonomy. Leave the information out until it can be verified by someone, probably after everyone gets done editing the hundreds of problematic articles and sections you've already created. --Blechnic (talk) 07:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The people who confirm things are not required to confirm them so quickly. They must be there to be confirmed.  You must perhaps start to write your own articles or live your own life.  I have no idea how you became so attached to my articles and my editing and I am sorry about this.  The fact that many of the plant articles sit there unchallenged, unreferenced and unchecked is a fact.  Leave the pages there until they can be checked.  Write some articles.  Thank you for finally asking my opinion, by the way. -- carol (talk) 07:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * People are so attached to your editing, because they have identified that your editing is problematic. Please will you, once and for all, accept that Wikipedia has policies which we must all follow. The policy here is that content must be verifiable, and properly sourced. It isn't that you can add any old rubbish, and that it can stay there until somebody has confirmed it to be true, or found it to be false. The content does NOT have to be there to be verified. If you don't want to work with a mentor, the only option open to you is to note your proposed additions on the article talk page, rather than adding them directly to the article.
 * You need to understand that people have been very patient with you, but that the patience is not limitless, and that you have all but exhausted that patience.
 * If you continue to edit in the same vein as hitherto, which involves other editors spending huge amounts of time fixing your errors, and refusing to engage with people who are trying to help you become a productive editor, a ban from Wikipedia is inevitable Mayalld (talk) 07:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Carol, the information can be found in the page history, or by your giving it to your mentor, or you can create a subpage to put the information on. Here, I'll create one for you as an example. User talk:CarolSpears/Dichelostemma congestum  You can title it something else, or create others as needed, or create your own personal working sandbox for you and your mentor.
 * Carol, they're not your articles or my articles. They're Wikiepdia articles.  No need to tell me to live my own life as a comment of this nature may be construed as a personal attack.
 * [[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing.
 * --Blechnic (talk) 07:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * PS Mayalld does offer a usable alternative: proposing changes on the article's talk page. However, for this you must stick with the proposed changes, and try not to stray into the abstract or off topic.  --Blechnic (talk) 07:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Rumex patientia
The picture your are using on this page is incorrect, since you appear to not know what this species looks like, try a google image search for this species. Hardyplants (talk) 09:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It is from wikisource and the original publication of the species. I am not certain what to do in this case. Google should not be as reliable as the original publication that everyone cites for the species? -- carol (talk) 09:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay. I am not correct in this. Sorry and fixing it.... -- carol (talk) 09:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I am trying to stub type species and images I dig out of original scans; occassionally I get a few things inaccurate in between doing this. I am also, having problems with what would probably be called stalking in any real environment; a problem which does not improve my accuracy.  Thank you for the review and the pointer. -- carol (talk) 09:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have made the same mistake too, especially since I do not have all my images labeled formally with the taxon name - I always try to check my images against other sources to make sure they are correct. Google images can be very useful for common species, and not helpful for species that are "rare" Hardyplants (talk) 09:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked
I have reluctantly placed an indefinite block on editing from this account, following ongoing community concern about your manner of contributing to Wikipedia. While you have made some positive contributions, and are clearly keen to help build our encyclopaedia, you have shown little sign that you understand the problems you are continuing to cause - problems that have required many hours to rectify by editors whose time would have been better spent on other things. You have not responded in the hoped-for way to constructive advice and offers of help, and I see no likelihood that this will change.

Please note that an indefinite block does not imply a permanent block, it just means the block has no set expiry date. You may still request unblocking (you can edit this talk page or paste the template below, substituting in your reason), although I would suggest that you will need to be especially convincing in persuading the community that you have grasped the seriousness of the situation, and can comply with any conditions required should you return.

EyeSerene talk 10:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't see this coming, Carol; I don't watch the drama boards much.
 * I don't think I can do anything for you at the moment. maybe throw yourself into Commons etc for a while, and revisit this in a month or so.
 * Hesperian 11:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The block is by people who write theatre articles. It is preventing me from working with people who write plant articles.  The votes are from unreal people who did not exist before Thanksgiving 2007. I know musical comedy.  The people involved with that are not as ignoranat, oppressive and illogical as they are being presented here.  In a month, will all of the plant articles have cited sources?  And what is the deal with Featured Pictures and Featured Articles?  There is a deal because it is there that the expectations and the demands that are not reflected back are made. -- carol (talk) 11:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please count the number of people who voted for this and compare it to the number of people who actually edit. And don't live in a world where the nagging people always win. Please.... -- carol (talk) 11:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * All of the plant articles, not just mine. All of the people who write articles, not just me.  In a month will all of the articles be as non-plagiaristic and with actual citations as mine are required to be?  And how will the new definitions of what is considered to be stalking and not be used? -- carol (talk) 11:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have said my piece. As you know I am not at liberty to unblock you against consensus. We'll just have to wait and see. Hesperian 12:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note Sarah also refused to unblock you - I've left my message on as it's more detailed. Neıl  龱  12:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have never spoken with Sarah nor seen her edits and that user has never asked my opinion about anything. Other users provided other words that did rhyme with species and were not that word -- a word that I never typed.  To have to learn how to use a system that is in place to block people from editing who are not really having a problem is very different from learning how to use a system to edit a page which is what the purpose of the instance of the software is.  I vote that everyone puts down their blocking tools and attempts to write an article -- let Sarah know that I care as much about her opinion as she has asked for mine. -- carol (talk) 12:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't have to have spoken to me - you posted an unblock request and as a passing administrator, I responded to it. If you're not interested in having an admin respond to your request then don't waste our time by making it in the first place. Sarah 12:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Be sure to tell Neil that everything I said still seems to be sticking -- carol (talk) 12:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And still you concern yourself with trying to be clever and win arguments. You may not have typed the word, but you pointedly failed to contradict those who interpreted your comment as such. If you meant something else by your comment, now is the time to explain.
 * You have repeatedly complained of being stalked. What do you think other editors should do? Say "oh yes, we know that Carol adds incorrect info to articles continuously, but it isn't fair to use that information to track down potentially problematic edits.
 * Your block is very much about your continued refusal to engage with other editors, and your refusal to work within the same framework of verifiability as others. It has been pointed out to you on many occasions that you need to work with other people, but you just keep demanding that other people leave you to do as you please.
 * You are, I am afraid, the architect of your own downfall. Mayalld (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm very disappointed, Carol. I ask that you respond to your RFC, and this is what happens? Block endorsed. Blueboy96 12:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Blueboy to quote Nathan Explosion when he failed to achieve his GED "Go Forth and Die!" -- carol (talk) 07:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal
For the obviously necessary 4th reversion rule:

To quote Nathan Explosion when he delivered the Harvard graduating commencement speech: "Go Fourth and Die!" -- carol (talk) 07:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you want to know why I ended up supporting the block in the end, this post of yours kinda makes it quite clear. -- SB_Johnny | talk  16:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have been blocked for making 3 reversions. There seems to be no blocking for others making 3 and then 4 reversions.  In my inability to understand this, I quote a funny animation character.  Meanwhile, at the commons, I have a User from English wikipedia, who has written Plant articles that were ranked better than good here, who can't find information about plants now.


 * If you could explain how the 3 reversion rule works, perhaps I can see the reason that this proposal is worth being blocked for. Just to say it is the reason is not very informative. -- carol (talk) 23:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In my humble opinion (I am not an administrator), if you want to be unblocked you would be wise not to misrepresent the reason for the block. You would also be wise to eschew obscure comments, but instead to take pains to express yourself clearly and politely. Lavateraguy (talk) 14:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Indefinitely banned
You have been indefinitely banned from editing Wikipedia per the discussion at. John254 05:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * User:JoJan was the user who wiped my user page to begin with. How come that user was Gited? -- carol (talk) 06:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (to John254) Really? I see the discussion supporting an indef block, but failing to gain consensus for a ban. I suggest you review your erroneous conclusion.
 * (to CarolSpears) Please help us to try and resolve this matter by shutting up, or at least stopping the clever remarks. Ta. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Concerning your indefblock...
OK Carol, I'm not sure how much you've followed what's been going on, given your reluctance to participate in community processes - even when you really should. However, from your comments above there seems to be some confusion on your part about what has happened and why, so I'll try to set it all out here.

As a result of the discussion that took place on the Administrator's Notice Board (here), you've been indefinitely blocked from editing anything apart from this talk page. The endorsement of the block was unanimous, although some administrators (including me) expressed a willingness to rescind the block at some time in the future (and only under certain circumstances). This means that technically you have not been formally banned forever from the site. The reason that you're seeing the word 'banned' on various tags and posts hereabouts is that an indefinite block that no administrator is willing to immediately undo is called a 'community ban'. However, as I say, this isn't the same as a 'don't ever come back here again' ban.

There were a number of reasons this decision was made, but basically they all boil down to one simple observation: you have consistently behaved as though you felt you could play by your own rules. The key word there is 'consistently'. We all screw up - often more than once, and sometimes quite spectacularly - but where editors show that they recognise their mistakes and are trying to avoid making them again, they'll be forgiven and given the help and support they need to move on. You have often stated that article writing is more important than anything else... and in that you're absolutely right. It's the sole purpose we're all here. However, what you apparently don't want to accept is that article writing here has to be within the bounds of Wikipedia policy. I'm not going to quote three-letter acronyms at you - it would be condescending, given that you've been here long enough to know what our policies are (and other editors have done plenty of that anyway), but most concerning is the plagiarism business. I'm sure you do understand that this is not only legally dangerous for Wikipedia, but morally and ethically unsupportable in a collegiate environment. Once this came to light, we really had no choice but to remove what we found. I understand why you feel as though you've been stalked, but the alternative would have been for you to offer to go back, undo, and double-check your own edits. You not only didn't do this, but you reverted other editors to keep your edits in place. This can only be read one of two ways: either you really don't understand why copyright violation is so wrong, or you do understand but don't care. To protect our encyclopaedia, we just can't allow anyone with either of those mindsets to edit it.

Also crucially (and I apologise for the length of this post, but I feel you have a right to a full explanation), you have failed to engage with other editors. Not all, by any means - you're apparently quite happy to work with certain people - but it seems that if you take a dislike to someone (and it has tended to be people who have tried to offer advice), you can't then engage with them productively, and you ignore anything they say. Unfortunately, this is largely what has put you in the position you're in now. True, you've not always been approached in the best manner by other editors, and you've had your share of undeserved aggravation, but that's just part of being here. We try to make it not be, by asking that all editors are polite, respectful and communicative with each other, and I think we largely succeed, but I hope that, if you're honest with yourself, you'll admit that you've been the oppressor as often as you've been oppressed. "Snarky" comments (if I have the right word there - we don't use it in the UK) are as unhelpful as outright verbal abuse, and in some respects more poisonous long-term. Your penchant for hiding behind word-play, verbal manoeuvring, and acerbic humour has been a massive barrier to communication with you. What has been notably missing from you was a simple and sincere "Sorry, I messed up, show me how to fix it and work with me so I avoid doing it again". This would, I think, have gone a long way to helping set things right... and it's absence was perceived as either ego or arrogance - again, not desirable traits in such a diverse community.


 * It was unclear to me that I had made errors that often. More importantly, do you know that one of the last conversations I had with my much loved by me drama teacher was about Sweeney Todd?  She had barely heard of it and had not read it.  I was looking for atypical musical theatre (preferably comedy) -- atypical being not the boy meets girl outline that most of the musicals I had seen at that point were about.  Decades later, I still have not seen or read this musical.  I found your edit history to be quite thought-provoking -- carol (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's about it from me. I sincerely hope you take this in the spirit it's meant - I'm not trying to attack or belittle you, just give you an honest assessment of why you've ended up indefblocked. I hope, too, that you can use my ramblings to see what needs to be done before we will consider unblocking your account again. Normally I wouldn't spend so much time on this (it's taken most of the afternoon to compose), but I believe that you have it in you to be an outstanding contributor. Your enthusiasm and clear love of botany, and your technical ability with images, are assets that could be really beneficial here - if only you could accept that to join our effort, you have to play by our rules. They may not always seem fair, just, or even consistent... and, because we all make mistakes, they aren't always properly applied, but for all their faults they've proven over time to work. I genuinely wish you all the best, and if you want to get in touch you can post here, or if you need to, I have an email link on my talk page (as do many other administrators). EyeSerene talk 14:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Your activity in this block seems to be inscrutible; and the plagiarism I experienced this week, both on the big screen and now here seem to be related to the Bill Murray tree, something I wrote once and I don't really want to search for it in that mess I call a web site. I must say, that Bill had a cameo cameo if that was the goal.  I mention all this now because the same minute plagiarism that was the claim for deleting my articles is being violated by everyone voting to keep me blocked.  Whether or not authoring an article that qualifies for a Did You Know article yet contains only ~12 words of article, while this is not a totally productive goal, it is a goal which I think I am one of the few of the thousands authoring articles here who has enough experience with the templates and subjects to achieve this goal.  Me and the Microsoft Wordcount app....


 * I haven't set my email up officially because I wanted to do that when I was home and not visiting a friend. Almost five years now of visiting and they have made the setting up of mailers for linux 5 years more complicated.... -- carol (talk) 22:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have raised concerns over this at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents Gnangarra 14:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Further to EyeSerene's comments, you are not community banned either since an uninvolved administrator (me) has declared that they would be willing to unblock you (with community consensus) should you agree to certain conditions such as mentoring, resolving the issues regarding your editing, etc. You remain indefinitely blocked, however, until you address the issues that have lead to this situation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My goal was to make an article that qualified for a Did You Know without actually having more than 18 words of text/encyclopedic content to it -- and I was getting there!!!
 * I am interested to see what my own rules are, are they ennumerated anywhere?
 * Is this what you really wanted? http://carol.gimp.org/entertainment/movies/Get_Smart.php (The original Agent 99 was awesome and perhaps the thing I miss most about the Cold War, with the exception of being able to smoke tobacco anywhere.)
 * I don't have an EP version of Go Forth and Die, and I was uncertain of the spelling of the word "Forth" in that song until yesterday. -- carol (talk) 22:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

the assignment of a mentor
This was, in many ways, one of the most humiliating decrees that could be issued to me from a group of people who are new to my edits.

The reason for that is that I was getting mentoring from people who were involved with similar articles; excellent mentoring (I think). Then the researching and writing of the articles is itself a way that starts to limit what kind of advice is followed.

I am defending the people who were involved now and not me.

If you want me to assign a "mentor" there is a german photographer who recently actually authored an insect species article on German wikipedia, who also has grasped the English meaning of two phrases "Monster truck" and "focus bracketing"; would that live up to the encyclopedia's standards which are written about in so many places? -- carol (talk) 00:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Mentors should not have any influence upon the content editing of the mentored. A good mentor is a conduit by which the content editor contributes most appropriately to the encyclopedia. It is a bond of trust (which is why so few people are truly excellent at it) where the mentor trusts that the content is suitable for the encyclopedia, and the mentored trusts that the mentor is acting in the best interests of the mentored in relation to the encyclopedia. As might be imagined, it is a very difficult application in practice - which is why it is only generally offered to individuals who it is believed can be of a benefit to the encyclopedia. Is the German photographer above sufficiently familiar with en-WP to be able to provide that guidance? 13:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My suggestion was motivated by a few facts I am dealing with here.
 * The earlier volunteers for mentoring were people whose names I have not seen associated with any botany articles.
 * Some people from the Plant project who at commons seem unfamiliar with their history here.
 * The editing that caused this block was to completely delete a contribution if there was even the perception of a mistake.
 * Three reasons that I suggested a person who also was needing help to understand how to find references and structure an article about a species. Ultimately, I really honestly believed that I was getting really good help from the Project that has the resources and people who can summarize some of the problems in the field of botany with just a few words.


 * My attempt to take this situation seriously is often thwarted by
 * deletion of articles due to the perception of the potential of a two or three word problem
 * violation of other rules that got me banned before
 * the mentors who have volunteered and their lack of knowledge of the subject.
 * I don't expect that the Plant Project people understand 1980s recursion theory and I don't expect the mathematicians to ever be patient with or understanding of botany as a science. A single mentor would have to be able to mentor a fairly accomplished human being who already was getting pretty good mentoring.


 * Knowledge can have an accumulative property to it; so, in summary:
 * if a mentor was being chose to learn from me, I could choose this person,
 * if a mentor was being chosen for me to work with, this was already happening by people who knew the field and were interested in botany articles meeting a certain standard here. And,
 * right before the Rfwhatever, there was a suggestion within the Plant Project that I get permission to move articles as they needed it from the common name or from the wrong species name into the new species name.
 * The linear arrangement of the facts keeps my humorous view of the situation alive and it reflects in my choice of mentor.


 * In defense of the photographer, authoring an article to &quot;illustrate&quot; an image is an activity I would like to encourage, so the suggestion was not completely comedic. -- carol (talk) 22:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * WP mentorship, like so much in WP, is not directly analogous to real life mentorship - here the mentor is the means to guide you through the WP processes . We expect content editors to be solely responsible for their edits in article space, but it is the matter of what and how to attribute sources, the required distance between the source and the content on the page, amongst others. This does not require any expert knowledge of the subject, but only the ability to review what is written against the source for the content. It may be that a mentor will learn through the interaction with the mentored, and that may be the reason why some hardy souls put themselves up for the role, but it is not the primary reason; that is to get good content that meets Wikipedia's standards.
 * Ultimately, it will be the community that has the choice of mentor. They are the ones who will want to have someone who they feel can direct your energies and talents to useful contributions. If this is something that you cannot countenance then this discussion ends here. If you wish to explore this suggestion, then I suggest that you do so promptly - the calls for an ending (with the indef block in place) of this matter is getting more insistent. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I find the choice of words used to be interesting, "hardy souls". My instinct to defend the "mentors" I had is strong, but I will try to keep this to myself for now.  While in college, a peer and a mentor (I find that both 'titles' exist in most situations) explained to me the good sense of interviewing your university instructors before allowing them to assign a grade that was purchased and following you for life.  My transcripts do not reflect my instructor choices, but the idea has remained with me.  Thanks(?) -- carol (talk) 23:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Carol Spears on Commons - sending her there an invitation to continue personal attacks?
"I am left to interpret your silence when I asked you if you considered yourself to be intelligent enough to know that sometimes, areas have names which also means areas." From CarolSpears to another editor on Commons. Her reply is even worse. I think that Carol Spears' ability to communicate and willingness to work with other editors is seriously questionable. As she was encouraged to edit Commons by an en.Wikipedia editor ("maybe throw yourself into Commons etc for a while") this bears considering under the current circumstances.

--Blechnic (talk) 05:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is cross-site stalking; you've become part of the problem. Hesperian 05:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, this isn't stalking, and my original edits weren't stalking. Read about stalking before you continue to accuse me of it without grounds and without diffs as you did on AN/I, and read CarolSpears' edit history and mine and find the evidence she never offered which you jumped to support in order to trash me.  And, no, I'm not part of the problem, I'm done with Wikipedia.  You were 100% nasty and accusatory towards me in order to support Carol Spears right to edit on Wikipedia.  You want her, and you sent her to Commons.  She's all yours. --Blechnic (talk) 06:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Bollocks. They're big boys and girls over at Commons, and if they think there is a problem, they are quite capable of handling it. There was no need for you to be over there watching her, stalking her, looking for a sin to proclaim to the world. And having found a sin, there was no need for you to bring it here, where it isn't actionable. This thread can have no purpose but the generation of more drama.
 * And get your facts straight: I did provide diffs at AN/I. And I didn't send her to Commons; she was already there; in fact she has been more involved there than here all along. Hesperian 06:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Bollocks yourself, I can go to Commons if I want to, and, guess what, other than stalking CarolSpears Commons has other usages. In fact, there are millions of other uses for Commons that don't include stalking CarolSpears, and you've provided on evidence that anyone seeing her contributions on Commons is stalking.
 * No, you did NOT provide a single diff showing that I was stalking Carol Spears on AN/I. Neither did she.  You just supported her accusations against me.  And, since I'm not stalking her on Commons, I can only go by your sending her there, whether she was there all along or not.  --Blechnic (talk) 06:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's your post, Hesperian. Not a single diff in it.  So, bollocks yourself.  --Blechnic (talk) 06:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I made more than one post. Obviously you missed some of them, as your "100% nasty and accusatory" assertion mathematically precludes you from having seen when I wrote "My apologies to Shoemaker, Blechnic and Durova — I really do appreciate your willingness to take on such horrible work, work that I myself declined, and I am uncomfortable having been so critical of you over it." But what the heck, you're done with Wikipedia, and this thread exists only to generate Wikidrama; so I'm out of here - if you want an argument you can argue with yourself from now on. Hesperian 06:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Mathematically not as inaccurate as Hesperian's claim that every one of Carol's edits was being reverted when their was zero evidence. --Blechnic (talk) 06:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sick of her insults and pushing her POV pushing. Really if she is allowed to continue this I quit all projects as I will not continue to put up with the insults by this editor. and Bidgee (talk) 07:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Carol Spears broke wind at the Toki Pona Wikisource
I'm pretty sure I smelled something. Can we look at a community ban now please? Hesperian 06:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Had this discussion proceeded civilly, and CS continued to prevaricate over whether she was prepared to take any action to address the communities concerns, I would likely have withdrawn my offers to help and consider my comment about being prepared to unblock her (thus avoiding the installation of a community ban). As it is, the relentless hounding of this indef blocked editor, the myriad demands for retributive sanctions, and the sheer mob mentality directed toward CS has had a "chilling effect" in respect of my interactions with some of CS's critics. This account can no longer edit upon en-WP, and we have no jurisdiction over any other Wiki so there is nothing to discuss, yet there are still the calls for action to be taken against this account. My opinion is that the comments by some members of the community is counterproductive; that the likelihood of the editor going truly to the bad and becoming a disruptive troll/vandal is increased when exposed to this kind of behaviour. This is not the Wikipedia way, and under the circumstances there is no possibility of my supporting a Community Ban and allowing a small group of pitchfork wielding citizens the satisfaction of saying, "See, I helped slay the monster!"

Anyone who thinks that my actions, and reasons given above, are grounds for a complaint then I welcome the opportunity. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. Wikipedia is protected, and we do not need to be vindictive or bullying. Any further drama is unproductive and to the discredit of the editors concerned. I've been generally impressed by the conduct of most of our editors (especially Blechnic, who despite his position repeatedly intervened to keep the 'banned' tag off Carol's user page), and I believe that if we can't render community verdicts firmly but compassionately, we diminish ourselves in the process. EyeSerene talk 12:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

48 hour page protection
This page is now protected. To CarolSpears; you might wish to take the time to consider whether you wish to contest the block, and what you are prepared to do to alleviate the concerns of the community. To some others, I repeat This account is no longer able to edit en-WP, and we have no say here what should happen on another wiki. The discussion is concluded. To others who have engaged in good faith, and have sort to act only in the interests of the encyclopedia, I thank you for your efforts. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not aware of it being possible for a non-Admin to post on a protected User talkpage - including the User concerned. Please note that in responding to your query raised by a policy contrary alternate account, I am breaking a long standing personal rule not to encourage policy violation by engaging with those breaking the rules; I am responding now because the page protection has expired. I would comment that if you are so cavalier regarding the rules and policies of Wikipedia by "communicating" by improper means when you cannot access the talkpage then it may be as well as to protect this page indefinitely. Should you attempt to use sockpuppets to make your points, then they will be indefinitely blocked and their talkpages likewise protected. If you wish to ever have the chance again of contributing to en-Wikipedia I suggest that you start seriously following the procedures and protocols of the place. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * To be clear on what the protocols are, it is good to use an IP to edit; but it is not good to make an obviously named sock to say that there is an inconsistency in the block on an administrators talk page? The protocol is easily understood? -- carol (talk) 03:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it's not a good idea for you to edit at all right now. If you want to edit then you should get this account unblocked to do so.  I don't believe you have been being malicious, but since your actions were causing trouble, you need to acknowledge that and decide to do something about it before somebody will unblock this account.  Also, you can't be snarky around here, it will just annoy people.  -- tiny plastic Grey Knight &#x2296; 09:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * One more time, the question seems to be sarcastic, but it isn't, it is an honest question. When a ban is lifted from one aspect of a users instance and not from another aspect of it, what is the best way to handle the inconsistency?  Sarcastic might be to mention that I am impressed with people who could see through that carefully disguised sock.  That is wrong, I will not say or suggest this now nor in the near future. -- carol (talk) 10:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess you are talking about the fact that you're allowed to edit this page? A user's talk page is usually left like this even while they are blocked, to give them an avenue for appeal or apologies.  However, it can be protected against editing if an admin thinks this avenue is being abused.  If you think you can resolve the problems peacefully, then this slight inconsistency exists to allow you to do so.  -- tiny plastic Grey Knight &#x2296; 10:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, but the situation I was in was that my IP was unblocked yet my User thing was still blocked. The "sock" went to an admins talk page to mention this inconsistency and that is all the "sock" did.  It would help if you could start with what the correct protocol would be in this situation and understand that I rather like my edit history here. -- carol (talk) 11:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * IP addresses of blocked users aren't routinely blocked since many computers don't even maintain a constant IP address, so it wouldn't be productive. You still shouldn't edit through an IP address either, though; please try to find and resolve any issues so that this account can be unblocked.  The correct protocol is roughly as follows; start at the top and follow your answers.  -- tiny plastic Grey Knight &#x2296; 12:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

An Outsider's Plea
Carol,

We have had our run in. And yet, we have had our joking moments as well. You know so much information, and are really an asset to the project. However its your attitude that gets in the way. Its the rambling, hardly vague, asorbicly biting way that you confront people that has gotten you into this mess. Agree to accept some mentoring. Agree to try keep the negative side of your personality at bay. I'd hate to see you self destruct.  Qb | your 2 cents  11:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey QB! Ascorbic is perhaps a compliment, it is vitamin c I think, not sure how to manage this new suggestion.  Heh.  I was only half joking about my suggested "mentor".  That is a difficult one because there are several decades where I feel like I found good ones for myself and I had two grandfathers and a dad who were mostly self-taught so there is a little family pride thing going on.  The mentor I suggested I already have been learning things from, btw.


 * Check out my "ant farm" there were some big changes in what started there and what was there today. They are not in the building any longer and only a few casualties:


 * Confusion about "protocol" is not enough for me to self-destruct with. -- carol 11:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ick. (to the picture)  By "mentoring" I meant some form of civility dog house intensive treatment thing... along the lines of anger management, except on wiki.  Oh, and I meant acerbic.  Pff.   Qb  | your 2 cents  11:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have been working on my personality for decades; not too many warnings about it in real life so it is difficult to find a gauge. I was much much ruder between the ages of 16 and 25, I'd say -- and I thought that people were more stupid than they really were, often it was me who was the stupid one.  My ant farm is kind of "ick" but kind of not since it got the ants out of the building, no chemicals and they are incredible to watch.  More entertaining than the hummingbirds were, actually.  With less requirements.  They are nice ants also, just looking for food.  Good for soil -- they do what rototillers are supposed to do, but they do it in a much more healthy way.  It should take them a week to clean up this meal, I think.  They are really nice ants, btw.  Last year I had biting ants and they did not seem to have a plan for eating or anything like that.  These though, completely different.  I think that I am going to keep a more accurate record of their progress with this meal.  No one would believe me about what they did the first year here, I think. Thanks for getting back with me :) -- carol (talk) 12:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "between the ages of 16 and 25" &mdash; I think you just described everyone who was at that age :-P. Communication and personalities online tend to work differently than in real life, because of the lack of subtle cues; everything is just text.  See netiquette for more information.  -- tiny plastic Grey Knight &#x2296; 12:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)  (Oh, and the ant pictures were hilarious.  Om nom nom.)


 * The netiquette that I read in the year 2000 or 2001 stated that it was very very rude to use acronyms as a means of communication and to assume that everyone knows what they expand to mean. It seemed to be to me nearing actual etiquette which would work well in real life as well.  The ability of the administration here to see through a "sock" named User:Spears, Carol should speak for itself about the abilities of the administration which accomplished this, by the way.  I honestly believe that actions speak much more clearly than acronyms! -- carol (talk) 12:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Senecio vulgaris
Could anyone please look into the recent reversion of an edit I made to that article, please? -- carol (talk) 12:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That was repaired; nice to see it. Interesting problem to begin with, the person thought it looked good like that. -- carol (talk) 22:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed community ban
I've proposed a community ban at WP:AN/I. This has gone on too long, and, while it seems interesting to Carol, it consumes time that other editors could be using to write the encyclopedia and finish cleaning up the hundreds of edits Carol has made that need to be edited. --Blechnic (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Seeing as support for your ban was widespread and unanimous, you are now banned. This status may be appealed; if consensus favors overturning the ban it can be overturned, but short of that you would have to appeal to WP:ARBCOM.  See  for the discussion.  Mango juice talk 01:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I only have the desire that the same happens in such a thoughtful and experienced fashion (with equally decent people) for each and every individual who participated in this. And let it be administrated back by such equally anonymous people.


 * Wouldn't it be easier for anonymous users to stop looking so very closely at this one and pick through their own lives and contributions as thoroughly as they have my contributions here and in that weird way -- my life and dirty laundry?  -- carol (talk) 02:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * BTW, what is 20/1485? -- carol (talk) 02:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This is your only warning. The next time you make a personal attack, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. --Blechnic (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Originality awards

 * On the job and self serving administration Yay!