User talk:Wallamoose

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Wallamoose! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Burner0718 Jibba Jabba! 23:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous


The truth?[edit]

I have provided sourced documentation demonstrating various factual innacuracies in the sexual harassment section. A couple have been remedied, but others remain and the section is grotesquely biased as it contains allegations made by persons never called to testify before the committee . (Wallamoose (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

RafaelRGarcia has stated in the Discussion section of the Clarence Thomas article that Clarence Thomas is a "Perv". He deleted some of my talk comments. He has knowingly attempted to maintain false information on the Clarence Thomas page. I have tried to follow the rules of Wikipedia using the dicsussion page and RafaelRGarcia's talk page to communicate and explain why corrections to the Clarence Thomas Page are needed. (Wallamoose (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
If you're being harassed by another editor, there are several options open to you. First, gather up the diffs so you can give evidence when explaining the situation. Then, you'll want to file a WikiEdiquitte Alert or a Request for Comment, whichever you feel is more appropriate for the situation. I haven't been able to look into the situation at all, since I've been extraordinarily been the last few days, so I can't tell you much more than that. Useight (talk) 22:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Friend in Need is Friend Indeed[edit]

Well, you're right. It does happen all the time. Basically all you can do is what you're already doing. It should eventually work it self out and I'll keep an eye on it. Let me know if you need anything else. Burner0718 Jibba Jabba! 23:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarence Thomas[edit]

I agree that cited pages 442-511 is not very good, it is a huge document and the relevant information is impossible to find. Useight (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dreams and Hope[edit]

Stop deleting my edits. If you want to add a citation tag that's fine. But my link (unlike yours) includes detailed information on page numbers and links to the pdf files. I have been very generous in not removing your extraneous and biased edits. (Wallamoose (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

The citation gives page numbers yet you continue to remove it. (Wallamoose (talk) 01:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

RafaelGarcia's bad citations have been tagged for a long time. He has already been reprimanded for removing my citations and asked (again) to fix his (the ones I appropriately tagged specifically and that were already noted on the talk page and with a tag above the citations on the bottom of the article page). The RfC on the Thomas page and all of the dicussions have supported adding the information (only a single paragraph so far) of sourced material. (Wallamoose (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Wallamoose is lying. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've repeatedly tried to call new witnesses some 15 years after the hearings and keep adding new material. Many editors have asked you to cut the section down and balance it, but you've refused.
[Personal attack removed] Despite being caught in lie after lie you continue to harass me. Please refrain from posting on my talk page. (Wallamoose (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Zen Buddhism[edit]

Kill them with kindness. CENSEI (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are of course right, but I'm frustrated. Frankly, I was hoping with the RfC that I requested some time age, someone else would make the effort to balance and edit the article. I'm sick of dealing with [personal attack removed]. Also, I am AMAZED that anyone would argue the sexual allegations might have been the only issue in Clarence Thomas's nomination. And the efforts to smear a Supreme Court Justice with one sided POV is pretty disgusting. It's this kind of ignorance and radicalism that causes a lot of the world's problems. No joke. Thanks for your effort to encourage calm. I should take up yoga, or at least have some yogurt. Take care. And if I may be so bold as to offer a suggestion back: don't involve yourself in this dispute. It's not worth it. Many editors have tried to reason with Garcia. He's got issues.(Wallamoose (talk) 18:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Pray for me.  :)(Wallamoose (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]


Trouble in Paradise[edit]

RafaelRGarcia has admitted to stalking me (bottom of page) and has refused to stop. The problems with this individual predate the posting of these accurate headers. Because of his activities I feel it's important that anyone viewing my page be made aware of the issues involved and the type of person I'm dealing with.

Since you've taken an interest I hope you'll put a stop to his abusive behavior.

Once again we have an example of a user failing to obey the rules and harassing me. I've given up on bringing it to the attention of Admins as I've been unsucessful in getting the situation resolved. It's been a waste of their time and mine, so I go about my business as best I can while having to deal with this individual who displays serious emotional and mental problems.

You can also check out his post on the ACORN discussion page: Revision as of 21:41, 8 October 2008 and 22:35, 8 October 2008. Had he ever been on that page before stalking me and posting harassing comments? And also his posts on my talk page after I asked him to stop posting there. And his reverts of my good faith edits on Rehnquist. (Do you want details?)

Regarding the Clarence Thomas article, it's not appropriate to maintain a smear job on a Supreme Court Justice (who RafaelRGarcia has repeatedly referred to as a Perv), and I've been patient and worked through the appropriate channels to the best of my ability to address this. If an Admin. wants to resolve the problem that would be great.

A dispute resolution process has begun on the talk page there, and I hope it will be successful. I'm looking forward to working on other projects (as I did when I left that page alone after posting and RfC the last time we had this problem). In the interim nothing has changed so I'm trying again, despite the difficulty in dealing with RafaelRGarcia's stalking, harassing and inappropriate behavior.

I don't have the time to refute every allegation against me, but I think it's pretty clear that this user has serious emotional and mental issues and is taking them out on me. (Wallamoose (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

As I am not the only person who assists on WQA, you will need to reply on the WQA page itself. BMW(drive)

Re: Barney Frank[edit]

Oh thanks, WP:PRESERVE is one of my pet peeves too, a policy too often neglected especially in contentious articles. I even wrote an essay over the summer contending content inclusion shouldn't be a popularity contest, WP:NOONUS, contra another editor's take on the matter, WP:ONUS. -- Kendrick7talk 21:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Good Citizenship Award[edit]

I hereby award myself a good citizenship award for extraordinary patience in the face of a harassing stalker. Such patience is truly remarkable, and it's unfortunate that administrators have refused to put an end to the madness. (Wallamoose (talk) 02:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

October 2008[edit]

Do I need to file a WikiAlert on RafaelRGarcia? His stalking has continued and its been disruptive to other editors.

I've been too busy to check the WikiAlert page for a little while, but I also posed some questions for you and anyone else who wanted to answer. Thank you for your time. I look forward to your response. (Wallamoose (talk) 23:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I hadn't read it. But I have responded to them now. I don't know what AGF is. What about stalking? He has already been warned about this on this very page.
My concern with your recommended rephrasing of my headings is that Rafael has pursued me around Wikipedia and sought to incite conflict. So I felt it was important for anyone who came to MY talk page to understand what I'm dealing with. I am willing to consider changing the way they are worded, but first his stalking needs to stop. You haven't addressed it, and as my comments on the WikiAlert page indicate, you've been grotesquely unfair.
You have also seemed to suggest that I have used inappropriate lanuage with other editors. And if this is the case I would ask that you cite examples. In fact, I've made an extraordinary effort to work collaboratively on some contentious articles and haven't had any major incidents of which I'm aware. (Wallamoose (talk) 23:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I responded to your request that I change some headers.

"My concern with your recommended rephrasing of my headings is that Rafael has pursued me around Wikipedia and sought to incite conflict. So I felt it was important for anyone who came to MY talk page to understand what I'm dealing with. I am willing to consider changing the way they are worded, but first his stalking needs to stop. You haven't addressed it, and as my comments on the WikiAlert page indicate, you've been grotesquely unfair.

Yet I received no response. Then when I was busy working on another project you defaced my talk page and removed a record of my attempts to request suggestions and help in dealing with harassment. Please explain.(Wallamoose (talk) 01:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Still waiting for an explanation...[edit]

For the record this individual has now resorted to stalking me around Wikipedia. If anyone can suggest how to get rid of this pest please let me know. (Wallamoose (talk) 22:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

Your edits are, quite rightly, listed in your contribution history, and anyone and everyone is able to "stalk" anyone and everyone else. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 23:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
There is a page about this subject. I'd suggest both of you read it to keep this from escalating anymore. Thanks, Burner0718 Jibba Jabba! 23:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I hope the information you've provided puts a stop this behavior. He's also ignored my request to stop posting on this discussion page. (Wallamoose (talk) 23:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

You've wikistalked me since last month, so you have no right to complain. I just started to check your contributions elsewhere today, and I now see your pattern of edits and how much conflict you're generating. You've been abusive in your language towards me and other editors, so you'd never be successful in getting action leveraged against your opponents without also getting in trouble yourself. I'll stop posting on your talk page when you stop talking about me. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 23:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The abuse continues. (Wallamoose (talk) 23:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

No prob. Once you say not to post on your talk page, you can revert further posts. Other than that, I'd really suggest you guys let it go. Burner0718 Jibba Jabba! 23:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I have proceeded to file a WikiAlert regarding this RafaelRGarcia's ongoing stalking. (Wallamoose (talk) 02:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

You can defend yourself. I would avoid fanning the flames too much though. Sometimes, people feed off of making others mad. If you remain civil while defending yourself, either he'll get bored and move on or more people will come to your side. Ya' know? Burner0718 Jibba Jabba! 03:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not holding my breath...  :) Thanks as always. I appreciate your guidance. Futile though it seems at the moment... Do you have any comment on a fire with fire approach?  :) (Wallamoose (talk) 03:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
No comment... I asked an admin to look into the wikialert. Cheers! Burner0718 Jibba Jabba! 03:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Report on the Incident Noticeboard[edit]

User Rafael Garcia is changing the title of my report on him.

04:35, 11 October 2008 (edit)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=244511722&oldid=244511540

Amazing!!! (Wallamoose (talk) 05:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

My Questions being answered by nice peeps[edit]

{{helpme}} Hi, I was wondering if someone can point me in the right direction or answer a few questions I have.

1) Regarding citations, is there a policy that stops a user from demanding citations to well documented and basic information? For example, "George W. Bush is a controversial figure in American politics". Obviously this can be cited, but does it have to be? My question relates to an issue where straightforward summarizing and the paraphrasing of basic facts is being blocked by a malicious editor. Is there anything that stops a user from abusively requesting citations for each and every word in a basic statement? I guess I kind of know the answer, but I don't really understand how to stop someone with malicious intent from endlessly using the tools of Wikipedia to impose their will. How does one stop this ownership issue from happening?

2) What are the guidelines for a talk page? My understanding was that this is my space to express myself. But I've been forced to remove a statement about a user stalking me. If someone is stalking me don't I have a right to let users reading my talk page know? If a situation is unresolved this seemed like a good place to post notice.

3) I understand the importance of consensus. But what happens when one or two editors don't agree with the rest of the editors? Even after dispute resolution and the recommendations of various Admins?

Thanks.(Wallamoose (talk) 17:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

  1. Yes. Read the policies on verifiability and reliable sources for a better idea of what does and does not need to be cited. However, just because something may not need to be cited because 'everyone knows', it doesn't mean that it needs to not be cited. You should also keep in mind cultural bias; what 'everyone knows' where you're from isn't the same as what 'everyone knows' where I'm from.
  2. You can place anything in your userspace that doesn't violate other policies. That means, for example, no personal attacks, and that you should demonstrate good faith by keeping things polite.
  3. You work your way up the chain of dispute resolution. Ask for a third opinion, start an informal mediation case, then try a request for comment, then move on to formal mediation, and then you can go to the arbitration committee as a final resort. Prince of Canada t | c 17:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:PrinceOfCanada's answer is helpful. Here's some more.
Any uncited assertion can be removed from article text. If you want to write that George Bush is controversial and other editors ask for a citation, you must cite one or more reliable sources which say, spot on, that he is controversial.
See WP:Talk. Article talk pages should only be used for discussing reliable sources and how they might be used to build the article. User talk pages are given wider scope, but Wikipedia isn't MySpace.
Although some policies, such as WP:BLP, trump consensus, more often than not, if you don't agree with a consensus, the only non-disruptive way to go forward is to find other experienced editors who agree with you and politiely try again. This can take time. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! You have the patience of a saint. Do I need to remove the help me notation? What do I do after my questions have been answered?(Wallamoose (talk) 17:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Nope, that's already been done. For future reference, if you put 'tnull|' inside a template, it turns the template into plaintext. So you used {{helpme}}, and we put {{tnull|helpme}} which turns it into {{helpme}}, when we've answered your question. Prince of Canada t | c 17:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Thanks again. For the record I haven't had a situation where I was unwilling to abide by consensus. But I am dealing with a situation where no amount of consensus or Admin input seems to resolve the content disputed by a single editor.(Wallamoose (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Regarding: "Any uncited assertion can be removed from article text if you want to write that George Bush is controversial and other editors ask for a citation, you must cite one or more reliable sources which say, spot on, that he is controversial."

What if there are 100 articles saying Bush is the greatest president ever, and 100 saying he's the devil? This demonstrates he's controversial, but I don't know how you would cite that?

Also, why isn't there a preference for online sources that can be verified rather than assertions from books that may not be valid and are far more difficult to check? After all Wikipedia is an online resource and not a library.

(Wallamoose (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

You'd need to cite a reliable source which comments on those 200 articles taken altogether. In practice, there is a preference for online sources but in principle both fall under the same tests for reliability and verifiability. Printed sources can be quoted in citations, but need not be. '''This is how text is bolded on WP's wiki software''' (This is how text is bolded on WP's wiki software). Gwen Gale (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm. That would seem to make it very difficult to consolidate a lot of information into a good summary. The B in <> seemed to work. But I take it that is not the proper method? Sorry for bugging you so much. You're an angel.  :) (Wallamoose (talk) 18:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
'''Bold text''' creates Bold text, hope this helps. Burner0718 Jibba Jabba! 18:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Burner :) Gwen Gale (talk) 18:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Burner0718 Jibba Jabba! 18:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand, Wallamoose? Put the text between three apostrophies on either side and it'll show up bold. Use two and it'll show up in italics. Click on the edit tab and look at the source of this message. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roger, roger. I was just curious about the <B> seeming to work too, but it's not an important issue and I will use the method y'all have been kind enough to point out. (Wallamoose (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Okay here's one for you.  :) People seem to like cutting the heck out of quotes. Is there a way to put the fuller quote somewhere in the citation or another place? Sometimes it's a great quote, and there's not a great citation for just that quote, so it would be nice to give people the opportunity to read it more fully. (Wallamoose (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

And do new comments always have to go at the bottom? Or can you use colons to insert an intermediate comment into a discussion (as long as it doesn't break up an existing comment). And can I edit people's comments on my page? Like if someone says, "If you spend the next 100 years studying you can be a genius" to "You be a genius". Is it a good faith test? Shortening comments is okay but not in a way that changes the meaning? (Wallamoose (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Longer quotes can be included in the citation itself, which will show up in the reflist. Don't ever break up individual posts by interspersing comments within them. Don't change other users' comments at all, in any way. However, you can delete them altogether from your talk page (but not an article talk page), or archive them. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about a series of posts. Six different comments and I want to answer the third one. Does my comment have to go at the bottom or can I put it after the one I am addressing?(Wallamoose (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Clearly, you would post a further indented comment directly under the post you're answering. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am I allowed to change my own comments after the fact? Are there any rules governing this I should know?(Wallamoose (talk) 18:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

You shouldn't change your own comments later, although correcting typos is ok. If you want to take something back later, Strike it out like this (click on the edit button to see how I did that). Gwen Gale (talk) 18:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, thank you, thank you. I didn't understand some of these issues very well, but I think I get it now. (Wallamoose (talk) 19:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

How do I request a block on anonymous edits to the Barney Frank page? There are a ridiculous number of malicious edits and personal attack. Gracias.

I see that conflict and keeping up with the craziness on here can be a time consuming and frustrating part of Wikipedia, so I hope my helpers take the time to stop and smell the roses... on and off the computer. They deserve it!(Wallamoose (talk) 03:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I believe WP:RFP is the place. Switzpaw (talk) 03:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great thanks. (Wallamoose (talk) 03:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I have a question about Admins and footprints. I notice that a record of most edits and such are kept in user and page logs. I'm curious about the "underworld" where it appears Admins can make changes and leave no footprints. What's up with that? Neo can you hear me?(Wallamoose (talk) 03:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

In minor edit conflicts like the following, should I just ignore it, get a third opinion? What's the best route? Anyone?

"Some of ACORN's voter registration programs have been investigated for alleged fraud."

The disagreement is over the word alleged. I have read this is not a Wiki-approved word. And I also think it's redundant. They're not investigating alleged fraud. They're investigating fraud. I'm not so much asking for the answer to this issue as much as how to deal with it.

Other examples include people endlessly adding "some" and "sometimes". If I dispute it they say I have to prove that ALL or ALWAYS is the case. But my position is that in a sentence like "ACORN endorses Democrats", it doesn't say all or always, and if they want "some" or "sometimes" they should show a case where it isn't true.

Again, I guess I can't ask who's right, but just for an opinion on how to deal with it. Although if you want to tell me how right I am, which I already know :) , I'm always happy to hear it.(Wallamoose (talk) 21:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Can anyone point me in the direction of the ANI noticeboard? Also, how do I search for such things? Is there a search page that doesn't search the articles but instead searches the utility pages?(Wallamoose (talk) 19:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

No More Drama -MJB[edit]

Hi Walla, I came here for a different reason but I hope you don't mind if I try to answer the above. The issue I see is that despite your good intentions and the intentions of many others, Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now became a drama-fest both immediately before and in the last 24 hours following the full page protection. In good faith, you and Bali have continued onward into a specific content discussion, which is very cool, but the rest of the folks who would ordinarily be contributing to that type of discussion (to help establish consensus for the change) are either engaged in the dramafest (myself included), doing other things, or disengaged totally for reasons of their own. Sorry that these important discussions are getting overlooked, I'll try to help you and Bali move them along.

If it were another article, I would suggest WP:3O to get a 3rd opinion from an uninvolved editor. You can opt to do that now, but I, for one, would not want to step onto that WP:BATTLEFIELD until the bombs stop dropping.

The reason I came here is related: I wanted to commend you for being very friendly, agreeable, interested in the policies and their application, and engaged in working collaboratively on ACORN both before and after yesterday's zaniness. While we (and others) might be on opposite ideological sides politically, many people on the ACORN talkpage have commended you for your efforts to make the article better, and I'd like to add to the chorus. Nice work! --guyzero | talk 22:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks, that's awfully nice of you. I get a little caught up in the drama too sometimes, but generally I've been appreciative of the efforts of others who seem to want to work toward the best possible article. I'm less concerned with the rules sometimes and more concerned with providing good information, so that sometimes seems to trip me up a bit. But I very much appreciate your kind words, don't worry about that page too much. It will all work out. I've start working on the "Yo" page to get a break. Maybe you want to let me know what you think.
I agree with your answer. A third opinion might be nice, but it's pretty hot in there. I feel weird about asking for help for such trivial matters, but I guess that's how it's done and people are happy to weigh in on those types of matter. I just feel a bit like a tattle tale.
Thanks again. And for the record, the Full page protect on that article is now being used by one side in a largely partisan dispute as a blocking maneuver of any and all edits with which those persons disagree. I don't agree with that approach and I don't think that's the purpose of full page protect, but it's not a battle I'm willing to engage.(Wallamoose (talk) 22:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
And as far as my politics go, I like to see the best arguments of all sides presented so we all have access to the best information available and we can all make informed decisions. A lot of people on here want to put in POV or keep out legitimate information that they don't agree with. I've tried to be pretty accomodating because one person's notability is another person's irrelevancy. I'm not big on dates and history, but I love the issues and controversies of both sides. So I guess that gets me into some trouble, but I think ideas matter, and I like to see them presented fairly and with a generous spirit of inclusion. (Wallamoose (talk) 22:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Hi Walla, my view of the full page protect is in the novella here: Talk:Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now#Arbitrary_Break_to_refocus_on_consensus so I won't spam your talkpage with my views over this unfortunate chain of events. The good news is we can make edits to the article via an administrator, so nothing is really frozen, there is just now an electric fence that forces consensus before any edits to be made. Once you feel that consensus is behind a change, make a new section, place {{editprotected}} in the section, and then succinctly list the change and where it should go in the article and *BOOMBOW* the admins will swing by and take care of it. cheers, --guyzero | talk 22:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus on anything in that talk page? If you're not kidding you should be. I'm with MJB on this one.  :) Keep hope alive.(Wallamoose (talk) 02:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Walla, I replied to you on my talkpage. regards, --guyzero | talk 18:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Fo Shizzle[edit]

Can anyone believe the censorship on Wikipedia. Fo shizzle my nizzles we can save the fo shizzle pazizzle!!!(Wallamoose (talk) 23:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Sadly it seems there will Fo shizzle be no Fo Shizzle. But the present article does point to the izzle. (Wallamoose (talk) 02:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
How cool is it that Admins blocked me under this title so they had to keep reading Fo shizzle over and over and over again. Karma y'all. Fo shizzle you better be nice to the Wallamoose from now on!(Wallamoose (talk) 06:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Boss man[edit]

Boss man:

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours.


Wallamoose:

I had ceased to edit on that page. In fact I had brought the situation to an Admin's attention to see where to go from here. Some of my edits were modifications, so I didn't think they really counted as reverts. But I won't dispute your count, I would just say that it was not my intention to do 3RRs and I was acting in good faith to avoid 3RR and to work within the rules. Thanks.


Boss man:

3RR is not a target. You were breaking the spirit of the rules, so the block is appropriate.


Wallamoose:

(begins to file an appeal)


Boss Man:

(rejects appeal before it’s even completed recommends a bunch of stuff I’ve already done with no success)

“rediculous”


Wallamoose:

There was already a dispute resolution process under way for that page. So I was quite surprised to see a lot of controversial material being added. Indeed I tried to address some of it, but once I thought I was at or approaching 3RRs I stopped editing and asked for input from two admins. If that wasn't the way to go then I wonder what I should have done? (Which I now see you've answered, thank you, this was written before an edit conflict) I agree that changes should have been put on the talk page first. But they weren't and once it was clear that the situation would just return to an edit war I stopped. I think my actions were pretty reasonable if not perfect. You're blocking me from editing something I had already stopped editing because I saw that an edit war was redeveloping. Perhaps some guidelines should have been layed on what material it was ok to add going forward or how to proceed? I think my actions were fairly reasonable given the situation.


Boss man (who’s let off RRG many many many a times):

If you read WP:3rr, you'll see one doesn't have to reach 4 reverts to be blocked for edit warring.


Wallamoose:

You have to admit Boss man, that I had stopped editing on the page and sought help indicating that I was concerned that we were at or near 3RR. Doesn't that seem like pretty reasonable behavior that should be met with some leniency? Are you blocking me to be "fair"? Because again, I had ALREADY stopped editing on that page and walked away.


Boss man:

Since this is your fourth (actually my third since I didn’t get to finish my 2nd, but who’s counting?) unblock request and you clearly haven't read the guide to appealing blocks, I'll handle this one again. Edit warring isn't allowed. Please don't keep putting up unblock templates. You've been blocked by an admin and the block has been upheld by three other admins.


Wallamoose:

(uses his one phone call to get a lawyer)

Johnnie Cochran and I have reviewed the 3RR rules closely. Needless to say, we are prepared to take this all the way up to the Supreme Court if necessary, and I'm certain that Justice Thomas will not take too kindly to certain POV abuse issues involved in this dispute. We are also confident that even Justice Ginsburg will not appreciate her fellow Justice being slandered in this manner. Please note that the exceptions include: "Reverting the addition of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons". There were also several instances where I did not in fact revert, but modified a comment. It also states: "Editors who find themselves on the verge of a three-revert rule violation have several options to avoid engaging in such an edit war. These options include discussing the subject on the page's talk page, requesting a third opinion or comment on the article, or one of the many other methods of dispute resolution." And in fact several dispute resolution methods and third opinions (including a RfC) are already under way. Plus, as I noted on your talk page I was in the process of doing an unrevert of one of the reverts in question, before seeing it had already been reverted. So that one doesn't count! There was also an edit I made where I made a modification. It was deleted saying it needed sourcing. So I put it back in with a source. So again, that was not a revert. And certainly not 3 reverts. But, in conclusion, Johnnie and I would like to point to the SPIRIT of the 3RR rule. Clearly the record shows that when I thought I was at or near 3RR I stopped editing the page. The evidence is INDISPUTABLE in this regard. So again, I ask for justice. If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit!!! As these issues have not yet been considered I do not think this is an abuse of the unblock request. I ask that the issues I have presented be adjudicated in light of my have NO PRIOR BLOCKS for edit warring and again, for ceasing the edit warring of my own volition and seeking Admin guidance.


Boss man:

It was an edit war. Fifth (fourth actually) request for unblock declined. Bizarre leap to mentioning a lawyer (The Boss man doesn’t even respect Johnnie Cochran). I'll be protecting your page until your block expires for abuse of process.

(Puts Wallamoose in the “hole”)


(Wallamoose (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

REENACTMENT OF MY INTERACTIONS WITH ADMINS[edit]

Admin: You gonna get used to wearing them chains after a while Wallamoose. But you’ll never stop listening to them clinking. ‘Cause they’re gonna remind you of what I’ve been sayin’, for your own good.

Wallamoose:I wish you’d stop being so good to me Captain.

Admin: Don’t you ever talk that way to me. Never. Never.

(Clubs Wallamoose over the head knocking him to the ground.)

Admin: What we’ve got here is: failure to communicate. Some Wallamooses you just can’t reach. So you get what we had here last week. Which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. And I don’t like it any more than you do.

God bless old blue eyes. [| my story] (Wallamoose (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Clinking chains[edit]

Wallamoose, the above does nothing to help you. If you want to edit content as a volunteer at this private website you must learn and follow the rules, which have come about through community consensus, rather than editing by what you think the rules should be. Many new good faith users fall into the trap of thinking that because they're editing towards the truth (TM), edit warring is ok, you've not been "tainted forever" by this, your block for 3rr is in no way a "criminal record" and the Wikipedia community is very forgiving but I do hope you'll begin heeding how things are done here. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More forgiving of some than of others... or so it would seem. (Wallamoose (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

As a side note, the above actually makes it worse for you, as threatening legal action calls for an indefinite block here.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 09:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the misunderstanding Daedalus. Check out Johnnie Cochran and Cool Hand Wallamoose for more information. OJ got off, but no such luck for the Wallamoose.(Wallamoose (talk) 16:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Video Evidence[edit]

Here are some videos documenting my history here on Wikipedia:


A spliced video record noting the importance of following policy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_aVuS7cOIQ&feature=related


Cool hand Wallamoose gets a lesson on wearing them chains (a bit unpleasant so you might want to skip to the next one):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZOIsqvtXAg&feature=related


Just playing cards...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVXKOb5EE7Y


Duking it out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n0mgkaEGQc


Johnnie Cochran and I attempting to use the Chewbacca defense. (Chef was found guilty also).

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103454

(Does anyone know why a juror's head doesn't explode? More censorship of the original version?)


Johnnie Cochran in action: closing statement in OJ trial

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSS9lxU9Wy0&feature=related


"Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil; For you are with me; Your rod and Your staff, they confort me." Psalm 23:4.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9WyeVQd6e0&feature=related

(Wallamoose (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

A thread about you[edit]

I think you are British, so here's a quote from one of your own: "Absolute power corrupts absolutely," - Lord Acton 1834–1902, historian and moralist. (Wallamoose (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

If you think I have "absolute power" as an admin, that would be yet another mistaken notion about Wikipedia. Truth be told, as an admin I have to follow the rules far more closely than you do. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The rules here are applied selectively, arbitratily, and often in a self-serving manner. I've chosen not to contest Admin behavior that violates various guidelines and rules, because I'm such an agreeable and generous kid. But as far as Admins having to "follow the rules far more closely"? The record speaks for itself. I've appreciated your help and I don't have any major disagreements with you. But I'm just letting you know what's up. PEACE. (Wallamoose (talk) 16:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Personally, I thought the log was humourous and creative, and could not understand how anyone perceived it as a threat of any type. BMW(drive) 17:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

clarence thomas[edit]

what's going in that article? where's the conflict? I'm a little behind, can you catch me up? Lihaas (talk) 22:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the same place it's been since a user who refers to the Chief Justice as a "Perv" started adding biased and defamatory content. It was protected for a while, then when it was no longer protected that user added a whole lot of content, much of it defamatory and non-encyclopedic, to other sections. I tried to correct and Wikify it. A battle ensued. I went to an Admin asking for help and advice on what to do next, since I was hoping to avoid 3RR. We were both blocked for 3RR. Highly suspicious anonymous editors have added back the content that was contentious and Admins have refused to semi-protect the article. The dispute resolution process resulted in (surprise surprise) the same outcome as the RfC: supporting an NPOV encyclopedic version of the allegations section. I don't know what will happen now. Most people seem to want to stay out of it, which I think is wise. One editor wants to savage the article and turn it into a hit piece. I've tried to stop those actions and mostly been ostracized and punished for my good faith efforts. The other editor has now begun creating new sections and started new fronts in his war, seeking to spread his bias and personal attacks to other secions and new sections (he created) of the article. That's my summary for now.  :) Thanks for your interest.(Wallamoose (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Is there any reason the arbitration-compromise version of the Sexual Harassment Allegations section was never put into the article?--Paul (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sincere apologies are (of course) always accepted[edit]

Wallamoose ... I'm not big on style or format of apologies. Sincerity is good, and I appreciate your comment. Trust me, I also appreciate a sense of humour. I wish you good luck on your "career" on Wikipedia. Be open-minded, and never be afraid to ask for help from those who actually give a crap about how this whole project works. BMW(drive) 22:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked. My latest windmill is the destruction by deletion of content on the Venture Bros. article. I put up a notice about it, but sadly, today the fires continue to burn. (Wallamoose (talk) 22:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Heh, as a journalist, I know that "their" is grammatically correct, as it can be used as a non-gender-specific term, and is (in fact) recommended when the gender is unknown (I'm not a big fan of other forms of genderless pronouns). The Venture Bros issue is one I have glanced only briefly at. Believe it or not, I have neither read nor seen F-451, and (perhaps also believe it or not) I'm not an admin, merely someone who volunteers to try and mediate peace in our time. :) BMW(drive) 23:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you're right. Were you using it as an indefinite singular antecedent, whatever that is? I thought "their" was not supposed to be used for singular cases. A rule (like some of those on Wikipedia?) which causes endless hassle, because then you have to say "his or her" or just choose one of them which can be quite awkward and seem strange. Fahrenheit 451 I can handle, although the loss of information seems sad, but at least there's a wilderness. Even Soylent Green wouldn't be so bad as long as I'm still young! Do you think the machines will take over a la Terminator? Hmmmm...(Wallamoose (talk) 00:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Venture Bros.[edit]

Could someone take a look at my request for mediation on the Venture Bros. page? I don't really have any idea if I did it right.(Wallamoose (talk) 02:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Policy Question[edit]

What's the policy on revisionist history? Do you use terms in descriptions of persons that weren't used at the time? How is this issue handled?

And does anyone have a suggestion on how to rephrase this: "One of his most important roles was in undermining, through the fame of his achievements and many talents, the widespread stereotype of the time that the black race was intellectually inferior to the white race". I'm uncomfortable with the term "black race". But I also don't want to rewrite history. (Wallamoose (talk) 05:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Who's in charge of archiving talk pages?(Wallamoose (talk) 06:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

See Wikipedia:Archive. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re venture bros.[edit]

Nah, I have quite a bit on my plate as it is. Just remember that the medcab template goes on the talk page ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 09:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions on that page are quite confusing. It says to put the person involved in brackets in one place, and then says not to in another. I will have to check to see whether it goes on the article page or talk page, but I thought it said article page.(Wallamoose (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Humor, YouTube clips on talk pages[edit]

Wallamoose, it's ok that you've followed my contributions to learn more about Wikipedia. However, this joke which you posted at hummus could be taken very wrong and hence was disruptive. A bit of humour or a witty outlook now and then, along with a cheery take on stuff, are more than welcome, but if you wantonly toss one-liners onto talk pages, never mind talk pages of articles with histories of highly nationalistic edit wars, your jokes will likely be mistaken by some users and hence, can be blockable (and please don't go on about all those mean Wikipedia admins who don't like a funny joke, that would be utter codswallop). Your joking about with an OJ Simpson trial metaphor after your block for edit warring even wound up on ANI because someone who didn't know all the background of all that (editors here are from all over the world) thought it was a legal threat made by you. Likewise with the YouTube clips, which you have posted as comments. Done very rarely, this can be funny. Done all the time, it gets very old very fast, because Wikipedia is neither MySpace nor a comedy blog and experienced editors who come to talk pages will tend to be much keener on reading what you have to say straightforwardly about your edits, rather than watching YouTube videos or hearing lots of jokes (which, by the bye, are a skilled creative craft in themselves, carefully targeted at the audiences meant to hear them, which is why most professional comedians unabashedly hire comedy writers). So please slow down on all the joking about and viddy clips and try editing some articles which will not only help the encyclopedia, but in so doing will teach most of what you need to know. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a long of way telling me that you take issue with the assertion that Moses was the inventor of Hummus? I trust you have verifiable sources to support your position.
As you've been a party to the nationalistic (with religious overtones) feuding over that dip's article discussion page, you may have lost sight of the bigger picture. But now that I'm on scene, everything is going to be A-okay! Just remember the core principle of AGF, it's practically one of the five obelisks and I'd hate to see you thrown to the lions.(Wallamoose (talk) 16:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Do you have anything else to say before I block you one week for disruption? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find it odd given the many attacks that are clear violations of all kinds of Wikipedia policy on that article's talk page that you would choose to first remove my comment, and then block me for one week for my good faith contribution on that article's discussion page. But I can only control my own actions and not the actions of others.(Wallamoose (talk) 16:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Following this edit by you after my warning, I've blocked you from editing one week for disruption, non-encyclopedic edits and trolling. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruption, non-encyclopedic edits and trolling. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A non-encyclopedic post on a talk page? I reject all of your false and trumped up accusations over a single post of mine on a talk page. Your block is a clear abuse of power.(Wallamoose (talk) 16:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

You've been blocked for your whole contribution history, restoring the disruptive edit at Talk:hummus after you'd been warned only showed that your disruption was growing, would be ongoing and without foreseeable end. Meanwhile, article talk pages are indeed meant only for encyclopedic edits which discuss sources and article text. Although there is some leeway, your edit was far beyond the pale and you restored it. Wikipedia is not MySpace, nor is it your platform for online humour or pointy editing. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I point you to the following information from Wikipedia: In the Exodus account, the birth of Moses (dated by the Talmud to 7 Adar 2368, or 1393 BCE).
And then to the following information: "On the first time Ruth and Boaz had met in Bethlehem, he offered her some humus: 'And at meal-time Boaz said unto her, Come hither, and eat of the bread, and dip thy morsel in the vinegar' (Ruth 2-14).
This is a mistranslation of course. The original word in ancient Hebrew, is “Hometz”. Which not only sounds a bit like “Humus”, but also resembles the word “Himtza”. The Hebrew name of chick-pees.
True, “Hometz” in modern Hebrew is vinegar. But you don’t really think Boaz was so rude as to offer Ruth to dip her bread in vinegar, do you? Got to admit it’s more reasonable to think it was Humus (the credit for this idea belongs to the Israeli writer Meir Shalev)." From the article 'Hummus in the bible' http://humus101.com/EN/2006/10/10/6/
I understand you may not be aware of this history. The article clearly states "What few people know is that humus was also mentioned in the old testament".
So we have clear evidence that hummus was popularized in the years after Moses invented it and was later included in the bible. You have provided no argument or evidence (let alone sources) to dispute my claim. And yet you've blocked me over my statement regarding this matter on a talk page: "Actually Moses invented hummus. So everyone else is basically a copycat and practically kosher. (Wallamoose (talk) 06:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC))".[reply]
Now you've begun leveling new charges about what my future edits will be. If only I had your crystal ball! For the record I have a long history of contributions on numerous pages. And talk pages are meant for discussion of material and issues related to an article. I hadn't realized that you owned that talk page. I will refrain from daring to enter that space in the future.(Wallamoose (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Needless to say your removing my comment and blocking me violates the principle of Assuming Good Faith as well as several other Wikipedia policies. (Wallamoose (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Going from the tale of Boaz and Ruth to "Moses invented hummus... everyone else is basically a copycat and practically kosher!" was wholly unencyclopedic, restoring the edit after you were warned about it was disruptive trolling. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm happy to see you've finally shown some willingness to engage in a substantive discussion on this issue. Your argument would certainly have been a welcome response to my posting on the article's discussion page. I see now that you disagree with my statement regarding the origins of Hummus, but that certainly doesn't justify blocking me for a week or censoring my comment by deleting it. Once again you've resorted to accusations you can't sustain without violating the principle of Assuming Good Faith. I reject your assertion that my posting was disruptive or trolling, but clearly your removing my comment and blocking me for a week is improper in all sorts of ways.(Wallamoose (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I thoroughly explained why the post (along with some of your other edits) was disruptive in my warning at the top of this thread. If you would like to contest the block, copy-paste {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. I'm not going to contest it. I've already offered to stay away from your Hummus page, but you've taken no interest in my offer. For the record I made two other posts on that article's discussion page at around the same time. All three are legitimate. But maybe you didn't like one of the other ones so you're trying to spin this one as outrageous so you can block me? Unfortunate and abusive. I noticed Guy Montag's post on that article's discussion page. It makes sense that you two would work together.(Wallamoose (talk) 18:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Walla, you're taking this way too far and making it personal. I agree that the comment was disruptive, if you wish to change my view, can you please state what exactly was constructive about all the rest are copy-cats? That kind of comment, as said, can be lighting the fuse on a bomb, it is simply disruptive. Please stop assuming bad faith, and try to look at this from more than just your point of view.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 04:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Daedalus for taking the time to explain your position. I know you mean well. As you agree with Gwen Gale, you'll be happy to know that I'm being punished and serving my time.
To answer your question, if in fact Moses invented humus, then certainly those who made it after him were copying his example. So they could be considered copy-cats.
I'm not an expert on Kosher law, but it seems closely related to Halal rules, and although there is some debate about the preparation of the sesame seeds in the Tahini being strictly Kosher, I'm fairly confident that Hummus passes muster in this regard. I remember hearing that Muslims looking for Halal foods where they aren't widely available use the Kosher label as a good indicator and vice versa for Jews where Kosher foods are not available. In fact, one of my Iranian friends has explained to me the close historical and religious connections between the Islamic and Jewish faiths. It should be noted that the invention of Hummus appears to predate both religions and certainly goes back well before the dawn of modern nation states in that region. So to allow a dispute on nationalistic and religious grounds is patently absurd and totally unencyclopedic.
That's what the real disruption is: the nationalistic (with religious overtones) dispute and conflict on that article's discussion page. The notion that Egypt or Lebanon has some kind of national claim on this food is fairly unreasonable. It is certainly possible that it was a Sumerian, or ancient Egyptian, or regional food in the Roman Empire, or an Ottaman dish, but to say its origins are unique to modern Egypt or any nation-state in that region goes too far (and of course there is little or no connection between modern and ancient Egypt other than some geography). Supporting and encouraging that kind of revisionist history is wholly unencylcopedic and potentially dangerous.
I'm willing to admit the evidence of Moses inventing Hummus is somewhat thin. But I stand by my refusal to go along with racist hateful notions and nationalistic arguments that are based on ignorance (many of which remain on that discussion page while I'm blocked for my innocent comment).
By suggesting Moses invented Hummus and highlighting the fact that we don't know who invented Hummus, I believe we can have a substantive debate based on real information and actual history. And I don't believe the point of discussion pages is to stifle this type of communication. I was looking forward to hearing the evidence showing that Moses didn't invent Hummus.
Censorship is the last refuge of rogues and cowards. Being blocked for a week strikes me as a small price to pay in order to stand up to ignorance. To argue that freedom of speech and expression "can be lighting the fuse on a bomb" in this age of terrorism and Fatwas strikes me as profoundly dangerous. There was nothing hateful in my comment, I could see an argument suggesting it's ridiculous, but it's not nearly as ridiculous as going along with the status quo of the discussion on that article's talk page. Let the evidence be heard. Silence = Death. However blasphemous on Wikipedia: Truth and facts matter.(Wallamoose (talk) 19:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Please read Wikipedia's policy on original research. You neither cited a reliable source, nor acknowledged that your post was disruptive. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument might hold some water if I had made my post to the article. But as it was put on the discussion page, you have nothing to stand on but your privileged status as an Admin. Maybe you should have tag my discussion and talk page comments with a [citation needed] tag. Your actions are a true violation of many Wikipedia policies. We're all equal here, some are just more equal than others.(Wallamoose (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

What argument? Gwen Gale (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a comment Gale is okay with:
"The Zionists have a history of pillaging everything in the lands they oppress and occupy, until Allah sees fit that the time has arrived to destroy the Zionist scourge. This is an ARAB food, NOT Israeli or Jewish. Do a simple GOOGLE search and you will find it the food shows up only as an ARAB food stuff. Please refrain from polluting Wikipedia with revisionist zionist propaganda". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.21.5 (talk) 08:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
But suggesting Moses invented Hummus deserves heavy sanction including a plague of locusts and sacrifice of one's first born sons.
I don't see a lot of citations on talk and discussion pages. But perhaps I'm expected to abide by special rules. Is there a way to mark my user page?(Wallamoose (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I never said I was ok with that statement. Moreover, that IP was blocked three months for making it. As for your post, you were blocked for ongoing disruption, which went over the top with your "everyone else is basically a copycat and practically kosher!" crack. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the quoted statement above is on the discussion page of your Hummus article. And I want you to know how deeply concerned I am that some Hummus eaters might be offended by my suggestion, based on the sourced timeline discussed above, that they're copying Moses and "practically Kosher". Maybe I should be blocked for longer. Is one week enough? (Wallamoose (talk) 20:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

No, I don't think it is. Based on your comments today, along with your contribution history, I believe it likely your notion of building an encyclopedia has a lot to do with disrupting it. I have reset your block to indefinite, which is not forever. If you wish to contest this block, use the unblock template. If you would like to discuss this block and how it happened with other editors, you may do so here. You may want to think about asking for a WP:Mentor. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for ongoing disruption. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You found a way to silence someone who disagrees with you. Congratulations. (Wallamoose (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

She blocked someone who was here only to disrupt. That is what you have shown, you aren't even willing to admit what you did was wrong, instead you say he did it, so it must be fine. Two wrongs do not make a right. The IP of the comment you spoke of was blocked, as were you. Both of you are wrong, why aren't you willing to admit that?— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 20:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My edit history contradicts your accusation. I have made a lot of good contributions, including on the Hummus page. Furthermore, I've agreed not to post on that page, but that's not good enough for you and Gwen Gale.
I'm not willing to admit to something I don't think is true. That's a very interesting condition for allowing me to speak freely. Do you also have a confession you want me to sign? Was my comment reactionary? And I don't remember saying, "he did it, so it must be fine," but maybe after a lengthy interrogation and increasingly severe punishments I'll change my mind... How long before you block me from posting on my own talk page???(Wallamoose (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
You really are taking this personal, when you shouldn't. Secondly, blocks are not about punishment, but prevention. You are not being punished, you are being prevented from causing more disruption since you refuse to see what you did wrong, and therefore show no signs of stopping.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 21:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if it was about prevention, my agreeing to stay off Gwen Gale's article page would be enough. But clearly it's about far more than that. So you can tell all your friends at the Ministry of Truth I said no deal.
You're obviously free to keep me in Wikipedia's version of Guantanamo Bay just as long as you fancy. But you can't make me agree with your warped and distorted logic about "preventing disruption". I'm not going to agree to live in Orwell's 1984 willingly. No way my man. PEACE! (Wallamoose (talk) 21:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
What exactly makes you think that Gwen is owning that article?— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 22:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please stop beating around the bush and speak clearly.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 22:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how I can make it any more plain, and I'm clearly not fleunt in the Wikispeak that you and Gwen Gale utilize.

An indefinite ban for saying: "Actually Moses invented hummus. So everyone else is basically a copycat and practically kosher"? And this on the Hummus article discussion page? GET REAL! A pattern of disruptive behavior? Sure sure. It's all true. Guilty! If only there were a stiffer penalty. Maybe you can look into finding one. And you haven't even tried me yet for all my Thoughtcrimes!(Wallamoose (talk) 02:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

attempt at humor did not have desired effect
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
When on the Internet, keep in mind that you may be coming off less like Cool Hand Luke and more like Ratbert. Switzpaw (talk) 02:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I love it! Finally someone with some grasp of the facts. Of course the stretch from Ratbert to Maus may not be as far as you think. Ever hear of the "Fairness Doctrine"? First they came... for the Wallamooses...
Switzpaw, I'm glad you're here. My posting abilities are quite limited, but I wanted to let you know I was surprised to find an article page about you! Check it out at: Switzpaw.(Wallamoose (talk) 02:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
No disagreement there. :) Switzpaw (talk) 02:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you make sure to stay on top of the Olbermann page for me. I don't want any of his "achievments" to be diminished by partisans! We must uphold the five pillars! Also the three triangles. And the Seven Tetrahedrons. Also, please remember to follow the AGF, BLP, BLT, STD and ADDHD&D guidelines.(Wallamoose (talk) 02:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I see Gwen Gale is intimately involved in issues regarding Kim Jong Il's health. We must all be concerned about Dear Leader! (Wallamoose (talk) 03:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

You're blowing all of this way out of proportion and taking everything said to you way too personal. You were blocked to prevent disruption, as your comment was cited as disruptive, and instead of saying oh, I see how it is, my bad, I'll watch out in the future, you took it as a personal insult, and re-added the comment. I have no idea where you got the idea that Gwen thought she owned the article you speak of, the way I see it, you have been continuously blocked over the past month of various things, all which you took as personal insults, and Gwen had been following your contributions to make sure you hadn't disrupted things any further. You have so far refused to admit you did anything wrong, despite the fact that you have.
All attempts at communication with you to show you how A could have disrupted B, you ignore, and again take it as a personal attack or insult, judging by the comment you made about me and Gwen and our form of speaking.
You even continue to take things out of context, did you even read what Gwen responded with regarding Kim Jong? Gwen never deleted the comment, she moved it to the bottom of the page, where new comments go.
You're so convinced that you're right that you refuse to see any point of view besides your own. You're so convinced that you've been wrongly blocked that you're refusing to see what is happening around you.
I'm done talking here, as you refuse to listen to anyone but yourself.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 03:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for "I have made a lot of good contributions, including on the Hummus page.," I hadn't seen this. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank goodness you found that diff. Another example of a horrendous disruption of the worst kind. Clearly your idefinite ban was appropriate. You've prevented a lot of potential harm to Wikipedia. I'm sure the innocent users who could have been damaged forever by statements of that kind are thankful for the safety ensured of your actions. You get a gold star. (Wallamoose (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I've disabled your ability to edit this talk page. The only thing left to you now is the email function, which will also be blocked if you abuse it, too. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Why is this user banned from editing their own page? How can they even contest this indefinite block from a single Admin, a block not based on any kind of consensus or ANI?

Decline reason:

Indef blocks do not require community discussion when it is clear that the account is being used only (or even mostly) for disruption. Talk pages are only blocked after a user repeatedly uses it to continue disruption; they can still appeal the block via email or to ArbCom. In the future please bring this up on an noticeboard if you think the blocking was wrong instead of using the unblock template. — Shell babelfish 06:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Wallamoose, or his friend, trying to defend Wallamooses's actions[edit]

I find it interesting how a person's view will get them banned. He is not necessarily attacking anyone, but simply showing his opinion on a subject matter. If this was not allowed, there would be no Wikipedia period. Maybe a better reason would allow him to judge his own opinion, or wording of opinion, in order to better the Wikipedia community. The problem here is that people that know each other gang up on people who are trying to make a difference, trying to put out a view point that maybe of others as well.Another problem is that, most likely, i will be blocked/banned/watched for this, as it is an opinion that goes against an admin. Maybe views should be views as, well views. If that makes any sense, he is not trying to destroy the very structure of Wikipedia, people can tell what would be likely true and what wouldn't be. Or, maybe Wikipedia should only be an online encyclopedia where scholars could write, and would have to prove their Doctorate's or something similar. I'm no faschist, I'm no socialist, I'm a person with an opinion; if this gets me banned then maybe the real change on Wiki should be the admins. (76.114.195.168 (talk) 04:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
The fact is, Wallamoose, that your comment was disruptive, in the original text you put it in. Maybe if you had decided to explain your comment in thorough detail on the talk page of the article, it would have been excepted as a comment. But a snipe is disruptive, no matter the reasoning, secondly, please clarify to me in what way that comment was helping to improve the article, as that is what the talk page of articles is for. Improving them.
Either way, the facts remain. The comment was disruptive, you were blocked after you refused to take advice, and you continued to add it. You took your block personally. You then created a sockpuppet and lied to us.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 05:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well I'm not Wallamoose, as you can see with the IP address. You can try to assume, as you seem to do so with every comment left in an article. What I simply stated; and I do not like repeating my statements but it seems like it is required for this situation, is that opinions are important to everything in life. This is how things are discovered and invented. It is the simple question of a mind that is out of the box, a mind that simply does not believe the world is that straight forward. There would be no footprints on the moon or cars on the roads if it wasn't for the ideas of others out there. What I mean by what I'm saying is that, with the opinions of Wallamoose out there, in a discussion page, it sparks ideas; thoughts that may lead others to further research, posing new facts that maybe were not previously uncovered, only bettering Wikipedia. Maybe to you this may not sound right, but the will of a person to research, to try to become more knowledgeable, is what makes Wikipedia what it is. Simply going against everything Wiki stands for and banning someone for this is ironic to say the least and extremely uncalled for. (76.114.195.168 (talk) 05:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Wallamoose, stop lying, it is painfully obvious it is you because the editing style is the same, secondly, this is the only page the IP you are using has edited, and it began editing today. Thirdly, Wallamooses' account has been blocked from editing, there is no possible way that you're not Wallamoose, as there is no possible way anyone could find this page unless they knew where to look, and even then, they would need a reason to be looking.
As said, your style is the same, and you continue to drag on the view that your view is the only view, you were abused, admins abuse their powers, you were in the right, we were in the wrong, etc. As long as you perceive the world like this, you will never be unblocked. Maybe if you tried to see why what you did was wrong, you might have a chance, but not by dragging on the same old argument.
Lastly, Wikipedia is not about opinions or sparking people into doing research, it's about building an encyclopedia. Simple as that. Your comment was not constructive, it was an unconstructive snipe that many could take offense at. Period.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 05:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since you think you know everything, it only seems right that Wallamoose, and not me, did not like you. Wallamoose is a friend that thought it was unjust what you did. And, as I can definitely see, he was right. You know nothing about opinions and nothing about "styles" that you think you're a master at. And the "style" I am writing is that of someone that doesn't write on here. If your "expertise" should have taught you anything, it is that my history shows no previous activity on here (something that would be shown as a new person) and that my style is that of a beginner, as you can tell I don't have all of these html things on my posts. You are OBVIOUSLY not a good admin and OBVIOUSLY have no thought process other than that of a bashful person who thinks he has the power to do anything he wants; on wikipedia. Go ahead and ban my IP address from Wikipedia, I have no reason to post here other than to help a friend's view. And I hope you are a fan of my expertise, as I am a fan of yours, being very much based on assumption and not "obvious" facts. (76.114.195.168 (talk) 05:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Well, let me tell you something, first, I do not think I know everything, I go by what the evidence tells me. I suggest you read WP:DUCK, to see what I mean. But to continue, do not put words in my mouth, I never said I was an expert at anything, I said that Walla's comment on that talk page was disruptive, no matter the original reasoning. I have said that if he took greater care to explain his reasoning on the talk page of the article instead of just reverting back a snipe, he might have a better case, but no, he did not.
He took the block as a personal insult and lept into a tirade about abuse. The fact is that his comment was disruptive, as many might have taken offense to what appeared to be a snipe.
And boy are you one to talk about omniscience, I am not an admin, but just an uninvolved user offereing my opinion on the matter, and trying to get a user that was once a good contributor back to his roots, unfortunately, this appears to be a loosing battle, as he refuses to see any point of view but his own. He refuses to see why the comment would appear disruptive, and he refuses to agree that he will not continue such behavior. This project is about building an encyclopedia, not broadcasting your personal opinions to all that will listen.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 06:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to comment, 76.114.195.168, whoever you are, that we can't tell based on your IP address who you are, or if you are Wallamoose, since we don't have access to the IP addresses of Wallamoose or his socks. Disagreeing with admins is never a problem, since admins are just users with extra buttons - it's like disagreeing with anyone though, in that disruptive behaviour is not tolerated. If Wallamoose thinks that his block is unfair then there are always other means of appeal - he can e-mail me if necessary to acquire them Fritzpoll (talk) 08:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fritzpoll you claim that disagreeing with admins is "never a problem" and yet this editor was blocked from editing his own page. Where is the disruption on this page? No one forced Gwen Gale to read this page. What crime has Wallamoose committed to recieve an indefinite block and to be blocked from editing his own talk page? It's shameful that no one has stepped forward to reign in Gwen Gale from putting an indefinite block on a user with whom she has a disagreement. (Captain Bill Gibson (talk) 05:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Indeed, and Wallamoose's (i.e. probably yours) opinions got a very decent airing on this page. However, the opinion descended rapidly into accusing Gwen Gale of being abusive with her tools, etc. and never went anywhere else constructive. When you don't listen to several people telling you you're wrong (I'm independent of Gwen - I'm not sure she and I have interacted much in the past), then what's the point of giving someone further opportunities to sling accusation of admin abuse and conspiracy around? Wallamoose (you) had every opportunity to discuss things constructively, or admit your faults when they have been pointed out to you repeatedly - but you blew it by not just sticking your hands up, saying sorry, etc. after which I would probably have been fighting your corner. The sockpuppetry has also not done any good. Starting a new account with no edits outside of the talkpage asking to negotiate a return to editing would have been one thing - trying to evade a block is just not allowed. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is very much how I see this. Wallamoose has created about a half dozen sockpuppets so far. Here's one of them, saying he'll take a "fire with fire approach" if he doesn't get his way. I won't go on about the copyright violations. Until he starts to acknowledge the rules, stops opening up sock accounts and can say something helpful about how he plans to behave, I can't see any pith to lifting the indefinite block. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Herr Fritzpoll,

Thank you for your reponse mate.

  • You say, "What's the point of giving someone further opportunities to sling accusation of admin abuse and conspiracy around?" Is there a policy that says a user can't express the opinion that they are the subject of harassment and a personal vendetta by an Admin? And if making accusations isn't appropriate, then clearly Wallamoose isn't the only one who should be blocked.
  • I still don't see a demonstration of disruption on this page by Wallamoose. All that was left to this editor was to edit his own page. And then that was taken away because Gwen Gale (the same Admin who initiated the initial block and the only Admin who's ever blocked him) didn't see anything "constructive" about it. Yet this editor's history, and that of the sock puppets you attribute to him, had substantial histories of edits to many articles including the creation of several good ones. This doesn't meet the definiteion of a vandal or a disruptive editor. But it's clear this is a dispute over his post to an article's discussion page. The policies addressing how this is supposed to be handled are fairly clear.
  • This indefinite block comes down to an editor posting that Moses invented hummus so everyone else is a copycat on an article's discussion page, reverting it once, and disagreeing with an Admin that it was disruptive. Wallamoose has clearly said he understands the arguments that the post could be taken as disruptive, but he's also explained why he posted it and why he thinks it could have done some good.
  • As far as copyvios, Wallamoose has informed me that he is working to get permission from the appropriate entity involved. He noted that the website was cited, and he would have been happy to cut anything objectionable out or to rewrite.
  • And finally, Wallamoose has informed me that he doesn't appreciate Gwen Gale posting on his discussion page. He's blocked so he can't respond, and he already knows she wants him totally blocked from Wikipedia indefinitely. She's made that abundantly clear.

Sorry for taking up your time. If you so desire, I would be interested to read your thoughts on the issues I've presented. Captain Bill Gibson (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Bill Gibson is a checkuser confirmed sockpuppet of Wallamoose. That is all. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wallamoose&oldid=1151045335"