User talk:Britcom

Joe I 14:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

WIth reagrds to your attempts to get anti homosexualism recognised, I noticed your edits on Talk:Ku Klux Klan.

Homophobia is not a phobia. It is a neologism that utilises the suffix phobia in a non-standard way. the lead to the Homophobia article describes it correctly as "the fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals." Not the use of aversion and siscrimination, not just fear, and the use of OR, meaning that these are not always present.

Homophobia may be a "new" word, but it is the currently accepted term for this behaviour and/or attitude. Anti-homosexualism, as your research seems to provide sources to its previous existence as a term, should be mentioned historically in this article, not as an article of its own just yet, as it just contains the same material as homophobia, as they are two words for the same thing.--ZayZayEM 17:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Welcome ZayZayEM, I believe I understand your point (though you may want to check what you wrote for typos). Anti-homosexualism, as I understand its definition, does not include aversion, or any other attitude of the mind. It is an "ism" a plan of action. Such plans of action rarely if ever have anything to do with fear or aversion to homosexuality. In the same way anti-Semitism has nothing whatsoever to do with fear or aversion to Jews. Jews are the target because they make easy political scapegoats. The same is true of homosexuals, gypsies, the handicapped, etc. Anti-homosexualism is a much bigger and more serious word than homophobia. You or I could be homophobic, but if we round up a mob and go looking for homosexuals to thrash then that becomes Anti-homosexualism. Homophobia doesn't cover it. Homophobia is a state of mind, Anti-homosexualism is a plan of action. With regard to discrimination I don't accept that definition for homophobia I think that is an error discrimination is a verb, the definers of homophobia cannot seem to decide if it is a noun, or a verb. They try to make it a catch all. Anti-homosexualism is a noun. Just like "plan" is a noun. --Britcom 18:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

You're mistaken that the difference between a noun and verb has anything to do with this. The word discrimination is always an abstract noun. The word homophobia is also always an abstract noun. The word anti-homosexualism is always an abstract noun. The word plan is sometimes a noun and somtimes a verb. ZayZayEM has a valid point, and it's not enough for you to say "I don't accept that definition." I hope that you are able to show verifiable evidence in published literature to indicate that others have this view about these definitions and that you insert these references here to replace the "[citation needed]" tags. If these citations do not exist, I'll still support keeping this article in Wikipedia in a dramaticly altered form as a historically important word and/or a word that describes a concept that overlaps with homophobia with a differing emphasis (as was done for Judeophobia). Note that Anti-Islamism has redirected to Islamophobia for some time. This is an example of a similar non-standard but common usage of the suffix "-phobia." Flying Jazz 20:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Britcom has quit Wikipedia in disgust. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-homosexualism for information on why Britcom would want to quit. He no longer wants to be associated with people who are more concerned with their own egos and small minded self-righteousness, then getting it right. Britcom has recently come to the conclusion that Wikipedia is overrun by hypocrites and territorial quangos who punish rather than foster those who would add to Wikipedia's content. Don't be fooled by Wikipedia's claims of neutrality and inclusion. Wikipedia is an exclusive club and if you are not one of the anointed, you will be ostracized and your edits condemned.

Caveat lector

--Britcom 07:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've taken the liberty of copy/pasting the latest version of this article from the article space into a subdirectory of your user talk page (User talk:Britcom/Anti-homosexualism) in case the article is deleted or redirected. This way, if you change your mind, decide to return, and use this content elsewhere, it will still be easily available. It will also be available to others. Flying Jazz 02:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oh man. To the extent that I was responsible for you quitting Wikipedia by nominating Anti-homosexualism for deletion, I'm sorry. If it helps any, I recognize that it was a mistake to nominate it, I wasn't thinking clearly. Now I feel bad. Come back so I won't have to feel bad? I'll give you a cookie if you come back? Herostratus 21:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Britcom has decided to come back to do some more editing for the betterment of mankind.--Britcom 05:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Welcome back! But please be cautious of violating WP:3RR, especially in regards to Global Warming. You'll find the particular statements you're editing about have been discussed ad nauseum on the article's talk page and talk page archives.

Atlant 13:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I appreciate the thought. So far I have made only two Revs on Global Warming today and those were in compliance with WP:POLICY. I enjoy stirring the pot a little if it makes things better. The good news is at the moment it appears that the issue with Weasel words WP:AWW on the page is resolved. --Britcom 13:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your "lace embroidered handkerchief" comment on the Talk:Homophobia page. It expresses my thoughts, but with a bit of vigour - and vinegar.--Shtove 00:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

My pleasure. :) --Britcom 13:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Based on comments you've made on the Global Warming Talk Page, I thought you might be interested in having a userbox on your user page that expresses your skepticism of anthropogenic global warming. It looks like this and will also add you to Category:Wikipedians who are skeptical of anthropogenic global warming. If you're interested, put the following on your user page:

{{User:Oren0/GWSkeptic}}

Feel free to tell your friends. Thanks! Oren0 22:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have just been reading you some of the stuff that you have written. I find you very interesting. You are very opinionated and on top of that have very strong opinions. You do not like to conform. People seem to get up you at how you edit because you love to edit from a non-neautral point of view.

For that I respect you.

Although the views you hold are of a secular nature.

I am a Christian and are very similar to your charicteristics except that I oppose most of all of your opinions (I have yet to read all that you have wrote).

I hope to enjoy, opposing what you stand for. We are very similar people on different side of the fence.

What do you reckon: Talk Page.

Abishai 23:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your interest in my edits, I enjoyed writing most of them. Here is something to chew on for a while: I believe the concept of "Neutrality" is bogus. Reason and Logic are better suited for having a debate. Facts and History are flawed, because people lie and have lied about things for thousands of years. Therefore what are the chances that some (or most) of what we are taught about anything might be false? I think the chances are at least 50/50. If that were true, then how can you trust anything any book, school, web site, newspaper, TV program, or even parent, has ever told you? Answer: you can't, (with few exceptions). The only subject that can be relied upon for factual and absolute truth, is... Math; not History, not Science, not English, not Social Studies, not even Religion. It is amazing isn't it that there are no lobbying groups or political parties or marketing firms out there spending millions of dollars to convince their target audience that 2+2=5. Imagine how some people could cash in if they could convince people that 2+2=5. I loan you $2 today, and then another $2 tomorrow, and when the loan comes due, I tell you that the two loans add up to $5 and you agree. Isn't that crazy? Well, I found out that what makes Math true can be applied to anyone's notion of what truth is, and thereby arrive at a dependable and repeatable result. This philosophy can be described very simply: "Truth is... all else is not. That is the same as the definition of God. The Bible says: God is the creator and has ultimate authority over everything in the Universe, including us. Therefore if God says something is true, it becomes true simply by virtue of His authority. Man does not have that kind of authority. Though many try to trick others into believing a lie long enough for them to get what they want and then get away before the truth is discovered. Some of those lies have been going for hundreds of years without being discovered except by a very small group of people who are often disbelieved by others when they expose the lie. The trick is, people are vain and don't like the idea that they can be duped, so (incredibly) they defend the lie and try to keep it from being discovered by others, naturally this means that the victims of the lie actually denounce those who are trying to expose the lie, because the longer the lie is kept a secret, the longer the victims of the lie can forestall their own humiliation and embarrassment. I enjoy exposing those lies every chance I get. I do this with logic, a bit of very unsportsmanlike devils advocacy, and a little bit of what I call "marketing terminology". I enjoy slaying the sacred cows of people who engage in unquestioning faith in their ill conceived doctrines, or even better, those villains who actually orchestrate such lies as a means to their evil ends. They both deserve their fates. The sooner the liars, hypocrites, and fools are cut down, the sooner the absolute truth will become apparent and accepted by the masses just as the truth of Math remains without question. --Britcom 02:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Britcom — thanks for your comment on my talk page. I'm sure that we do have interests and some opinions in common. I'm not terribly interested in geology, but the book you pointed to does seem interesting. I don't know if I'll have time to read it, though. From the table of contents, it looked as if he was opposing Newton's theory of gravitation, which seems pretty major to me — aside from distortions caused by relativistic movements, Newton's laws of gravity are still considered an accurate practical model of physics. (Of course, Newton himself believed that his writings on physics, mathematics and optics were just a sideline, and that his real contribution to the world was his theological writings — however, his heirs disagreed, and actually suppressed some of his more esoteric theological writings. But I digress...) Anyway, I'm somewhat sceptical of a scientific hypothesis that requires that classical mechanics be thrown out completely — I'm not sure whether Brown's work does this or not, but if it does that would be a mark against it for me, at least considering it scientifically. (That's not to say that a good science fiction story couldn't be made based on it — there's a lot of good science fiction based on bad science!)

As for the homophobia business — I actually agree with you that "anti-homosexualism" might be a more accurate term than "homophobia" for organized and theory-based opposition to homosexuality; however, "homophobia" is the word that's widely used, so that's what Wikipedia has to use primarily. Wikipedia's article on homophobia should use the senses in which the word is used in reliable sources — and I think that by and large, it does. There may be an argument for expanding the "criticism of the term" section, perhaps pointing out more explicitly that many social conservatives object to the term and/or its usage to mean "opposition to homosexuality". (The section mentions two organizations in particular, but there's probably a case for a broader statement.) If specific claims elsewhere in the article have been refuted by reliable sources on the conservative side, it would be appropriate for the article to mention them, in keeping with WP:NPOV.

I didn't follow the earlier deletion debate around anti-homosexualism, and if you wanted to re-open it at DRV I'd be willing to consider an argument for it as a distinct term, as long as the resultant article avoided original research. It would be helpful if you could point to modern sources which distinguish "anti-homosexualism" from "homophobia", or clearly use the two in different senses. If any exist, that would be a very strong argument for overturning the decision to make anti-homosexualism a redirect to homophobia. As I said at Talk:Homophobia, the homophobia article isn't going anywhere, but like all Wikipedia articles it's a work in progress, and subject to improvement by consensus. I hope that the article's regular editors can address your concerns — but I advise you to concentrate on specific elements in the article rather than trying to engage in a general discussion about homosexuality and the LGBT movement. The latter is more likely to result in tempers getting frayed than the article being improved. People of good conscience disagree about this subject, but we can work together to find a neutrally worded compromise that's acceptable to everybody: that's the Wikipedian ideal, at least, and I think it's worth striving towards. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

You've broken 3RR on the sci-opp page. Please don't do this, you'll get reported and blocked if you do it William M. Connolley 12:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to inform you but, my edits on the subject page don't qualify as reverts. Policy has not been broken. I am keeping a list of those of you who have been ignoring WP policy on that page. --Britcom 12:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh no, not another one! --Stephan Schulz 12:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I disagree with you - it looks very much like a revert to me. I suggest that you don't try testing this William M. Connolley 12:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree with William. Please re-read the policy. --Stephan Schulz 12:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Don't stir the pot Steve. --Britcom 12:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Stir...stir...stir... ;-) --Stephan Schulz 13:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have blocked you for 24 hours for breaching the three revert rule ([1] [2] [3] [4]) and being uncivil ([5]). Please do not continue this behavior. Thank you. Sean William 13:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I reckon the last edit (#4) wasn't a revert, partial or ortherwise ~ UBeR 16:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Clearly at least a partial rv: it reintroduces the picture of the scales, and the words "The neutrality...". You can't argue that because it was a different tag it can't be a rv, otherwise people could just create tags with different names to re-add the same text William M. Connolley 17:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Might not be a revert but certainly gaming the system. QmunkE 08:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

What utter rubbish.

If my edits are 3 reverts (and they are not), then ANY three edits that someone later reverts are themselves counted as reverts. Preposterous. These people are not acting responsibly and William is bashing me for bold editing. Shameful, SHAMEFUL I tell you. Everyone should read about this example of Admin condoned editor bashing. The MoveOn.org Leftist POV is taking over Wikipedia by violence. Bashing those who don't agree with their ideology and persecuting those who challenge their organized and violent article squatting gangsterism. By using co-opted Admins they gang up on and bash those editors they don't like. Making a mockery of the Wikipedia NPOV policy and destroying Wikipedia's reputation. We should not stand for, nor should we allow these destructive, violent, and hateful activists to ruin Wikipedia.

What was my sin that these people just couldn't help foaming at the mouth about? I DARED to question the "mainstreamness" of the UN bankrolled Scientists who propound that "Global Warming" is an actual fact and that it is caused by Carbon Dioxide, the same stuff that everyone exhales with every breath. I posted a dispute section on the talk page of the article: "List of scientists opposing global warming consensus" after they changed the title to "Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming".

Lets give these lovely people a round of applause for being so effective at silencing an opposing viewpoint on THEIR global warming article and driving away good editors through terrorism, HEAR, HEAR! So I asked myself, am I the only one who thinks this is a problem? Apparently not. Have a look: Left in Control of Wikipedia --Britcom 10:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

• At the end of the day, if you are right other people will agree with you and reinstate the tag. The 3RR was created to prevent edit wars and get people to discuss their issues on the talk page. It doesn't matter how right you feel you are in your actions, or how unfair you think other people's actions are, it's there as a barrier, a point at which you step back and think and talk. If you wish to draw attention to the article, I suggest you have a look at requesting comments or Wikipedia:dispute resolution. Wikipedia operates by consensus. If you want to change something, ultimately you have to build consensus. Steve block Talk 21:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Whether or not you didn't perform the exact same edit 4 times in a row is irrelevant. The fact is that you were edit warring and actively disrupting Wikipedia by repeatedly tagging that article. The two tags you used effectively serve the same purpose, and while are not the strictest definition of violating the 3 revert rule, you still were tedentiously editing.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am afraid the point seems to have gone over your head. I dispute that an edit war existed, I was not reverting anyone's legitimate edits, nor was I editing the body of the article page, nor did I make the same edit four times. The three gangsters on the page in question are working in collusion with each other and refuse to allow anyone to tag the article for improvement, because they don't want any improvement. Why, because they're gangsters with an agenda who think they own that page and are acting out territorially. By your uninformed accusation blaming me for "disrupting Wikipedia" you are excusing their lies and their terror tactics. Get a clue and I suggest you take a hard look at your flawed logic when it comes to which policies are okay to ignore and which ones are not. Selective enforcement (especially discriminatory selective enforcement) is a form of intimidation and gangsterism. It is the very definition of gangsterism. Don't preach to me about fairness and disruption if you are going to condone gangsterism. Hypocrites have no standing with me. If you think the policy is insufficient, then you try to change it. Don't expect me to live up to a policy that you wish was in effect or that you think "should" be in effect. So unless you have something intelligent to say, I would encourage you to go harass someone else cause you're preaching to the crickets here. --Britcom 12:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you still care about your "gangsterism", take it to a community venue like WP:ANI, WP:RFC/U, or WP:RFAR if you think it's important. (Which it isn't. It will most likely be declined.) Sean William 14:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Who says we need anyone's permission? --Britcom 14:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks to the latest editor bashing incident (above), I have decided to make a public catalog list of Wikipedia Users who have a history of engaging in Gangsterism and Article Squatting on Wikipedia.

What is Wikipedia Gangsterism? It is the organized effort by one or more editors and/or Admins to purposefully and with forethought, conspire to prevent fellow Wikipedian(s) from editing through territorial article squatting. In other words, editors who revert or delete edits by anyone they don't like or agree with, or who use Wikipedia Admins to bash, block or harass fellow Wikipedians with little or no valid reason, but rather because their motive is to deter, intimidate, or drive the editor away from the article they are squatting on, or away from Wikipedia altogether. Hopefully with the help of the Wikipedia members at large, the worst offenders can be identified and their actions exposed, and put to a stop for the betterment of the Wikipedia community at large. The list will be comprised of user names documented by Wikipedia members to have engaged in gangsterism and include a tally of the relevant examples. I want to thank everyone who has encouraged me to finally set this list up and also those who have helped me investigate how widespread this activity really is. --Britcom 11:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Someone needs to learn to be humble. --81.172.109.131 09:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please refrain from editing or removing other peoples comments. The text in question has been written by three serious and well-established editors, and has been around for days without anyone objecting. Calling it "vandalism" is plain wrong and can easily be interpreted as a personal attack.--Stephan Schulz 06:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

It sounds to me like your are saying that I do not qualify as a "serious and well-established editor" so my own comments warrant removal for that reason, while the comments of the anointed few may remain even when they are clearly designed to be demeaning to another editor. --Britcom 04:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am saying that you should not edit or remove other editors talk page contributions. And I am saying that it shows poor judgement if you call a talk page edit that has been around on a highly watched page for 3 days and had been written by 3 editors, all of which are longer with the project that you, and which have between 4 and 40 times your number of contributions each, "vandalism". I also was suspicious (but hadn't said, assuming good faith), that you were trying to make a point. --Stephan Schulz 08:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, maybe Vandalism is too broad a term to use for what was being done. I probably should have called it incivility and a personal attack. I felt Vandalism encompassed both concepts. If you look at the record you will see that those same editors continue to delete my comments that have nothing to do with them. That is classic article squatting and gangsterism. I deleted one poll that was designed to be personally offensive and demeaning to me, and Willy blocked me for it. No revert first, no warning, no explanation, just Sudden Blocking. Are you now defending their deletions of my own relevant Poll questions on the talk page with the same fervor as you condemn me for one deletion of a rude pole? No sanctions were forthcoming for those talk page deletions. If you are defending them or excusing them, isn't that a text book example of a double standard? --Britcom 02:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please read and understand WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL; you have 24h to do this in William M. Connolley 21:53, 19 June 2007 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

No example of a violation of civility has been given (there isn't one). William M. Connolley seems to be retaliating against me for opposing his opinion, and pointing out, and removing his sarcastic and personally abusive comments on the Talk:Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming page.

Decline reason:

You were wrong to remove those comments, they weren't abusive or personal. You were wrong to refer to those comments as "trolling." I've looked through your edits, you are incivil a lot. Chill out and assume good faith, and maybe criticism wouldn't stress you out so much. Mangojuice^talk 16:31, 20 June 2007 (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.

You have a rather low standard of civility if you think there are no examples of your lack of it; try [6] William M. Connolley 08:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

W.C., Your actions are noted. Your behavior is anti-social and you have insulted many other editors here, not just myself. The record shows that your various talk page comments are an excellent example of what we don't need or want here on Wikipedia. You have abused the limited authority given you by Wikipedia and you are unapologetic, even gleeful with your own abuses of authority. Given your track record, if I were you I would resign from editing here and save myself from any further self-inflicted embarrassment and shame. --Britcom 21:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Glasshouse. Stones. Don't. --Stephan Schulz 21:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Steve, see "Gangsterism" above. --Britcom 22:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Mangojuice, I assure you I am quite calm. Question: are you condoning W.C.'s sarcastic and smarmy comments which I attempted remove? If so, please explain why you think that it is okay for editors to belittle other editors serious attempts to arrive at a consensus to better an article? --Britcom 21:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please stop trolling. This [7] is a complete waste of time William M. Connolley 11:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Soooo... It's okay for you to delete someone else's poll and call it "Trolling", but it's not okay for me to do it, is that about right? --Britcom 11:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

• William M. Connolley, I don't know if it was trolling or not. What I do know is that publically calling someone a troll, is not something that should be done casually. Especially when the person doing the calling is an admin. If you believe Britcom is a troll, then take him to dispute resolution, or post on admin noticeboard and get him blocked, or better still dont feed him. In my experience, removing talkpage comments is a serious matter and is not something that should be done lightly. Lsi john 12:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm not doing it casually. Britcom was trolling. Why do you assume I removed his comemnts "lightly". And no: taking every case of trolling to DR is not reasonable William M. Connolley 12:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sir, the talkpage guidelines and policies are pretty clear about editing another user's comments. I do not see an exception in those guidelines made for removing trolling. I do see that WP:DNFT suggests ignoring trolls. Having been in almost exactly the same situation myself, I was sternly warned not to do it again. As an admin, I believe it is your responsibility to set a standard of conduct for non-admins to aspire to.

I believe that your deletion of his comment on the discussion page was improper. I have said what I believe and I have said why. I have no desire to force you to agree with me. Lsi john 13:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

The above sections show that my comments to Gangsters and Academics (some of them Admins even) clearly P*** them off. I seem to be a lightning rod for retaliation by some very unscrupulous and arrogant people. Since I "dare" to question the wisdom and logic of some of the academics here on Wikipedia, and I back up my arguments with logic and reason. When these types find that they have painted themselves into corner (logically speaking) they have a tendency to lash out either irrationally, or worse, using lies and administrative actions to bludgeon me. (this sounds pretty bad, but it really doesn't hurt at all :) I suspect this is how they deal with dissent and independent thinking at their schools and workplaces. ) Sometimes they even summon their equally unscrupulous comrades and colleagues to gang up on me The above sections chronicle the attacks I have endured here and stand as a testament to the flaws that exist in Wikipedia's policies and enforcement. --Britcom 04:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

You might want to read WP:CIV and WP:NPA. Just a suggestion. Raymond Arritt 01:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Britcom, I understand your frustration. W. Connely is a rodeo clown with a badge. Look no farther than his Wiki page to see. He is notable for trolling Wikipedia. I know that it's hard to ignore, but try.Rod Serling 2001 03:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

LOL... and its a tin badge at that. --Britcom 06:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you can't find anything useful to do, have a rest William M. Connolley 19:38, 5 July 2007 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

The block is uncalled for and is just vindictive for my having cautioned William M. Connolley about his deleting of another editor's comments off of an articles talk page. The incivility accusation is a fabrication to divert attention from his own bad behaviour, he is just being a bully and thinks the rules don't apply to him because he is an Admin. He is currently in an edit war with another editor and has made at least 3 reverts to delete users comments from Talk:Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. He is being a bully to me and to other editors of that page and displays conduct unbecoming of an Wikipedia Admin. He himself blocked me without warning and without explanation and while he was in the middle of a reverting another editors comments from the talk page. I reverted him and cautioned him... so he blocked me out of anger. Its that simple.

Decline reason:

The block has already expired. Nothing to unblock. — Andrew c ^[talk] 04:22, 6 July 2007 (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.

Please cease and desist being a nuiscance to Wikipedia. Your contributions are pointless and your grammer incorrect. Learn English before contributing to the English version of Wikipedia. Thank you. Previous comment by -User talk:65.32.68.31

"nuiscance"? "grammer"?

Looks like someone needs to learn English first! Victor Antolini 00:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

??? I have no idea what this is all about. --Britcom 10:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm not going to do a total reversion and end up edit-warring you, but the cities I removed in that big edit were all less than 25,000 people, as noted in the articles for each one. (Yes, I checked before deleting them.) Did you check before you reverted me? I don't make deletions without careful consideration (note my entry on the talk page, in which I am seeking consensus before making radical changes), but eliminating cities with less than 10,000 people (and entire COUNTIES in one case) in a list of cities >25,000 people seems like a no-brainer to me, which is why I included them in an edit that created some major formatting improvements as well. I really am surprised that you found it necessary to revert me for performing a bit of rather obvious housecleaning. Horologium t-c 17:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I changed my mind. I did revert you. My edits were not rash, and it seems pointless to let inaccurate material sit in the article while we duel over their inclusion on the talk pages. Horologium t-c 18:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I did answer your comments on the talk page, I'll wait until you read what I wrote there. Part of my reasoning is that Florida is somewhat unique because it is a young state (but with a very old history) with very fast growing population and large influx of tourists who use the Florida article to help them find their way around and decide what to see. --Britcom 18:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I responded at Talk:Florida, but the edit in question was unconnected to the proposals I made. The current criterion for inclusion in that list is quite clear, and the cities I removed did not meet the >25,000 threshold. That's just housecleaning; the proposals I made are a lot more sweeping, which is why I brought them up for discussion. I don't know how useful the page would be for tourists, as most tourists don't visit the entire state, and the only tourist attractions mentioned are the four horseman (WDW, Busch Gardens, Universal, and Sea World), which everybody knows are in Florida in any case. There is no mention of other sites of interest in the state, but the individual city listings (and the county listings) will list sites of interest that are local, which is more useful. Horologium t-c 19:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

There seem to be several instances of you having run ins with WMC. The forensic problem is that there doesn't seem to be any way to easily trace back to the original texts and make an independent judgment. I'm not a professional in this matter. Nobody's paying me. Every time WMC parachutes in to a climate related article (my most recent encounters with him are Climate of Mars) and starts doing his schtick he gets me closer to pulling together a proper dossier to go to the admins. But I won't go with false alarms, discipline instances that are actually deserved or other things that would undermine my case because ultimately what will be WMC's downfall IMO is a pattern of abuse charge, not some spectacular instance of him going over the line. If you want to collaborate on this, lay your evidence out on your own talk page in a way that makes it easy to review. If you decide to, I'll try to notify if I ever get to a level which justifies me exerting myself in a mediation then arbitration proceeding. In short, document your complaints better and it'll serve the seemingly growing community of people who have been unjustly dinged by this guy. TMLutas 21:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

My own subpage has just been put up. Comparing you to a flea bitten dog and intimating that I need to police my talk page of your commentary in order to preserve my reputation did it. I don't know you from Adam but WMC crossed a line there. TMLutas 23:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Further note, I left your comment on talk but the bulk of what was there really should have been in a user page, not a user talk page so I moved that over. I think that your comment still made sense so I left it in talk. TMLutas 02:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please stop reverting to old versions of the article. The versions to which you keep reverting have redundant information that has been moved to separate sub-articles, which is the proper way to handle such an article. There is no reason to have a 98KB-size article; even 78K is too large. Horologium (talk) 12:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Go away Horologium. --Britcom 09:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

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. Thank you.

For this edit: [8] Jehochman ^Talk 10:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

LOL! Go ahead and block me if you dare. The world is reading this page. --Britcom 10:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Here is what I said: "Ha ha! Now the rest of the world knows what I know about you Connelley. (gloat)" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:William_M._Connolley&oldid=224772445#NRO_article --Britcom 10:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, and you called him an "Ice hole" (asshole) in the edit summary. Will you agree to control yourself and stop violating WP:CIVIL, or do you need to be subject to external controls next time something like this happens? Jehochman ^Talk 10:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Where do you get this stuff? An "Ice hole" is what arctic seals come up through to breath just before the polar bear gets them. DUH! Connelley knows what it means. We have discussed this before. --Britcom 11:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

BTW, did you read the article in NRO/CBS on Connelley? It was "Delicious"! --Britcom 11:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Here's the link: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/08/opinion/main4241293.shtml

So... now the world knows what you know about Connolley? (diff) What's that supposed to mean? Do you have something against Connolley? And it's Connolley, not Connelley. - Face 12:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I was referring to this: [9] --Britcom 00:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Note: Neither I, nor my foundation, will offer any further financial support for the Wikipedia project so long as William M Connolley continues to be an Administrator for the project. --Britcom 06:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia Meets Its Own Climategate

By Tom Bethell on 12.30.09 @ 6:08AM

Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, had an article in yesterday's Wall Street Journal drawing attention to the rise of "online hostility" and the "degeneration of online civility." He (and coauthor Andrea Weckerle) suggested ways in which we can "prevent the worst among us from silencing the best among us."

I agree with just about everything that they say. But there is one problem that Mr. Wales does not go near. That is the use of Wikipedia itself to inflame the political debate by permitting activists to rewrite the contributions of others. All by itself, that surely is a contributor to online incivility.

The issue that I am particularly thinking about is "climate change" -- or global warming as it was once called (until the globe stopped warming, about a decade ago). Recently the Financial Post in Canada published an article by Lawrence Solomon, with this remarkable headline:

How Wikipedia's green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles.

Solomon draws attention to the online labors of one William M. Connolley, a Green Party activist and software engineer in Britain. Starting in February 2003, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. I continue with a two-paragraph direct quote from Mr. Solomon's article:

Continued at the link below...

| http://spectator.org/archives/2009/12/30/wikipedia-meets-its-own-climat

--Britcom 05:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Justice has been meted out and the above has been found wanting. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley
Britcom 19:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, just a note to let you know that the McCain birthplace issue has been mentioned here on the BLP noticeboard, you may want to comment there. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 13:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the note, Off2riorob. --Britcom 19:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Consider this a warning: do not misrepresent sources in the way that you did here, by cutting off the quote at the point that served your case, when the entire quote rejects it. Such actions are disruptive and blockable. Rd232 ^talk 09:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I see... and the last part of the quote ('I was born August 29, 1936 in Colon, {break} Panama Canal Zone CoCo Solo Submarine Base') rejects the first part of the quote, how exactly? {gets the popcorn out} --Britcom 10:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Replied at WP:BLPN. Rd232 ^talk 12:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Rd232 ^talk 11:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have blocked you for the tendentiousness, misrepresentation and accusations of bad faith evidenced here ("McCain birther" thread). Rd232 ^talk 11:55, 12 November 2010 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

1. This admin is blocking someone who he is in an article discussion with whom he disagrees with and wants to silence on the discussion here on the BLP noticeboard He may not block such a person himself, he must request third-party involvement. See here: [10] 2. I have not made any recent article edits, so no edits, no violation of WP:Disruptive Editing. The blocking appears to purely punitive response to losing the debate on the BPL noticeboard. 3. What I presented on the talk page was purely sourced quotes, not opinion. That is not disruptive. 4. This admin has taken a side in a discussion and is actively defending that side, which is not my side. This is unfair and a violation Wikipedia policy. See here: [11] 5. This admin is preventing me from participating the BLP discussion that is supposed to resolve editing issue. The issue is, another editor radically changed a section of the page, I reverted it to the original, he reverted again, we discussed it on the talk page, he appealed to the BPL, This admin took the side of the editor who changed the page and now he's calling me disruptive for wanting the page to stay the same as it was. It makes no rational sense, this admin is clearly abusing his admin tools.

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but unblock requests that blame other editors will not be considered. Please read our guide to requesting unblocking and try again. TNXMan 12:41, 12 November 2010 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Alright, I want to be unblocked because the block violates the blocking policy. This admin is in an article discussion with me, he disagrees with me over here on the BLP noticeboard He may not block such a person himself, he must request third-party involvement. It is a conflict of interest See here: [12]

Decline reason:

No, it doesn't violate the blocking policy, but I'm reblocking anyway just for good measure. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:59, 12 November 2010 (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.

Comment: The fact that an otherwise uninvolved Admin tries to talk some sense into you before blocking does not create a conflict of interest, nor a content conflict. I'd decline this, but I suspect it's less drama if another admin does that. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think it's a clear violation of blocking policy, Steve. Speaking of... So, how is William? Taking it hard, I expect. --Britcom 13:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Comment: I have acted in this content dispute as an administrator, because of the BLP issue involved (coming there via WP:BLPN). I was not previously involved in the topic. If you continue to taunt editors, as you are doing above, I will extend the block. Rd232 ^talk 13:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

As another uninvolved admin I was just about to reblock myself. I'd agree that it might not have been the best idea for rd232 to block you, since s/he was involved in editing on the topic [13]; there were however, clear BLP problems, muddying the "involved" issue per BLP policy. The disruption and tendentiousness that led to the block is very clear, you were warned and yet continued this behaviour at the noticeboard, as well as above. A block is appropriate. --Slp1 (talk) 14:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I didn't consider a single instance of reversion of a pretty clear BLP violation, with no prior involvement with the topic, to make me involved. I still don't. Rd232 ^talk 14:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I agree. I just reblocked so that couldn't be used as a objection going forward. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ya' know, you all can't win at this point. You've shot yourselves in the foot just like Connolley did. (see above) I have already won the argument and you all have repaid me with abuse. The more you harass me, the worse it gets for Wikipedia. I will be happy to once again cut off Wikipedia's funding from my foundation until you're gone, if that's what you want. --Britcom 15:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't know on which Wikipedia you "won the argument" - not this one, anyway. Rd232 ^talk 15:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Don't worry, you'll figure it out eventually. --Britcom 02:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

After 4 years of editing Wikipedia and helping to save Wikipedia from going under, Britcom has decided to dump the project. One would think that after 4 years of work someone at Wikipedia would show some appreciation, or even a little respect. But no, not here. So I am reassigning my foundation to benefit some other project that does appreciate the help. --Britcom 08:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I believe Mystylplx to be a sock of another user. I also believe that s/he works for a political organization and is violating the rules on Wikipedia by editing articles to protect/further a certain political agenda or candidate. Anyone with info on violations committed by this user is welcome to post links regarding those violations here. These will be collected here to create a list and referred for disciplinary action. --Britcom 20:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

• "Mystylplx is a known Obama shill who uses the internet to spread 0bot propaganda and edit Wikipedia simply because Mystylplx is afraid that Kenya using middle endian date formats somehow validates a Kenyan Birth Certificate he desperately hopes is a forgery. Mystylplyx is currently harrassing a plaintiff in an Obama eligibility case (has been doing so for about a month now) - and this editing of Kenya's Calender Date format is an effort to that end.FuPeg (talk) 09:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)" [14] --Britcom 20:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Thank you so much. My concern is with User:Mystylplx. This is the contributor who accused IPs of vandalism of Ralph Nader-related pages, per the WayneSlam-related ANI. User:Mystylplx appears to be convinced that the means of creating NPOV on Ralph Nader-related articles is to stack them with negative POV, heavily focused on the 2000 elections. Then IP 208.53.80.254 jumps in without prior edit history, holds same POV as User:Mystylplx, followed by newest User:PopeStephen, which is particularly strange. User posts one word to user page, parrots User:Mystylplx from 2000 article talk page. I'm generally hesitant to presume or accuse anyone, per AGF, but I'm beginning to sense some funny business is going on. 99.59.98.198 (talk) 22:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC) [15] --Britcom 13:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

User talk:Britcom/Anti-homosexualism, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Britcom/Anti-homosexualism and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User talk:Britcom/Anti-homosexualism during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

You've got a lot of nerve deleting pages in my user-space. Tell me why I shouldn't file a complaint against you. --Britcom 08:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Please see WP:UP#OWN ("However, pages in user space belong to the wider community. They [...] do not belong to the user.") and WP:UP#COPIES ("Userspace [...] should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content."). I see no basis for a complaint. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps I should consider making a complaint about you Stephan, for your history of trolling my user-space in retaliation for my successful effort to bring your BFF William M. Connolley to justice. --Britcom 09:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Neither do I. You didn't even put it there and had never even edited it a single time in the so why it was even in your userspace is a bit obscure, but as you can see from the above notice I nominated it through the proper channels, and someone else did the actual deletion a week later. Wikipedia is not a free web host for your preferred version of an article. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

You could have asked me why I was keeping it Beeb, rather than nominating it over the Christmas holiday while I was away and promoting its deletion without any input from me. Why did you move in such an aggressive way? --Britcom 09:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

There was nothing the least bit improper about how I proceeeded in this matter, pages are deleted all the time. The policy-based reasons for th edeltion have already been explained to you so I don't really have much else to say about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

You didn't answer my question Beeb. Why didn't you discuss it with me before nominating it? It was a user-page after all. Don't you believe in the courtesy of discussing the subject with the user beforehand? --Britcom 10:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

First off, you hadn't made an edit in six months at the time it was nominated, and since it took you this long to even notice it seems as clear now as it did then that that would have a been a waste of time. Secondly, the page was an obvious violation of our policy on copies of articles in user space, so unless you would have replied that you didn't care and we may as well delete it any such conversation would have made no difference. And finally, as you are well aware the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-homosexualism was to redirect the page. Therefore, the exact content of the page at the time it was copy/pasted into your userspace is still visible in the page history [16] so the content is not actually lost at all should you now, nearly six years later, feel like actually dong something constructive with it. Beeblebrox (talk) 10:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

As you said, the page existed for several years, you could have waited for me to respond before going ahead with the nomination, but you chose not to ask. Why the hurry? --Britcom 11:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

I don't believe you actually give a damn about using this material in any meaningful way, you seem instead intent on complaining about the loss of a pgae you weren't putting to any good purpose anyway. The MFD was completely above board, the page was a clear-cut policy violation, and the content is easily retrievable shoud you actually have some legitimate use for it rather than storing your preferred version indefinitely. There is no problem to discuss here so I won't be commenting here again. I suggest you let it go, this is a non-issue to everyone but you. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

I see. So you prefer not to answer my question. I find that curious. --Britcom 20:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Britcom. You have new messages at JohnCD's talk page.
Message added 13:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply

Just to make it quite clear to everyone, I am back.

Britcom bears the scars (as seen above) of many battles with corrupt and unscrupulous editors, and even admins. Britcom is a crusader for the rules here on Wikipedia. Tirelessly working to expose and document and ultimately ban editors and admins who attempt to push a non-neutral POV in the articles. Britcom has had great success in this effort and wishes to thank those editors and admins who's help has been instrumental in getting rid of the bad apples. Thank you. --Britcom 00:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Britcom. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Britcom. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Britcom. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 10:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I may have some questions later. Britcom 02:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

SummerPHDv2.0 is an experienced and respected editor. When they comment relevantly on a talkpage, don't tell them to 'not interrupt this discussion'.[17] In fact, please don't talk to anybody in that way. It's quite unusual to try to own a talkpage discussion the way you did there, since most people realize everybody is welcome to comment on talkpages. Please try to remain civil. Bishonen | tålk 13:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC).Reply

Probably a poor choice of words on my part. Thanks for pointing that out. Perhaps "disrupt" would have been a better choice. I of course did not mean to imply that SummerPhDv2.0 was not welcome to edit or comment. SummerPhDv2.0 seems to feel very strongly about defending her edits on this page and likely sees my discussion about those edits as infringing on her territory, and as we know everyone is welcome to edit on wikipedia, even old codgers like me, I've been a wikipedia editor for over thirteen years. I don't want to make the discussion about emotions, emotions get in the way of rational thinking and discussion and that's what I wanted SummerPhDv2.0 to understand about how I discuss topics on wikipedia. I was not intending to be uncivil, I was being frank and I was trying to keep the discussion on topic. I considered SummerPhDv2.0's comment to be off topic and argumentative so I asked her to stop doing that in an mildly assertive way. Being assertive is a good skill to have when dealing with people who may be overly personally invested in a point of view that is being opposed. In fact they often appreciate a person who is more assertive and direct when having a discussion, rather than a person who is indecisive and unsure of their own position. SummerPhD2.0 and I have not interacted with each other before, so this is our first discussion and as people often do, we have been posturing a little while we get to know more about each other's point of view. I don't consider her comments to me to be offensive even though the do appear to be somewhat snippy and rude and I don't believe she has mentioned that she has taken any offence from my comments, she seems to enjoy the interaction. But, I will endeavor to be more welcoming to everyone who is commenting and editing. Britcom 16:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

This was originally going to be a thread at WP:ANI, but as it went on, I saw that it was sufficient to be a direct message.

You came to my attention when I saw that at Talk:Stefan_Molyneux#Re-write_the_article, he kept making variations of the same argument that "white supremacist" is libellous no matter what sources were used to support the claim, expecting us to find sources that don't mention it to balance things out enough to remove the label entirely. Digging further, I see the following:

• "the hate group SPLC," "The SPLC definitely does not fit the definition of a reliable source"
• Citing and defending WorldNewsDaily and arguing WP:RS doesn't matter if precludes WND.
• Interpretting any disagreement with him as a personal attack, repeatedly, and accusing sarcasm directed toward him of being trolling (ironic, given that his defence of Molyneux was to invoke sarcasm)
• Arguing that dispute resolution somehow isn't fixing an article
• Arguing that a label for describing (largely white) advocates of a conspiracy theory is just as horrendous as a word used to dehumanize black people more than farm animals for 500 years. You do know that slavery was a thing, right? That slaves in the US had fewer rights than animals and could be raped and killed with little more consequences than property damages? That's not at all what happened to birthers and their racist refusal to accept reality.
• Treating the birth of Obama in the US as an up-for-debate political matter instead of a proven fact, regarding our report of the proven fact as "carrying water for political candidates"
• A long history of telling third parties to butt out.

And then when I come to your user talk page to talk with you about this, I see that you already "quit" as an entitled tantrum over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-homosexualism, which you were going to turn into a screed that cited the KKK and the Westboro Baptist Church and said "Anti-homosexualism is a calculated political philosophy used by many historical and modern groups. It is not associated with a fear of homosexuals or homosexuality." This is followed by multiple sections warning you on civility, including blocks you never learned from -- oh, and another instance of you quitting! Since you have so much trouble doing a proper job of quitting, let me help you with that:

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ian.thomson (talk) 00:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ian.thomson, Would you care to explain why, after citing some edits I made many years ago, why you think now I should be blocked indefinitely? What prompted you to take such serious action against me without even discussing with me whatever has upset you about me. And why you think I should not be allowed to edit on wikipedia ever again? Britcom 15:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Ian.thomson:? Did you see my query above? Britcom 19:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Going over years worth of edits indicates that all of that behavior is a long-term problem for you, and even now you aren't really acknowledging that it's a problem -- which is another problem. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:46, 2 May 2020 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Ian.thomson has disrupted a talk page topic discussion on the Stefan Molyneux article which I am the OP of the discussion topic by using questionable accusations to justify blocking me indefinitely. The topic is "Re-write the article". He involved himself in the topic here: [[18]], here: [[19]], here: [[20]], and here: [[21]]. He apparently didn't want the discussion to continue because he apparently "thinks nationalism is outdated." according to a userbox on his user page here: [[22]] and he apparently thinks I am somehow promoting white nationalism on wikipedia by questioning a source on a talk page. So he has used his Admin powers to stop the discussion by blocking me from editing as punishment WP:NOTPUNISHMENT WP:ADMINGUIDE/DISPUTES. He's gone ever further in punishing me by making the block indefinite and citing some examples on my usertalk page that he claims supports blocking me that are years old from a time when wikipedia encouraged editors to WP:BEBOLD The rules of wikipedian behavior were different back then than how they are now.

He also mischaracterizes the examples he cites including one where an administrator previously abused his admin powers to block me several times. That administrator was desysoped and admonished for his behavior, see here: [[23]]. To me those entries are a badge of honor that I was able to participate in removing a bad egg from wikipedia. I don't see them as examples of bad behavior, rather I see them as examples of bad behavior directed at me and other innocent editors by a rogue Admin. I feel like that is happening all over again. I encourage all reviewing Admins to actually read my old edits that Ian.thomson has cited and note how unfairly he has characterized them in his block explenation.

Ian.thomson also accuses me of "defending" Molyneux when I have only questioned the validity of using the lone source on the first statement in the article. That seems unreasonable to me when I was just attempting to discuss the WP:BLP guidelines. Ian.thomson made no attempt to resolve whatever dispute he has with me or my topic of discussion and I believe he certainly did not assume good faith in my case. WP:GOODFAITH I don't even understand why he accused me of WP:NOTHERE I have made many positive contributions to wikipedia in my more than 13 years as an editor on wikipedia, anyone can look at all of my contributions. I have not disrupted or damaged the article, I have never even edited the article. I have only been discussing the sources with other editors on the talk page, some of whom seem to be camping WP:OWNERSHIP on the page and POV pushing WP:POVPUSHING.

Right after I posted the topic I asked an Admin for help here: [[24]] in bringing the article to wikipedia's attention because I believed it had BLP violations. That Admin did not answer me, but another did, GirthSummit; who posted a question to me on the article's talk page and asked me to explain what I thought the problems were. When I answered GirthSummit, that is when other editors and Admins began to try to disrupt my response to the Admin, GirthSummit. I don't believe that wikipedia wants admins to treat editors in the way that Ian.thomson has done, so I am asking for a review of this block by uninvolved administrators. I would like to be unblocked please. I will be unable to finish my answer to Admin GirthSummit's question on the article talk page while I am blocked indefinitely.

Britcom 23:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Decline reason:

Trying to remove content or citations from an article by labeling them as possibly sarcastic is time-wasting obstructionism. It ties up editors in talk page discussions in which they have to assume good faith and respond politely to nonsense. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:21, 3 May 2020 (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.

@Doug Weller and Girth Summit: As you have prior experience with Britcom, would either of you be interested in handling this request? Ian.thomson (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ian.thomson, I think I'll decline to review this one. I don't consider myself formally involved, but since I have been named by the user in their unblock request it might be better that someone completely unconnected with the case looks at this. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

FOR THE RECORD, I deny what NinjaRobotPirate has written above. I have not removed any content or citations from the Stefan Molyneux article, nor have I asked to have any content removed from the article that cites a source.

Because I was asked to give my opinion by an administrator, GirthSummit, when I asked an admin for help with ensuring that BLP rules on this article are followed, I wrote that my opinion was that one word should be deleted or changed that had no source cited for it in the opening sentence.

Secondly, I indicated that I thought a different or second source should be added to support another phrase in the opening sentence that I felt was questionable under BLP. I have not asked for it to be removed. What I said in the title of my topic was that the article should be rewritten, I said that because I felt that the article doesn't comply with the BLP rules. I was trying to do the right thing and follow the rules, I even asked for help from an admin to do that. I shouldn't be punished for trying my best to follow the rules. This is not a case of 3RR or vandalism. I was simply answering a question from an admin who was trying to help me by giving him the details he asked for. I had not even finished my answer as evidenced by my inclusion of the phrase; "Problem # 1", in my answer to him. I saw several other problems with the article that I wanted to include in my answer to him, that one was just the first.

I saw the problems in this article right after I read it, so I wanted to help by pointing them out, and other editors also agreed with me that there are problems with it. But instead of welcoming me and encouraging me to help make the article better, I am instead banned indefinately by another admin? That's not right. That's not what wikipedia is all about. I shouldn't even have to say that, no editor should be treated like that, especially an editor with thirteen years of history in helping wikipedia. Is this what we've become now, an exclusive club where people are banned for trying to help make wikipedia better? If this is allowed to be done to an editor like me, what does that say to new people interested in helping with the project? Nothing good I imagine. Britcom 17:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Before you post anything else, you need to do two things:

• At least accept that the community views your behavior as a problem. This has been determined by two individuals who were invested by this community as admins, based on a lot of prior conflict you've had with multiple users. When multiple experienced users (not just me and NinjaPirateRobot but pretty much everyone you encounter) either tell you that you're wrong or refuse to talk with you, you don't bury your head in the sand, double down, and pretend to be even more right. When more users come in to tell you you're wrong, you don't call them disruptive and refuse to consider what they have to say. (Those links are to different pages explaining that, yes, those behaviors are disruptive). That's exactly what you did (don't tell us you didn't, that's how everyone else sees it and you don't get to decide that that's how it affected them). Not only that, you did it in a way that suggests you're trying to normalize fascist white supremacism (we don't need a policy to tell us Nazis aren't welcome here). If that last part was purely an accident and you're not yet another Nazi troll, then this should be a wake up call to realize that your disruptive behavior has made it look like you want Nazis to be normalized. Again, if that's not the case, you should stop and ask yourself what you were doing that would have made others think that was your goal. Don't blame other people for reading you wrong, they could only read your actions (not your intentions).
• Read guide to appealing blocks. Read it over and over while you consider your next appeal.

If your next response is yet another rant that has little to do with appealing your block, we can revoke your talk page access because you're not worth the trouble. If you try to appeal on the delusion that your actions were correct, we will revoke your talk page access because we're tired of wasting our time on Nazi trolls. If you are not a Nazi troll, wake up and realize your behavior has been a serious problem. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

God bless you Ian, It's clear to me now that you and I are kin and cut from the same tartan cloth. There's no need for us to destroy each other. What do you say we call off this war and bury the hatchet? I don't want a feud with my kinfolk. If you agree to a truce and unblock my account I'll introduce myself to you on facebook and you can see what I'm talking about. Britcom 07:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

My ancestry is the reason you're interested in a "truce"...? And you think that (and requesting off-site and unmonitored discussion) is an appropriate response after I said the problem was that your actions were normalizing Nazism? Talk page access revoked, see WP:UTRS if you ever come to your senses. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

UTRS #30442 was submitted on 2020-05-06 02:53:53 . This review is now closed. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 09:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply