User talk:Bonafide.hustla/Archive2

useful links: RevolverOcelotX anti Bonafide.hustla campaign

STALKING: Reverting all of my edits by spying my contributions, including stuff he doesn't seem to know/care about [[1]] [[2]] [[3]] [[4]] [[5]]

Harassing me on my talkpage [[6]] [[7]]

Spamming/disruptions admin's talkpages. [[8]]Note my comments above, good job photocopying. [[9]] [[10]] [[11]] [[12]] [[13]] groundless accusation

Massive POV pushing/reverts even though they've been there for a long period of time (consensus among all users except himself) [[14]] [[15]] [[16]][[17]] [[18]] [[19]] [[20]] [[21]]

Disrupting discussion I'm involve in/harassment. [[22]] [[23]]

Filing baseless accusations and complaint. [[24]][[25]] [[26]]

More available upon request.

Conclusion: I'm sick and tired of his pOV pushing and I"m not gonna edit war with him. His action has evolves from POV pushing on Taiwanese article by claiming Taiwanese are Chinese to reverting all of my contributions for example "wigger". His campaign seems to be out of personal vendetta rather than good faith in the project. His constant stalking and harassment causes me to both tired and disappointed. If he is not blocked, then I don't think I will edit anymore since he will revert all of my good faith edits anyway. He seems to be pursuing me so anyway I hope you'll take a look at this and hopefully block him or file a Rfa. I don't know. Thanks a lot.--Bonafide.hustla 21:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It's Official

I'm taking a long leave from wikipedia. I will refrain myself from editing any articles since a user is stalking me. Leave a message if necessary. Thank you--Bonafide.hustla 22:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

User:RevolverOcelotX recent activities

Revert my talkpage again despite rule that allows the deletion/blanking of my own personal talkpage. This user should put his own house in order.--Bonafide.hustla 22:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

RevolverOcelotX

If the user's behavior is so irritating please start a WP:RFC on his behavior. It is important to know give a wider community a chance to evaluate his behavior. If there will be consensus that some administrative actions are necessary then I could help with it. abakharev 23:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Thousandsons

My response on my talkpage--Bonafide.hustla 05:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any response? I just see a double cut and paste of the material from ANI board. So plain and simple - what's your response?

--Charlesknight 07:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to AN/I

User:Thousandsons Thousandsons (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) received an indef. block plus talkpage protection, so he is unable to request an unblock. The block seem highly dubious, especially without the intervention of ArbCom and/or Jimbo Wales. From his contributions, he simply committed petty vandalism. A block such as this shouldn't be enforce by one individual admin without consensus. P.S. My userpage and his userpage is a little bit similar, but I am NOT his sockpuppet. A groundless, privacy-invading checkuser was previously filed and proved my innocence. Thanks--Bonafide.hustla 08:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I will look into it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC) User posted personal details of other people, threatened to "fuck up all ya pages and shyt," vandalized user pages, and personally threatened admins who intervened to prevent vandalism. He's staying blocked, and the page is staying protected. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC) I thought talkpage and userpage do not follow wikipedia regulations.--Bonafide.hustla 10:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty clear this user should not be unblocked, he has made threats acted inappropriatley and childishly. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 10:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC) No that's incorrect - "# Community policies, including Wikipedia:No personal attacks, apply to your user space just as they do elsewhere. # In some cases, material that does not somehow further the goals of the project may be removed (see below), as well as edits from banned users."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_page

Do you really think userpages should be a safe haven for comments such as

"Oh just fuck you! when I get unblocked your ganna see some shyt, cuz I'm commin' foe you, and don't lye this is cuz I'm black, I'd get the police involved if I wasn't a nigger, you better unblock me now If you whant me ta stop being so black, I'm ganna give ya a day ta think about weather or not ya wanna deal wit me, and believe you me homie I know all bout harassment and I ain't ganna stop on this mutha fuckin syte, if i'm not unblocked at 3:00 I'm ganna hack your shyt, harras you and basicly just fuck you around, so think about it ok NiggeR?"

--Charlesknight 10:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Making threats charles is just going to get you blocked. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 10:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC) Well then I urge you to take a look at User:Jiang's userpage and talkpage. It seems to be a personal attack (albeit against a group).--Bonafide.hustla 12:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

What, precisely, are you hoping to accomplish here? The guy has vandalized, the guy has made threats, the guy is NOT here to do the encyclopedia any good whatsoever: NOBODY is going to unblock him, it's clear, but more to the point, why would you think it's a good idea to do so? No phony comparatives with other cases or users, please: what is it about THIS guy -- User:Thousandsons -- that exempts him from the ordinary expected standards of behavior? --Calton | Talk 12:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC) It looks as if the whole point of this report is to be one more devious round in the endless attempt to get User:Jiang to remove an image from his user page, as featured on AN/I and elsewhere, ad infinitum. Frankly, this looks like borderline WP:POINT to me, and User:Bonafide.hustla is still edit-warring all over the place with User:RevolverOcelotX over Taiwain China Taiwan China Taiwan, instead of going through the dispute resolution process as advised. Time to community-ban both of them? --ajn (talk) 13:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC) Neither does Bonafide.hustla have clean hands regarding "groundless, privacy-invading checkuser" requests. Thatcher131 (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC) My response on my talkpage--Bonafide.hustla 05:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. The "response" on the talk page was to copy and paste -- twice -- the above section. So it looks like the answer to the question, "What, precisely, are you hoping to accomplish here?" is "nothing whatsoever". --Calton | Talk 06:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC) Sorry there was an editing conflict when I tried to add my point. I'll summarize it on my talkpage now.--Bonafide.hustla 07:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the inconvenience. I don't know why it shows up twice but anyway I just gotta summarize what I planned to write. It's not very well-written, but basically what I recall from my experience with RevolverOcelotX and my reasoning for Thousandsons and Jiang.

The reason I brought up Thousandson's case was becasue I felt the block was a somewhat out of process especially with the use of talkpage protection. (he does contribute to hip-hop related article however). User:PoolGuy issue needs to go ArbCom. But anyway forget about it 'cause it's really not that important. If I were an admin, I prolly would've blocked him too. By calling my comparion phony is pretty uncivil on Calton's part. I actually have a question for User:Calton, why did you revert article China to RevolverOcelotX's version without attempt to communicate or post in the talkpage despite Yuje's explanaiton in the edit summary. (I have posted my reason for reverting the article in the talkpage instead of edit war, no one is responding).

Andrew Normal claims I continue to revert war with RevolverOcelotX, this is wrong. My contribution in the last several days speak for themselves. Anyway, ever since I pledged to cease the edit war on my talkpage (see above). I am NOT involved in any Taiwan-China related articles whatsoever. I stated on my own talkpage. The reason being that since not a single admins/wikipedians seem to KNOW or CARE about that user's constant "borderline" POV pushing, gaming the rule (carefully following 3RR and constantly post 3RR warning on others talkpage even though only "1" edit was made at that time), and other violations (PA, spamming, etc), then I'm not gonna undo his borderline edits doing it. It's the project own loss by allowing editors as such. He basically went as far as changing the Naming Conventions so he can appear to be abiding the rules. So I said a few days ago that I'm outta the dispute, you know, he won. He can do what he wants to do 'cause no one seems to give a sh*t. Excuse my language. The only stuff he does is adding tags (which is prolly a good thing) and making those seemingly okay edits but doesn't present anything new in the article. One example was when he distorts the level of support for Chinese re-unification in Taiwan. see below. I'm not gonna look for the diff. now, prolly do it later if you guys want proof.

I resent Andrew's accusation of blocking us both. We are in fact, 2 different users. If you look further into the contributions of me and him. It is evident that I edit in a way broader scale. I Hate edit warring, I already stated that before. That's basically the reason I half-quit editing. An attempt to compromise was made in June. The communication became fierce and the user vandalize my talkpage without unjustified tags and then accuses me of committing "3RR" on my own talkpage. Despite User:Bish effort to explain to him that the rule doesn't apply to talkpages, he reported me and I got an unjustified block from admin Alex. (he later apologized, see my block log for the 1 second technical block). RevolverOcelotX basically STALKED me. He reverted everything I edit, NOT only Taiwan-China related articles. One example is wigger. His motive seems to be strictly out of personal vendetta. While attempts of communication made in late June was turned down. He refused to compromise. If I file a complaint, a checkuser (more detailed below against him), to other admins, he'll instantly spam their talkpages and copy all my arugments against him then use it on me. (more examples below)

Andrew Norman claims my "endless" attempt to remove Jiang's picture. I must say, other users has expressed similar concerns for the images. An AN/I discussion was opened by me like couple of months ago, receiving minimal feedbacks (no one understanding the Chinese writing on it except Taiwan=shame, Dalai Lama owns slave, among others, which are written in English). It was nominated for deletion by User:QuizQuick and many other users also express concern about the racial hatred and political propaganda on the images. see Talk:David Wu. It is already bad enough that the controversial, offensive images are on there, but what's even worse is many of his edits push for the propaganda on the image. Jiang is a self-proclaimed Chinese nationalist who believe is very anti-Taiwanese. [27].--Bonafide.hustla 08:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Full explanation of the conflict in late june

After a short wikibreak, I am furious to learn that I had been blocked from editing on the issue of removing warnings from my talkpage, 3RR, and lack of communication. Listed below is a concise and brief explanation.

1. Removing warnings:

A. One is perfectly entitled to remove such warnings from his/her talkpage. An admin support my claim.[[28]] Another user removed my warning from his talkpage.[[29]]. To add to that the warnings is justified. An admin support my case. [[30]] [[31]] [[32]] support from another user. Read the full length discussion on User:Bishonen talkpage under the heading User:RevolverOcelotX.

B. Even if I am not allowed to remove such warnings, the warning clearly isn't justified. According to the history of List of Chinese Americans and Anti-Secession Law of the People's Republic of China articles, you would see Bonafide.hustla and RevolverOcelotX had both made 3 reverts in the past 24 hours 2 days ago. However, when the initial warning was placed by RevolverOcelotX I made only 1 edit to the article, making the warning totally irrelevant. He placed the warning on the ground that I BROKEN the 3RR on my user talk page after the final warning. As evident in the above discussion, an admin states that 3RR does not apply to a user's personal talkpage. The accusation is groundless.

2. 3RR Again, the 3RR clearly states that a block should only occur if I have made MORE than 3 reverts in the last 24 hrs for an article. I did not unless you count my personal talkpage, but we already established the 3RR does not apply to personal talkpages. See A. and B. above for further details.

3. Lack of communication

A. A series of POV pushing by RevolverOcelotX occured when he first arrived at wikipedia, when I revert his edits as an effort to preserve NPOV (never violating 3RR), he started to engage himself in edit warring with me and many other users [[33]] While I have also posted relevant reasons for reverts in both edit summary and relevant talkpages, he failed to do so. When I attempted to communicate in order to end edit warring, he angrily responded and continue to make POV edits specifically in Taiwanese-Chinese relation. [[34]]

4. Conduct of User:RevolverOcelotX

A. Ever since this user's initial arrival, he has been on a crusade to distort information about Taiwan, China articles. see [[35]].

B. His behavior is similar to User:PoolGuy and often commits wikilawyering. He is in the process of wasting the community's patience. [[36]]

C. This user went as far as harassing admin to support my case in order to prove his point. [[37]] (Sorry this is my mistake see below)

D. This user even edit the naming convention: Chinese in order to justify his edits. [[38]]

E. Spamming [[39]]

Conclusion: It is obvious that the block on me is not justified. Thanks and I hope someone will restore this unfair treatment.--Bonafide.hustla 23:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Alex's Explanation, Apology after reviewing

You were in obvious 3RR violation on your own talk page [40], [41], [42], [43], [44] Removing warnings from your own talkpage is often considered vandalism, if you think that a warning is given in a bad faith or undeserved - please ask somebody else to review the warning, not delete it yourself.

You also often just on the brink of viloation of the 3RR rule on the pages Anti-Secession Law of the People's Republic of China and List of Chinese Americans. Please try to get a compromize on the talk page, or ask for a mediation, or start an WP:RfC on the article. Constant edit warring is not an option and can make yourself blocked even if you did only 3 reverts in the 24 hours period.

The conduct of the user User:RevolverOcelotX is probably should be discussed on a WP:RFC. It seems that your saying are (at least partially) true. In any case a non-perfect behavior of your opponent is not the reason to violate Wikipedia rules myself.

And the last but not least, I am sorry that I did not provide better explanation of my block when it was given. Please continue productive work on the articles and try to reach compromise in your edit conflicts. abakharev 01:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• After reviewing the matter I found that my block was too harsh and one-sided. It was an error of judgement from my side. I am sorry for this action. Please also see my notice in block log abakharev 23:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Main Issues

After summarizing the other admins accusation and criticism, I think I can summarize them into 3 major points: User:Jiang, User:RevolverOcelotX, and my suspicion of their connections. I don't have time to look at each individual articles (Revolver added Chinese American tag to every single Taiwanese American) but a good way to start is the article Chinese unification and David Wu.

1. Checkuser was requested based on the evidence provided in here. Also in point 2[[45]]. I have no idea how both Jiang and Revolver found out about my request (I didn't found out Nlu's request on me until 4 months later), miraculously in a span of 4 minutes. They each post comments and scoff at my request. Something that is extremely rare and disruptive to a checkuser request.

2. Chinese unification: Massive POV pushing in this particular article by Revolver (prollly 1 out of 150ish articles he's been crusading). I resent these forms of POV edits. Most other editors do NOT know the political situation to revert or recognize how offensive/biased it is. One example occurs when [[46]] [[47]] this user claims Chinese (re)unification is wrong. It is obvious POV. From a Taiwanese perspective, Chinese (re)unification can be seen as either annexation by China, Chinese expansioniam or Chinese unification, but NOT "re"unification since Taiwan is never part of PRC. After I found out about it, I reverted back to the version by admin User:Nlu, which this user promptly revert it back to his obvious POV version [[48]] [[49]](2nd time). That was when Jiang stepped in and preserve the POV edits by Revolver although it is violation of Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese) (another article Revolver distorts). [[50]]. That was when I realize I can't edit war with both of them, so I stopped. Then found an incredibly POV sentence in the article which claims there are MANY mainlander taiwanese (came over after the communist rebellion, who supports unification and some who oppose it. Without citation, without proof and factually incorrect. It also serves as a way to divide Taiwanese population. So what I did was change "many" to "some", [[51]]. I didn't expect any problems, but of course, Revolver instantly [[52]] reverted and outlandishly accused me of POV pushing. Then an unregistered user made a good effort to maintain NPOV. [[53]] by changing reunification to "re"unification. Revolver reverted it again. [[54]] Then another mini edit war escalated. The unregistered user revert, then revolver revert it AGAIN.[[55]]. So Jiang once AGAIN stepped in to help Revolver [[56]]. Then I arrive back to Wikipedia, noticing "some" was changed to "many" by Revolver, so I changed the wording to make it neutral. [[57]] Revolver reverted it on the ground that "many" is more accurate, strictly out of his personal opinion on the issue, thus falsely creating an image that many Taiwanese want to be part of China. [[58]] I changed it back.[[59]] For the THIRD time, Jiang stepped in and assisted Revolver in his POV pushing. [[60]]. That was when I gave up reverting since Jiang's an admin. Another unregistered user stepped in [[61]]. Jiang reverted back again, in his edit summary he stated "some < majority; avoid obviously false assertion". Openly distorting Taiwanese opinions on the issue. [[62]]. Then someone else reverted back to "some" since Jiang's positio is clearly POV. [[63]]. Throughout this dispute, I have closely monitored the progress while not getting involve. I thought the issue is solved but then Revolver revert back to many [[64]] claiming some is "false" assertion. A clear display of bias. Someone later reverted back to "some' [[65]]. Throughout this conflict, it is evident that Jiang and Revolver are either socks OR there Jiang is tacitly agreeing Revolver's POV edits, in the process, abuse his admin power. Jiang helped Revolver's cause not once, but THREE times. In this article, we could see the obvious connection between the two as well as RevolverOcelotX obvious bias. Such user should definitely be ban. It also shows "I" am trying to maintain NPOV on here, so andrew's comment was really hurtful to me, like classifying me and Revolver as the same deed. I'm defeated however, so I don't think there's gonna be anyone who will maintain NPOV on these articles in the future. Okay this is my bedtime, I'll talk about the other 2 topics tomorrow or whenever I logged in next time. Peace.--Bonafide.hustla 09:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Raven Symone

Hi, Boney, thanks for helping out with the celebrity name issue. Better just leave it now, as I've asked Essjay to take over. Being a bureaucrat, he can offer to do a namechange directly, and thus avoid stressing the young newbie more than necessary. I appreciate your input, though. Bishonen | talk 11:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC).

Sure that's great. No problem, anytyme.--Bonafide.hustla 04:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Issues regarding Jiang and Revolver

These other issues will be posted here tomorrow. Thanks--Bonafide.hustla 04:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

David Wu

I'm willing to give it some time to see what happens. I've got it on my watch list and I'm guessing you do as well. You can use the system to email me anytime you want and I'll respond if you feel strongly enough you want have my email address to keep in contact about it. I'm not backing down if he starts reverting it. I promise you that. Davidpdx 09:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

List of notable people diagnosed with dyslexia

Hi, I sourced the entry for you in List of notable people diagnosed with dyslexia concerning Keeley Hazell. For the next time, especially considering it's about a living person, the onus on providing sources is on the editor who adds it to the article and removing the entry is perfectly acceptable. You can't use a {{fact}} tag for that. See also Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Cheers, Garion96 (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me for the citation.--Bonafide.hustla 07:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Your edits

Please do not make edits like these [66], [67], [68], which you either know you cooked up, or are otherwise too unacquainted with the subject to sufficiently realize how unaccurate they are. Please only insert text that you are sure of, not stuff you think is true or wish could be true. It's an effort for us to clean up after you. If you find something objectionable, then try the talk page? --Jiang 21:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me?!?!

Please explain how my edit [69] was vandalism. Perhaps you misunderstand the word negro, it's not derogatory word, nor was it intended in a derogatory manner. Personally, I consider the term "Black people" derogatory since people of African origin don't actually have "black" skin, it's a dark shade of brown.

Furthermore, your threat that I will be banned was completely unjustified and incorrect. Firstly, Wikipedia does not usually ban people for first time offences. Secondly, you're not an administrator, so you wouldn't be the one making that judgement. Thirdly, my edit was not even vandalism, and you are supposed to assume good faith (see WP:AGF). If it weren't for that policy I'd assume you are a troll and contact an administrator about this.

I think I deserve an appology for your threatening and libelous comments on my talk page, and I think you should spend more time thinking about edits before you jump to the conclusion that they are vandalism.

--Yunipo 12:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

What you said

On User: Gemini531's page, why did you put that sockpuppets aren't allowed? It clearly is, unless he's a disruptive one. QuizQuick 21:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC) [70]

useful info: Recall

Okay, I'll bite. You're in Category:Administrators open to recall, so here's my honest assessment. I no longer have full confidence in your judgment as an administrator. Not only did you unblock yourself, a serious no-no, and grounds enough for desysopping in my opinion, as well as making the very ill-considered comment that led to it [71], you blocked [72] an editor with which you were directly engaged in edit warring, [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82], for what was clearly a content dispute, and which you so much as admit in your threat, saying future attempts to inject this POV will be met with a block, inadequately giving a block warning in an edit summary, of all places, inappropriately using rollback for content reverts and edit warring, and even edit warring in the first place. And I don't even know the bakground of why you were previously blocked for talk page spamming. As far as I'm concerned, your abuse of unblocking and blocking powers, and rollback, and demonstrating poor judgment in your comments and warnings, and certainly in even engaging in edit warring at all, all in just the last few days, are certainly enough for me to call your adminship into question. So, accordingly, I would ask that you resign your adminship until such time as the community can reconfirm its confidence in your judgment. Thank you. Dmcdevit·t 08:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I do emphatically dispute I was "edit warring" inasmuch as I was merely protecting the integrity of the articles from inappropriate injections of POV without a dog in the fight, which in my mind makes me impartial to the situation and therefore able to block to repeated instances. (I've taken the liberty to remove another user's inappropriate comment in my defense, and ask that no such irrelevant comment be posted by anyone in the future. I don't need an advocate. Feel free to opine at my second RfA if one is forthcoming.) - CrazyRussian talk/email 09:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

As for the talk page spamming, I was using AWB to deliver a note to the many members of Wikiproject:Judaism about Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism I had created. Cyde's immediate revocation of my block because he "didn't realize [I was] a sysop" is what actually gave me the idea that to unblock myself would have been appropriate. Ah, anyway, it was a mistake, as I've acknowledged multiple times on AN/I. - CrazyRussian talk/email 10:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I endorse Dmcdevit's request because of your self-unblock (I have no opinion of the other matters he raises). See the Administrators' reading list: "Admins are expected to have an intimate understanding of Wikipedia policy. They are also expected to consistently demonstrate comprehension of these policies. This is especially paramount regarding the use of abilities entrusted to admins which are unavailable to regular users and editors of Wikipedia." Bishonen | talk 12:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC).

I endorse the request too. Both the self-unblocking and the edit-war w/ blocking pointed out by Dmcdevit (I don't know if you had a dog in the fight, but judging "innapropriate injections of POV" is never without a subjective aspect and so policy demands that you don't do the blocks yourself in a case like that) cast doubt on your understanding of when it is appropriate to use the extra tools. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to emphasize that I am not calling for Crzrussian's de-adminning based on what has occurred, but rather for a re-test of consensus regarding whether he should be an admin. I am also in Category:Administrators open to recall, and my personal take on listing myself there is that I do not feel it should be a big deal to have that consensus, that once existed, re-checked. Simply unblocking yourself may well be enough to merit the re-check, in my opinion -- and with the other issues, it seems more than reasonable. Personally I hope Crzrussian desn't step down, and doesn't remain a non-admin for two months or more, should the recall petition succeed. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

When I put my name in the recall cat, I promised to surrender the use of the sysop tools upon request. Now, it's obvious to me that if I stand for RfA2 right now, I will splendidly fail, because as many will tell you, the process is broken. Nor is it an attractive option for me go through that week-long ordeal again. If six users really do believe that my continuing as a sysop will be a worse for this project than my desysopping, then I will stand down immediately. I just hope that the pro-recall people have thought about the consequences in the same way. - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't accept your premise. There's clearly a consensus here for leaving you sysopped, and despite the frequent cries that RfA is broken, it wouldn't surprise me to see that consensus easily carried over to RfA. As for it being a week-long ordeal, didn't your RfA pass sixy-something to one? That's an ordeal? Or are you making a prediction regarding a new one? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Eighty-six :) It was a small miracle - because fuddlemark didn't notice it. (Oh bring him in here, he'll be #5 and #6!) But yes, my RfA was draining. Your life on display, subject to disapproval. Disapproval anxiety is a powerful thing, even when there isn't much actual disapproval. - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I also endorse the request. I find the rationale given for unblocking somewhat disturbing: I think I have enough credit with this community to stay unblocked foir a while. Isopropyl 15:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

That was the rationale for not re-blocking as pointed out by me on AN/I. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Now, if I understand correctly, if a fifth editor endorses, Crzrussian has the choice of resigning or of going through a reconfirmation RfA yes? JoshuaZ 16:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Need 6 total. I will ask Taxman or Redux to minus my privileges, and will not stand for adminship until a miminum of two months hence, if ever. Glad to be the first, JZ. lol - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Crzrussian - I'm so tempted.... :) Seriously Folks, I have had my arguments in the past with Crzrussian, but I do not feel that this "recall" is fair - and since it's the first case of something like this, maybe a larger number of editors should be required to vote "nay"- 5 is not enough... I oppose. JJ211219 16:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

"I oppose a recall petition at this time (does one no subtract a yes?) Who doesn't stumble ocassionally? The difference between a bad admin and a good admin is that the bad one will refuse to admit he has done anything wrong, and view criticism as persecution. A good admin will learn from the experience and be better for it. The concerns raised are not trivial but this is not the time for you to fall on your sword. Thatcher131 (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate the sentiment, but I don't think opposes are appropriate. - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

BITE also applies to new admins: " Remember, every administrator starts as a newbie admin and every admin has made at least one admin-related mistake! Help them out with their new powers as you would help a newcomer with the rest of Wikipedia." Crz has only been an admin since June 8. Let's put this down to teething troubles, as I don't think it's going to be repeated in a hurry. It would be a particular sign of good faith if Crz stated that he would help Yas121 to address his concerns. Tyrenius 17:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Recall is voluntary. Offer of clerkship.

Remember... recall is a voluntary process. IMHO it is up to Crzrussian to declare/decide what exactly are the qualifications, numbers and so forth he wants to see (remember, if he is not reasonable, there's always RfC or ArbCom, so it's a good reason to be reasonable) before deeming the request valid I would like to offer my services (if this makes any sense) to help work through the process.... i will take no position on whether he should or should not accept the request, or what the outcome should be, but offer to help moderate, clerk, etc if the help is desired. My goal here is that this be a process that all see as fair, civil and collegial, and not excessively burdened with formality but that nevertheless ends up with a result that has consensus. If this meets with agreement let me know.

For the record, my own take on the process the way I'd execute it is that if 6 editors ask for recall, I'd start a discussion process (or a re RfA, or an RfC, whatever I chose) to see what the right outcome ought to be... 6 people so certifying would not mean I'd ask for desysopping, merely that a discussion be carried out... That discussion might end up with an offer to be mentored or a decision that there wasn't a big issue, or a resignation. ++Lar: t/c 17:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

That's definitely my understanding of how the process is supposed to work too. --Guinnog 18:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Aren't people meant to get warned for things on first offence, and given the chance to change, before action is launched against them? Tyrenius 20:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you referring to my block or to the recall effort? - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking about you being given a warning and the chance to change. Tyrenius 08:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't step down without the process

I haven't been following the blow-by-blow here in strict chronological order, so I don't know what you last word so far has been, but in at least a few places you seem to have written you'll step down if nominated for recall. Please don't. That's not what a nomination is; just like someone nominated for adminship doesn't automatically become an admin, someone nominated for recall shouldn't automatically get recalled. I can appreciate that being the first actually nomiated for recall might not be a "first" you'd be proud of ... but if you think about it, I suspect you'd regret standing down without going through the process more. You're a member of Category:Administrators open to recall, and that's admirable; that should not be the same as Category:Administrators without a spine, however. Don't hand in your rouge yet, please.

By the way, you probably aren't in the reminiscing mood now, but I'll risk remembering my suppose or opport here. "...he is sometimes wrong, ... but ... doing the right thing eventually is enough". Yes, I do kind of wish I wasn't right in my statement there, but I don't regret my vote or the outcome one bit.

I won't say I'm proud of you for that comment, it was an insensitive and offensive thing to write; blocking someone you were possibly debating with was ... debatable ...; and unblocking yourself was an unnecessary violation of process, not WP:IAR. Bad move triple combo, you screwed up. But don't commit seppuku over it, you're still the person that 85 others wanted to trust with the flamethrower and mop, even knowing you might get water and sparks on things. You still do more good things than bad, many more. If you quit, you won't ever get the ratio even higher. Get over it, and I, and others, will be proud of you for that at least. Pick yourself up and move on. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Raising the bar

My concern is that recall in general, and this case in particular, will weed out the admins that are actually responsive to community correction, leaving the intransigent admins behind. I have hesitated to name names, but I am thinking specifically of User:Dbiv, User:Marudubshinki and user:Everyking. Dbiv is before Arbcom for misusing admin tools in an edit war, while on Fred's talk page, the Arbcom talk pages, and his own talk page he refuses to acknowledge he ever did anything wrong. Even so the committee was divided 4-3 on whether to de-sysop him. Maru, on the other hand, repeatedly used an unauthorized bot, first on a bot account, then his own account, and even gave the bot admin functions; and unblocked himself to continue to run the bot. And yet there was never any discussion here of desysopping him, just that he shouldn't unblock himself and should not run the bot again without authorization. And of course Everyking has been before arbitration at least 4 times, often for harassing other admins. If we force the issue and put Crzrussian through recall, won't we be saying to other admins, if you offer yourself up for recall, we will hold you to a much higher standard than admins who ignore community pressure after passing their RFA? Maybe raising the bar is a good thing, but there is no way Crzrussian should be the first guy thrown overboard. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thatcher131 (talk • contribs) .

I think the idea behind the recall procedure is to hold oneself to higher standards than those enforced by the ArbCom. I think Crzrussian is doing the right thing by taking the complaints seriously. If he does hand in his bit I expect it will go a long way towards restoring trust in him for those who have lost it. With the huge amount of useful work he's done as an admin he'll have a landslide of support votes if he decides to stand again. Haukur 22:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

RevolverOcelotX and Jiang

This checkuser [[83]]--Bonafide.hustla 06:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Cute 1 4 u

Good chance Cute_1_4_u (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a law enforcement officer doing a sting. I would not want to interfere with that useful work. Fred Bauder 15:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Stop threatening to block me

I've never heard negro used in a derogatory manner, perhaps you have confused it with nigger, which is extremely derogatory.

And stop putting public domain pictures on your userpage[84].

Also please create a new heading when you make a comment on my talk page instead of adding under existing heading which your comment is not directly related to.

--Yunipo 15:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Also what about the word chink on your userpage? Whereas negro may be considered offensive by some, although I've never heard of it being used in offensive context. And negro is used often in non-offensive contexts like in Martin Luther King, Jr.'s speeches, the names of various black organizations [85] [86] , etc... I believe chink is pretty much always considered offensive. Why do you have it on your userpage?

You are obviously a troll.

--Yunipo 16:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[87] for more detail. Please stop harassing me. We are not following NPOV on userpage and talkpages, the rule only applies to articles.--Bonafide.hustla 05:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

David Wu

Just to keep you informed, the recent edits on the David Wu page that I reverted had nothing to do with nationality or ethnic questions, but instead over an alledged incident while he was in college. Several people have tried to insert inflamatory statements about Wu being a rapist. While he did confess to an incident and apologized for it, he was never charged or convicted of anything. Given the fact that there was a different dispute recently, I thought I'd let everyone know what was going on. If you have an questions, don't hesitate to leave me a message. Davidpdx 03:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Disagree

Just wanted to disagree with your ANI complaint about children or people using the site for social interaction. It is a strongly held belief of mine that we need to bring in more and more people and keep them here—if they think the site doubles as a blog or MySpace, well, good, if that draws them here or helps keep them around. Participation translates into constructive work one way or another, at least on a broad scale, even if some individuals aren't showing it. I'm happy with encouraging participation with an openness to utilizing the site for social interaction. I can only see the potential for harm by cracking down on this; what good could come of it? Everyking 09:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your comments. --Nlu (talk) 22:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Punk music

Whats up? Hi, I'm trying to gather some more interest and support for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Punk music. Please check out the topics and lets get our WikiProject to function better. Recently, I've taken an interest in the Wikipedia:WikiProject hip hop and I consider that WikiProject to be better developed. I am now writing to usernames on the hiphopWP who might be interested in helping with the punkmusicWP. Hopefully we can all work together to improve articles relating to punk as has been done well with hip hop. Finally, I am trying to gather support and opinions concerning the punk house article and specifically the Theta Beta Potata article which is currently in AfD (x2) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theta Beta Potata (second nomination). Please check it out and voice your opinion. Xsxex 09:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Keeley_Hazell.jpg

Hi, Bonafide.hustl. According to item #9 on Wikipedia's Fair use policy, we can't claim fair use for images on User's pages. You may want to remove this image from your user page. Let me know if you need any help. --Abu Badali 13:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about that. I'll do that for you. Best regards, --Abu Badali 05:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images

Hi, Bonafide.hustla! I've noticed that your userpage contains some images marked as fair use. Please note that under WP:FUC point #9, fair use images are not to be used outside of the article namespace, so I'd appreciate it if you would please replace the images with non-fair-use ones. Thanks! Shadow1 00:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you having any difficulties doind that, Bonafide.hustla? Do you want some help? Can I remove the images for you? Best regards, --Abu Badali 04:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It's actually a different image for your info. The one Shadow pointed out has been removed. Thanks but no thanks, I prefer to maintain my userpage by myself. You don't have to worry too much about me. Take it easy, aight?? peace out--Bonafide.hustla 07:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The image you're using is still non-free. The point is that item #9 of Wikipedia:Fair use criteria forbids the use of unfree image on user's pages. When do you plan to remove that? Thanks, --Abu Badali 22:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The image Image:101.jpg was actually using the licence of the previous image uploaded under that name. Please now provide a source and licensing information for this image, so that it can be properly used on Wikipedia. Let me know if you need any help. Best regards, --Abu Badali 23:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images on user pages

I've removed them. You've been warned enough. Do not place fair use images on your user page or you will be blocked -- Samir धर्म 06:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Threatening me isn't going a consturctive way to approach this problem. I've been asking that if we are not able to put image on our userpage then why hasn't orphanbot remove them.--Bonafide.hustla 07:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Fake "new message"

Why do you have that? It's not very funny.  QuizQuick  02:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to The Stone Roses

Your recent edit to The Stone Roses has been reverted. Please do not revert decent edits in process of edit warring with another user. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 02:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "article page does not fall under fair use"?

Bonafide, what do you mean with "rv-article page does not fall under fair use"? Do you understand that we don't use unfree movie screenshots just to illustrate how someone looks like? You may want to read Wikipedia:Fair use criteria before performing any other image-related activity on Wikipedia. Let me know if you need any help. Best regards, --Abu Badali 07:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Yeah I'm fairly positive that the person claiming to be Æon isn't really Æon. The way she/her/it types is a dead give away. Either way it is an asinine accusation and it has no validity whatsoever. Before I know it my discussion page will be filled with Cute 1 4 u's ignorant sockpuppet ramblings. The real Æon hasn't messaged me so I'm not sure what's up. Thanks for your input. Sweet Pinkette 08:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, just to chime in, but that IP that you've directed to is pretty much a self-admitted sockpuppet of the user that has been giving us all problems for some time and in no way Æon. Again, we apologize for all of this drama dealing with you and the others; it's just that we've had to ban this other user from editting Wikipedia, and mind you, the real Æon has messaged you, as have I. Ryūlóng 20:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

England, Britain etc

I would strongly advise you to stay away from changing terms relating to countries within the UK, as you clearly don't have a clue what you're doing. The UK, as the full name makes clear, is a state which encompasses Great Britain and Northern Ireland (and, if we're going to be pedantic, several other islands and archipelagoes). Great Britain includes England, Wales and Scotland. England does not imply Scotland and Wales, the three are separate countries. --ajn (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, lay off. You've just "corrected" the Keeley Hazell article to insert one error and a category which is not populated. --ajn (talk) 06:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Wiki break

I'm going to be on wikibreak in the next couple of weeks. E-mail me if it's an emergency. Thank you--Bonafide.hustla 06:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to keep everyone posted, I'm actually still on break. Anyway I just made a couple of edits because some articles seem to be going outta control with POV edits. So I might drop by and make a couple of edits but nothing major right now. holla--Bonafide.hustla 05:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey

Yo how's it going? You might remember me from the David Wu content dispute. Anyway, I was wondering if you can help me take appropriate action against admin User:Jiang (remember the guy whose talkpage has an image that says Taiwan=shame) who had again made a series of edits violating the NPOV policy on wikipedia. Thanks a lot.--Bonafide.hustla 05:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

BH, no I didn't unfortunately. Things here have gotten really hairy. My father-in-law is in the hospital and there is concern about North Korea's nuclear test. I essentially decided to just let it go since the article ended up citing him as both Taiwanese and Chinese. If he makes any push to change it, then I'd change my mind really fast though. Davidpdx 08:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

?

Would you mind telling me why you called removing Kirsten Dunst from a list of 2000s teen idols POV pushing? [88] Just curious... Mad Jack 03:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't remove her because I don't like her.... I just thought she was more of a 90's teen actress, and played more adult roles in the 2000s (Of course she is still active, but Marie Antoinette isn't really teen idol material) Mad Jack 03:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Lara Veronin

I reverted this back to just "Taiwanese". As I said in my edit summary, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). We don't put the ethnicity or partial ethnicity in the header of the article. And there's no source cited that mentions her being Russian in any case Mad Jack 03:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Rename

As requested, I have renamed you as User:Certified.Gangsta. You should now move your userpages to the new name. Warofdreams talk 14:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)