User talk:Justindavila

Collective: Unconscious Theater

Hi there Justin, it seems fairly clear from your editing patterns that you're closely tied to Collective:Unconscious, so I would very strongly encourage you to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business. Further, I reverted your latest string of edits that added huge lists to the article, as these are clunky and add little to the article besides loading time. I would also strongly encourage you to add more independent, third-party sources to the article; as it stands, it is barely asserting notability, and can be put up for deletion if not improved. Feel free to ask if you have any questions. GlassCobra 03:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justin, you seem to be hell-bent on adding excessive lists and irrelevant information to the Collective:Unconscious article and the related Art Stars article, as well as adding links to CU in random actors' articles. Since one of the names you added to the member list was your own, I'm going to once again recommend that you read our conflict of interest guidelines. Please consider this to be an official warning; ideally, you should not be editing these articles at all, but adding the information on the talk pages for others to add. GlassCobra 21:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justin, I've reverted your edits once again; you claimed to have reviewed my recommendations, but the version you changed it to was exactly the same as your previous one. I will restate that you are in blatant violation of our conflict of interest guidelines, and your edits are adding nothing of value to the article. Vast lists of people involved with the group, adding excessive amounts of pictures to the text when they would be more organized in a gallery, as well as vague mentions of the Tribeca facility being "invaded by a viscous semisolid sewage entity with unknown origins, intentions, and affiliations" are neither relevant nor appropriate. Wikipedia is a serious academic tool, and your edits are not acceptable. I will be forced to issue you a short block if you continue to edit in this manner. GlassCobra 01:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Justin. Why do you keep asking him if that's his real name? Clearly his name is not Glass Cobra. That aside, in regard to the article in question, it's in need of a lot of work, and your participation on it is a conflict of interest. Please read over our WP:3RR policy, which speaks on when it's appropriate to revert the edits of others. As GlassCobra has noted above, if you continue to disregard these warnings, a block will be issued. So please take a moment to read over these linked policies. Regards, Jennavecia ^(Talk) 03:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justin, what you are now doing is called edit warring. This is particularly exascerbated by the fact that you are using misleading edit summaries to cover your tracks, like here and here. It is only because of your positive contributions in between these that I have not yet blocked you; however, please be aware that you are nearing three reverts, and if you exceed this threshold, your account will be blocked. GlassCobra 06:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justin, I've previously asked you to trust that GC and I know how to build articles here. Constantly reverting our improvements to the article is quickly growing tiresome, and is further exampling why working on this article is a conflict of interest for you.

Our image use policy states that image sizes are not to be specified. Details can be found here. We're also not a directory. We don't put addresses in articles unless the address is somehow notable. (1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, for example.) As for the info on the symbol, etc; that all needs references to reliable sources. We're attempting to work with you on this, to ensure that the article stays within our policies and guidelines, but if you continue to ignore our good faith efforts, I'm going to pull the COI card, preventing you from editing this article. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 03:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image sizes -- thx. --Justindavila (talk) 13:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise

Why don't you try to add the same content to the section, but without the infobox. Too many infoboxes make the article look gaudy. Clearly the information will improve the content, so why not focus on just improving those specific sections? Any thoughts? Synergy 15:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion, thx. --Justindavila (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban

You have been banned from editing the Collective:Unconscious article due to your tendentious edit warring with good faith editors. Jennavecia explained to you very clearly why your recent edits have been reverted, and you have clearly ignored her note. You may place sources and initiate discussion on the article's talk page, but if you edit the article again, you will have a short block placed on your account, lengthening each time you violate this ban. GlassCobra 18:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GlassCobra

GlassCobra, if that is your real name, you are in the wrong. I have worked with both you and Jennavecia, and responded explicitly to both your and her comments, in a good faith effort to establish a good article, again and again. Anyone can review the history of this article.

While I regret your abusively antagonistic stance, especially in light of your ignorance of this subject matter and arbitrary edits, you can expect an escalation to your superiors appropriate to your abuse of your role as Wikipedia editor, which may be called into question. Is this what you want? --Justindavila (talk) 19:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've already been over his nick. No need to keep questioning if "GlassCobra" is his birth name. You are restricted from editing Collective:Unconscious as you have a clear conflict of interest and efforts to work with you within policy and guidelines has failed. Changes you want made to the article can be requested on the talk page. This is not necessarily permanent, however. If efforts to improve the article run smoothly in this way, you will once again be able to edit the article when it is evident that you understand said policies and guidelines. Consistently reverting good faith edits to bring the article within standards is counter-productive to our goals here. As GlassCobra noted, if you fail to edit within this restriction, you will be temporarily blocked. I do hope to avoid this. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 19:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

Please stop edit warring over this article. While Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit, you are repeatedly inserting unsourced, biased and irrelevant material to this article. If you have any constructive suggestions for improving this article, please discuss them on the article's talk page. If you continue to edit disruptively, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. – iride scent 03:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 2008

You have been blocked for a period of 48 hours from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for adding spam links – see here – following your repeated warnings about your behaviour. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires; if you continue to add spam links after your block expires, you will be blocked indefinitely. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia and potentially penalized by search engines. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. – iride scent 14:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

we were actively discussing this topic. this block is complete overkill, bordering on admin abuse.

Decline reason:

You were under a topic ban for the subject Collective:Unconscious, which means that you are not permitted to edit in that subject. You edited the article Collective:Unconscious. Your unblock request does not indicate that you understand that you are banned from this topic, or that you would abide by the ban in the future, which makes a 48-hour block quite generous. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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).

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

Request reason:

the reason given for my blocking by Iridescent was "Spamming links to external sites: See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collective%3AUnconscious&diff=236027102&oldid=236005463." Totally silly. So just discuss or remove the link. Let's not get drunk with power here, admins, and forgive me for not being grateful for your "quite generous" 48-hour block. can we try this again?

Decline reason:

You have been warned many times that you have a conflict of interest with respect to the Collective: Unconscious article, as a former member. That you would, after claiming to read the guidelines, and having read many independent admins' assesment of your conflict as a real problem, add a false source claiming to back up article information but in fact simply soliciting funds for the organization in question is not reasonable and does indeed cross a line in my opinion. I don't consider the topic ban GlassCobra placed on you legitimate as it hasn't been formally discussed enough. However, you have been warned plenty about your conflict of interest and should have known that a blatantly promotional edit like that would land you in trouble. Mango juice^talk 15:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

the reason given for my blocking by Iridescent was "Spamming links to external sites: See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collective%3AUnconscious&diff=236027102&oldid=236005463." Totally silly. So just discuss or remove the link. Let's not get drunk with power here, admins, and forgive me for not being grateful for your "quite generous" 48-hour block. can we try this again?

I'm in the process of reviewing this. So far, I don't consider the "topic ban" here to be legitimate, as a ban is a formal sanction that requires more discussion and process than was the case here. Nonetheless, a block may have been perfectly reasonable given all the warnings you've had. Mango juice^talk 15:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't a discussion? I'm sorry; I missed that. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restricting him to using the talk page of the article until he showed that he had learned policy was an alternative to a COI block. He's been edit warring on the article, consistently ignoring the information regarding our policies and guidelines by reverting our changes, and dismissing repeated warnings of potential blocks with claims of admin abuse. I have repeatedly urged him to listen to our advice, trust that we know how to build articles, and to read the links we provide him in full. Despite explaining to him several times the COI issue, he consistently adds OR to the article and the last edit was to add a donation link. I strongly advise against unblocking. And if there's no restriction on him editing the article, I foresee him being quickly reblocked once his block expires. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 15:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I join with you in strongly suggesting that he stay away from editing the Collective: Unconscious page at all, and restrict himself to the talk page, because despite a lot of discussion, Justindavila is either ignoring his conflict or has very poor judgment about it. But I'm saying this because I want to help him avoid blocks for violating WP:COI, not because I think he ought to be blocked if he edits the article at all. Mango juice^talk 15:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ban from the article is to prevent him being blocked. That's what I've been attempting to avoid. Clearly he understand how to edit, as far as wikimarkup and referencing, which is fantastic. I was hoping to avoid tarnishing his block log, but he obviously did not take my good faith warnings seriously, which is unfortunate. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 16:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm right here -- this is my talk page.

Let's just work out issues as equals, without use of unnecessary admin-only powers. People of good faith can work out compromises, and this does not have to be a soap opera. Despite what could be construed as condescending admin comments such as the claim I have "very poor judgment," and the like, I generally appreciate the input from all interested parties for the benefit of a good article. The reality is that it is a better article for all this input.

This ban initiated by Iridescent, a self-proclaimed controversial administrator is a serious matter. In fact, it is overkill, bordering on admin abuse. I appeal to you admins to make things right, lift this ban, and allow us to work on the article together in the interests and spirit of your commitment to the principles of the sys-ops/admins.

Thank you.--Justindavila (talk) 16:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have read the conflict of interest guidelines, which ask us all not to write about things in which we have a personal connection. Those guidelines ask us not to edit at all in such articles, but instead, point out any factual inaccuracies on the talk page. After you read that rule, did you consider following it? After your 48-hour block expires, do you think you will be likely to follow that guideline? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that this editor has several times refused to acknowledge any conflict of interest on his part, I find this doubtful. GlassCobra 17:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, both of the administrators who responded to his unblock requests now have his talk page on their watchlists, so if, after the block expires, he is continuing to edit in a way that's disruptive, chances are that the next block will come more quickly and extend longer, if that's the way it goes. Obviously we'd all rather that he chooses not to disrupt the article, though. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The last posting, which is apparently the offense for which I am banned, was an external reference for the founding of the corporation and an independent source for its non-profit 501c3 status, responding to a request for [citation needed]. The article is essentially complete, and informative to the Wikipedia community. I have provided over 17 external references for this article, many from 'The New York Times'.

Where there are disagreements among fair-minded people, there can be discussion without use, or abuse, of admin-only powers by Wikipedia sysops/admins. Please be aware of the perception of abuse of power by admins.

I again appeal for an unblock. --Justindavila (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you ignored my question. I have to assume that was intentional, and that it indicates that you have not considered following the conflict of interest rules that you've been warned about so many times. Thanks; that information is useful. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

People of good faith can work out compromises, and this does not have to be a soap opera.

Decline reason:

reason — no — Rlevse • Talk • 21:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

You're exactly right, and that's exactly why you're blocked. Reasonable people use talk pages to work out compromises, and reconsider their position when it's clear their edits are not supported by consensus. – Luna Santin (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FisherQueen, despite your confrontational approach, let me answer your question directly. I am both clear with the Wikipedia conflict of interest guidelines and am also clear that I provided well-referenced information (about a dozen New York Times articles?) on a topic I was familiar with, which does not, in and of itself, preclude my posting of such a well-referenced article. The issues brought up by other editors and admins actually have nothing to do with factual accuracy, and have almost without exception been acknowledged and adhered to by myself and other editors as constructive.

On the topic of reasonable behavior, we should all concern ourselves with the appearance of bullying and abuse of power, including implied threats of additional blocks in the future, despite my copious efforts to work with your colleagues and the broader Wikipedia community, even now. All of our exchanges are made public record, subject to public scrutiny.

Let me appeal to you again. Are you sure we can't deal with this reasonably? Will you please remove this block?

Yes, I already understood that your answer was that you would not agree to follow the COI guidelines. Thank you, though, for letting me know that while accusing me of bullying and abuse of power. The blocks in your future aren't really threats; that's just what happens to users who won't edit in an appropriate way. Yes, we can deal with this reasonably- after your block expires, you can follow the COI guidelines and refrain from editing this article because of your conflict of interest. No, I won't remove this block, because you've made it clear that, if unblocked, you would go back to the same kind of editing that required the block in the first place. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've "made it clear that, if unblocked," I "would go back to the same kind of editing that required the block in the first place"? What on earth are you talking about? I have never said such a thing, I have never implied such a thing, and I've taken clear and demonstrable actions that completely refute that baseless claim.

I've followed the COI guidelines. I've taken advice from almost every editor and admins. While I had hoped to appeal to you in particular as an admin who by her statements risks being perceived as wantonly abusing her power, I will broaden my request to other admins who I trust are more reasonable. I implore you to stop abusing your power, expressing your gleeful delight in a temporary block, making wild and unsubstantiated claims about what I would do if unblocked. Instead I would ask you to please listen to and support a member of the Wikipedia community who wants to contribute in a meaningful way. --Justindavila (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It makes me laugh that you have accused me of 'wantonly abusing my power,' since I haven't touched even one of my admin buttons in regard to you. Haven't used my admin powers on you a bit. I'm sorry that you've misunderstood how COI applies to you, but I don't think my explaining it again will help, so I hope you have good luck finding people who are more like you think Wikipedians should be. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justin, the link you posted was a site soliciting donations for collective unconscious. It was not a publication, not a reliable source and it in any case it also had no information about Collective Unconscious, except its street address. If it hadn't been for that edit, my reaction to your unblock request might have been different. But you still continue to defend this edit as legitimate. Do you acknowledge that the link led to a site for donating to Collective Unconscious or not? And, what about that source leads you to the conclusion that it can be used to back up any information in the article? I'm afraid your continued defense of that edit, combined with your previous history of edit warring, is making you look very unreasonable. Mango juice^talk 18:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So change that edit! Please! I linked that in as an outside source for the status of Collective:Unconscious as a 501c3 non-profit org and for its reference to its date of establishment. If that was a mistake, then I made a mistake. It does not justify this response. I am delighted to have a serious conversation about the article instead of this flame war, especially with admins who are quick to use their admin-only powers. Let's please be reasonable here. Thank you.--Justindavila (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge you are now saying that edit was a "mistake." What I want to know is why you thought that source backs up the claim that the group is a 501c3 non-profit. There is nothing on the page that says that. Mango juice^talk 19:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We were hardly quick in using our "powers." Multiple editors have tried to work with you and explain why your edits are incorrect, but you did not heed our advice. Your talk page is clear evidence of this, as well as the article's talk page and history. GlassCobra 19:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Error and apologies. That page is a portal for processing tax-deductable donations to 501c3 non-profits, which I added in response for an explicit request for citation ("citation needed"), which was apparently an error. Can we simply remove it and move on with our lives?

I've taken advice from every editor, and as a group the contributors have clearly, collectively come to agreement. I sincerely hope that certain admins have more interest in helping other editors than using admin-only powers to punish them, and appreciate the difference between advice and decree. Let's please work together, reasonably. Thank you. --Justindavila (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia deals with a lot of users who make mistakes. Normally they don't get to the point of being blocked for them: what typically happens is that someone notices the mistake, cautions the user against it on their talk page, and then the problem stops. It's when users repeatedly, over and over, fail to get the message that we have to resort to blocks to stop the problem. That's what this is. And when we get a case where a user just doesn't understand the problem even when many admins have tried to explain the situation, the user typically gets to be blocked indefinitely. I don't want to see that happen to you, but it will, if you don't start taking this more seriously. So, no, we can't just "move on" because now that you've made so many mistakes you had to be blocked, you cannot be unblocked unless it's clear you won't repeat your bad edits. This was not just an error, it was one (or several) errors too many, after you had plenty of caution, warning, and education about the rules here. Mango juice^talk 20:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The blocked user might find the Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks helpful. — Athaenara ✉ 21:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, Athaenara ✉ --Justindavila (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your page has been protected for 40 hours for unblock abuse. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion on IRC, I've unprotected so long as he doesn't use unblock. --Golbez (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Justindavila (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(borrowed from Rlevse page) Hello, can you explain why you "protected" my own talk page for 40 hours, please? Thank you. --Justindavila (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Unblock abuse and you weren't listening to what several admins were telling you. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Is the only way for a user to avoid a ban or block to "listen" to "what several admins were telling" that user? Can you explain your understanding of this particular situation (as long as my question does not lead to your banning or blocking my own talk page)?. Thank you --Justindavila (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You're allowed 2, maybe 3 unblock requests, you hit the limit and your conduct on your talk page was not indicating it was going to stop. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you identify where you other other admins identified this numerical limit to me, or where this was identified in any other official unblock discussions, hopefully more definitive than "You're allowed 2, maybe 3 unblock requests," as you (perhaps arbitrarily? certainly at least 'unreferenced') commented? Also, can you point out how you came to the conclusion that my "talk page was not indicating it was going to stop," despite my efforts to work with you and other admins to resolve all identified issues? Looking forward to your response. Thank you. --Justindavila (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Admin Rlevse admitted on his talk page that there is no such thing as a policy of "You're allowed 2, maybe 3 unblock requests." I did not want the conversation to go unanswered on my talk page. --Justindavila (talk) 21:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rlevse did not point out a specific numerical limit to you because there isn't one. You were judged to have abused the unblock template because you used it several times during the discussion, insisting that this didn't have to be a "soap opera," despite the fact that you were the one making it so. Rlevse's note of "two or three" unblock requests is indeed noted precedent; if the user requires that many requests, they're clearly missing the message. GlassCobra 22:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Wikipedian template

ke This template isn't a celebration of someone famous editing the site. It's used to indicate to those visiting the page that someone with a potential COI to that article is a Wikipedian and may, and in this case has, edited the article. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 16:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And how do I have a COI, exactly? --justindavila (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've been over this so many times. The fact that you refuse to grasp it doesn't help you any. In that you took a sewage problem and wrote it into a fictitious sewage monster story; edit warred to keep the street address; edit warred to keep in original research about the logo; edit warred, marking others' edits as vandalism, to remove line break code and replace it with line breaks; accused admins of abusing their tools repeatedly for attempting to get you to edit constructively on the article; the fact that you believed a donation link was an appropriate source; your obvious ownership issues; etc. are all clear indications of a conflict of interest and have twice now gotten you blocked. Ergo, incessantly repeating this question has become just as pointless and disruptive as you consistently questioning whether or not "GlassCobra" is that admin's real name. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 19:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your LinkedIn profile indicates that you are associated with this organization. This person identifies you as a director of the organization. Your membership in the organization is a conflict of interest as defined on Wikipedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jennavecia ^(Talk), refusal to grasp is different than refusal to agree. I hope we can agree on that, at least. Sewage comment corrected. Street address removed. Logo issue dropped. (I marked others edits as vandalism? Sorry, I was accused of vandalism for inserting some line breaks.) Line breaks removed. Link to donation site was a specific request for a citation for 501c3 non-profit status, and removed. No ownership issues. Any blocks issued by the admins involved do not in and of themselves mean they are justified outside of that handful of admins involved in this issue. FisherQueen, the fact that I was among many dozen people who volunteered for this non-profit part time for a few years over the 14 years of the organization, when the article provided literally dozens of external references, most of them from the New York Times, does not justify this block as per conflict of interest, and certainly does not justify a block for a simple "{ { - } }" edit. Again, this is a block for simple "{ { - } }" edit, and again this block is unjustified. --justindavila (talk) 03:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only warning

This is your only warning. You've been told repeatedly that your contributions to the C:U article have become nonconstructive. Your abuse of TW marking good edits as vandalism is further inappropriate editing. Any additional disruption on that article or elsewhere will result in a block. Use the article talk page if you see changes to be made to the article. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 19:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruptive editing. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to participate at Wikipedia primarily to edit an article in which you have a conflict of interest. You continue to undo other users' edits and to edit disruptively; you're even removing a useful line break and labelling it as vandalism. Your edits are still disruptive. I have therefore given you a longer block. When your block expires, you should only edit articles in which you don't have a conflict of interest, which means that you should stop editing Collective:Unconscious. Also, you should avoid undoing other users' edits unless those edits are obvious vandalism. Thank you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Hi, admins. The act of adjusting some line breaks is abuse of editing privileges now? Also, where has it been established that I have a conflict of interest? (It's especially ironic that the block was placed under the heading "Only warning" without a chance for me to respond). Can some nice admin kindly unblock me? I'll hereby leave that page alone, hereby formally acknowledging the power of admins (especially GlassCobra talk, and Jennavecia User talk:Jennavecia, and especially FisherQueen talk) but this does not warrant blocking me from the entirety of Wikipedia, let's be fair. I'm counting on some rational admin will do the right thing here. (Also, please don't block my talk page, although I am formally acknowledging the power of admins to do so!) Thanks so much! --justindavila (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You've been warned (and blocked) for disruption on this article before. The line breaks are there for a reason; marking them as vandalism is not appropriate. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks for agreeing that "marking [these line breaks] as vandalism is not appropriate." Kindly unblock me? Thanks. --justindavila (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justin, the template you removed is a code for line breaks. You've already been warned repeatedly to stop editing the article, yet you continue. Conflict of interest. You cannot edit the article constructively at this point. You have made that much obvious. You're not heeding our advice. Running in circles is not helping you any. And comments such as the above are not helpful. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 00:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Thanks for agreeing that "marking [these line breaks] as vandalism is not appropriate." Kindly unblock me? Thanks.

Decline reason:

No reason given. Clearly, you're not taking this seriously. — Jennavecia ^(Talk) 23:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jennavecia ^(Talk), thanks for responding. I hope you'll respond to the following specific questions: 1) Do you consider adjusting line breaks vandalism? 2) What is the basis of your claim that I have conflict of interest, besides your simple claim, or the simple claims of GlassCobra talk? 3) Considering that I continue to make effort to resolve this, including this discussion and sincere request to not block me from all of Wikipedia for simply adjusting line breaks on this particular article, how can you claim I am not taking this seriously? (Clearly you or other admins can block my talk page with admin-only powers. Please don't do this.) 4) Are you being fair, or are you using your admin-only powers against an editor who has no such powers? Thanks. --justindavila (talk) 00:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She answered your first question already; the answers to all of the other questions are already on this talk page. Some of them three or four times. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jennavecia (Talk), refusal to grasp is different than refusal to agree. I hope we can agree on that, at least. Sewage comment corrected. Street address removed. Logo issue dropped. (I marked others edits as vandalism? Sorry, I was accused of vandalism for inserting some line breaks.) Line breaks removed. Link to donation site was a specific request for a citation for 501c3 non-profit status, and removed. No ownership issues. Any blocks issued by the admins involved do not in and of themselves mean they are justified outside of that handful of admins involved in this issue. FisherQueen, the fact that I was among many dozen people who volunteered for this non-profit part time for a few years over the 14 years of the organization, when the article provided literally dozens of external references, most of them from the New York Times, does not justify this block as per conflict of interest, and certainly does not justify a block for a simple "{{-}}" edit. Again, this is a block for simple "{{-}}" edit, and again this block is unjustified. --justindavila (talk) 03:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's all been answered before. Iridescent answered the question about line breaks, then I later answered it. I'm not answering it again. I and others have repeatedly given you very specific reasons as to why you have a COI. And I'm being completely fair. I've not used my admin "powers", and using them against editors who don't have them is very much the point of them. If admins were limited to using their tools on other admins... well, that just wouldn't make sense at all. And you're not blocked for that simple edit. You're blocked because you reverted an editor who replaced line breaks with a template to more efficiently serve the same purpose, and you did that revert with an edit summary labeling it as vandalism. Iridescent reverted you, explaining in her edit summary why the template is appropriate. You then reverted her with the same edit summary you used before, labeling her edit as vandalism. Your edits were not labeled as vandalism. That's what you did to their edits. You are blocked for 1/ abusing the TW gadget to label good edits as vandalism as you inappropriately revert them and 2/ because these edits took place on an article you've been told not to edit anymore. Once your block lifts, do not edit the article. Use its talk page. Any further disruption will meet yet another block. And I correct my earlier statement. It's not so much running in circles as it is spiraling out. Because each block will be longer than the one before. So stop asking the same questions, stop ignoring and twisting. Stop hyperbolizing what adminship is and how it's being used on you. Just listen to what we're telling you, follow our policies, guidelines and advice, or understand that you may end up wearing out your welcome. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 03:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Admins, please unblock. In response to each point in Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing by FisherQueen, as 1) there has been no tendentious: as I have not continued editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors (I have accepted every change, and this ltest issues is a bout a line break, not content). 2) it did not fail to meet Wikipedia:Verifiability; fail to cite sources, cite unencyclopedic sources, misrepresented reliable sources, or manufactured original research (there are 18 verifiable sources, most of them being the New York Times 3) it did not Engage in "hostile cite-tagging"; uses a "scattershot" method of adding ^{[citation needed]} tags to an article and announces an intention to delete large portions of the article if other editors do not immediately find citations to support the material thus tagged. 4) it did not reject community input, moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators (virtually all edits.) We're talking about line breaks here, people. Do not abuse admin-only power. Please unblock. Thanks.

Decline reason:

Absolutely not. Your ridiculous Wikilawyering to attempt to get out of your block is not going to be tolerated. Sit out your block, then come back and collaborate constructively as multiple editors have advised you. — GlassCobra 04:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

Can I get an unbiased admin to review, please (other than GlassCobra talk, and Jennavecia talk, and FisherQueen talk)? The purpose of { { unblock } } is to exactly to make a case -- please read contest this block. I did. Your accusation of wikilawyering is unfounded and unexplained, and your tone is condescending and unprofessional. I appeal to other admins to kindly ublock. Thanks. --justindavila (talk) 15:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I've never heard of you before or seen you before, so I can have no bias, other than towards the good of Wikipedia. Sit out your block and follow the excellent advice so many people have given you. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Could I trouble you to speak directly to the merits of my appeal before rendering your judgment on this "excellent advice"? Thanks. --justindavila (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just say that I believe you haven't understood why you were blocked. In the first place, you were repeatedly, appropriately cautioned about editing the Collective: Unconscious article. You haven't edited it much since you were previously unblocked; just two edits, both of them reverts. Those reverts were ill-conceived and contentious for no particularly good reason... which shows a worrying battle-oriented mindset. But most importantly, the Twinkle button you used to perform those reverts makes edit summaries that describe the edits you were reversing as vandalism. So you were actually editing the article very aggressively, accusing others of vandalism when their edits were perfectly reasonable. (You seem to have misunderstood this -- your comments seem to imply that you thought others were calling your edits vandalism. This is not the problem.) You mentioned earlier that you would leave the article alone. Would you agree to accept a topic ban against editing that article? Mango juice^talk 17:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. In fact I did misunderstand this, and I apologize for any ensuing unnecessary hassle here. Neither I nor any other editors vandalized this article, in my opinion. I would request that any ban be limited to this article, and not affect the article "discussion" page nor my own "talk" page. Thank you. --justindavila (talk) 19:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there is going to be a topic ban, it should be extended to Art Stars and likely most, if not all, Manhattan performing arts topics. GlassCobra 20:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin GlassCobra, do you have evidence of COI on Art Stars in particular or "Manhattan performing arts topics" in general? Thanks. --justindavila (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Are there edits you're concerned about? Mango juice^talk 19:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate edits

Per everything above, if you make another edit like this, you will be blocked from editing once more. لenna vecia 07:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin لenna vecia, thank you for the extraordinary and thorough editorial attention to this article by you and Admin GlassCobra . I noticed that for some reason Admin GlassCobra removed the links to both Lower East Side and Tribeca Wikipedia articles, and also the capitalization of the word "Reality" in the phrase "Surf Reality" (a formal noun). May I please have your permission to restore these edits, or may I ask you to please restore said edits? I look forward to your response as part of your continued and remarkable attention to this article. Best, --justindavila (talk) 12:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. – iride scent 21:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 01:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Revjen.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Revjen.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Redsky89 (talk) 05:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Cuchotailor2.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Cuchotailor2.jpg, which you've attributed to Collective Unconscious. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Cucho tailor.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Cucho tailor.jpg, which you've attributed to Collective Unconscious. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 17:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Justindavila. 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]

File:Autohistorical1999.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Autohistorical1999.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]