This is an archive of past discussions about User:MarcusBritish. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

→

Thanks for the review

Hello Marcus thank you very much for reviewing my article, im a newbie here. i just want to ask how can i send or publish my reliable sources like books. Do i need to scan it if yes where should i send it? thanks again hope you will answer my question.

Joey Joeymcortina (talk) 11:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you asking how to create a References section with a Bibliography in it? All you need to do is list your books, within the {{cite book}} template, and it will create a formatted entry:

== References ==

*{{cite book|first=Marcus|last=British|title=A Book of Wiki|year=2010|publisher=Pulp Books|location=London|isbn=987-0123456789}}

*{{cite book|first=Ann|last=Example|title=Book of the Year|year=1995|publisher=Wiki Books|location=New York|isbn=987-1111111110}}

Results in:

References

British, Marcus (2010). A Book of Wiki. London: Pulp Books. ISBN 987-0123456789. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid prefix (help)
Example, Ann (1995). Book of the Year. New York: Wiki Books. ISBN 987-1111111110. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid prefix (help)

For citations to display, use the {{Reflist}} with in-line <ref>Author, pp. 1–50</ref> tags, as explained in WP:CITE. For referencing websites, use {{cite web}}.

Ma®©usBritish ^[Talk][RFF] 15:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello again marcus, thank you for the reply, i have a question what if the book that i would put as a reference has no ISBN number because it was publish in year which ISBN number is not yet available. Joeymcortina (talk) 01:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

You can skip it - ISBN is not a required parameter, even on newer books. Look at {{cite book}} template, it will tell you what info is required - in this case, only Title is required. Anything else is optional. But, the more you can include, the better. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 01:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi marcus! thanks for your help i just edit my article and Im hoping you will review it again thanks a lot. Im waiting for your reply ..

Well, at the moment it's what we consider a stub class article, i.e. short and minimal. If you're planning to expand it further, with a few more paragraphs then it would quickly become a Start-class article with more content and such. Depending on if you plan to do that, I would recommend you use in-line citations to support the text from your sources. Though that depends on if you have much more information in those 3 books about him to be able to use to expand it much more. If not, there's little else can be done at this stage but leave it as a stub, for now. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 08:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello marcus, i finish putting the stub template in my article. what is the next step that i should do? and again i just want to say thank you for your help. Joeymcortina (talk) 03:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

If you're happy that it's complete, not much else to do; I've removed the unreviewed banner and done a few minor copy-edits. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 04:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

wow thats great!! thank you so much marcus for your help.. im really excited for my first article. Joeymcortina (talk) 04:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem! Thanks, Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 04:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

just another question marcus. when will my article goes live? i mean if i search it on google my article will appear. thanks a again. Joeymcortina (talk) 04:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It already is live, it's a mainspace article. It may take time to appear on Google, as it all depends on when Googlebot crawls it and lists it, which could be a few hours, days, or could even be few weeks, I don't think Wiki has any control over that. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 05:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

i see.. thank you so much marcus! now im thinking of putting my 2nd article. hope you will help me again. Joeymcortina (talk • contribs) 05:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, will do. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 06:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi again marcus.. well i have a question for you it seems like i cant search my article here in wikipedia is it because i didnt put a title of my artilce? if so how to add the title? i will appreciate your replay thanks.. Joeymcortina (talk) 06:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Try now. Sorry, I thought it was mainspace already - have moved it. Will come up in Wiki search now, and Google sometime in the near future. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 07:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

thanks marcus! its now appearing in google. thanks so much! Joeymcortina (talk • contribs) 09:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay good to hear. May I suggest you have a read of WP:SIGHOW – just that a bot is always signing your comments, so it would be useful for you to see how you can easily sign your own; for future reference. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 09:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you again for your editing, suggestions, and review of Eric Thal article

Hello MarcusBritish,

Thank you again for all of your assistance in creating this article. I feel well-prepared for the procedure to follow in the future in writing other articles, or in editing existing ones. You've been very helpful. I appreciate your knowledge and your direction.

Best wishesTimber 57 (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, glad to have been of service. —Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 22:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Your revert on Talk:HMS Vanguard (23)

Hi Marcus - any particular reason for this? Where content may be unsuitable for an article, it's quite common to move it to the talk page instead. It's less bitey than just deleting it, and it can give a chance for the contributor to place it somewhere more appropriate or discuss and perhaps improve it. Best, EyeSerene^talk 08:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

What the heck? I never did that.. I don't even read battleship articles! Sorry, can't explain that one... Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 08:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Heh, gremlins :) I'll go ahead and restore that section then. EyeSerene^talk 09:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I wish I knew.. but I don't have a clue. I don't read many WW2 articles, even when I do it's usually not battleships as naval battles don't interest me much, not even Napoleonic ones - couldn't tell you a thing about Trafalgar apart from Nelson beat the French and died, and that's all I know.. so I can't see why I'd be reading any naval talk pages without good cause, let along reverting your comments. Very odd and confusing. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 09:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Just been looking at my edits round that time - it was apparently my first edit yesterday, but the one straight after was my actual first edit, that I know I did. I could understand if I'd done it accidentally with Twinkle, but my point is that I wouldn't even be looking at the article in the first place.. as far as I know I was either asleep, just waking up or making a coffee and feeding cats at that time, then I responded to the Thanks comment above. Maybe I'm going senile? =\ Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 09:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've figured it out - I probably woke up and went to check if you had replied on your talk page to my Napoleon feedback request, and whilst moving over the screen have accidentally double-tapped on a [rollback] link against the contrib which was reverted, and I've not noticed. That's the only logical solution I can come up with. NB: Before making coffee, so half-dead still! Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 09:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It's easily done, especially for functions with no confirmation dialogue or when working on multiple tabs. I was blocked once due to a similar set of circumstances, and I've nearly done the same thing once or twice myself. It happens :) EyeSerene^talk 10:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, a whole minute! :) Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 14:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Nick decided I wasn't a block-evading sock puppet after all :) EyeSerene^talk 09:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Jul-Sep 2011

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period Jul-Sept 2011, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. Buggie111 (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Regards, Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 19:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Portal:Napoleonic Wars

Hi Marcus, what a great, great idea! Thanks for inviting me. I hope it will provide a framework to unite all the brilliant Napoleonic editors that we have here and help create a "community" that will work better together. Cheers, --Alexandru Demian (talk) 07:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Been working in it all night - knackered - BUT, it's looking good, I think, so been worth it. Needs a lot more setup work - I have 7 battles added which will rotate daily - I want 31, in time, for 1-a-day to cover a month length rotation, which will mean less maintaintence once it's fully running. There are 7 bios, which will do for now, I expect 31 decent bio articles would be harder to find than 31 battles, so I've just got some of the better known generals. Working on a random DYK box, rather than 7-day rotational, now - took me a while to get my head round the wiki markup documentation for it. Personally, I think that a period as big as the French Revolutionary/Napoleonic Era c. 1792–1815 deserves it's own "Special Project", like the other 4 Specials on MilHist, although a couple of them aren't as popular as they must have expected, unfortunately. I'm disappointed the American's don't do much with the American Civil War special project, as that is my other favourite military piece. But for now this portal is a good start for Napoleonic .. may consider initiating bigger things later, afterall, it's Waterloo's "200" year anniversary in 3 years. :) Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 08:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It's all great work, Marcus. Regarding the bios, you are perhaps acquainted with User:Djmaschek and User:Auntieruth55. They both write high-quality biographies of generals (mainly French and Austrian). Some of the most famous generals they wrote about are: Johann von Klenau (FA-class), Frédéric Henri Walther, Louis Henri Loison, Jean Gabriel Marchand. I've also written a quite long biography of Étienne Marie Antoine Champion de Nansouty. I'm not far from finishing an article about the Battle of Wagram and then intend to work on an extensive biography of Marshal Masséna. So, yes, lots of exciting projects coming up. Again, thanks a lot for your dedicated and hard work. The portal looks great! Cheers, --Alexandru Demian (talk) 10:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not acquainted with anyone, really - I've only left a couple of the "new portal" banners on a few talk pages, mostly from the NW task from list who are active, and MilHist coords. It should pick up soon enough. Once it's more ready, I'll be adding the formal "portal" link atop the main Napoleonic Wars article, anyway - not not yet, while it's still being developed.

Saw your Wagram article. Looks good. Have been working one one myself - same style as Wellington's battle record, only Napoleon's. Much more in-depth military career though, so it taking me a long time to put together. Started the portal to take a break from it, for a day or two, then can go back focused. Am adding a GA randomiser too, seeing as there are over 100 GA's on the NW task force list, they deserve a box, but not all at once, random pick makes it more fun and less crowded. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 10:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure it will trigger some fresh interest. I'll do my best to develop some of the battle articles. I was meaning to write a more in-depth account of some of the more dramatic battles. Those at Bautzen, Hanau or Gorssbeeren have been on my list anyway for a while. Leipzig and Dresden also need some attention and the they are captivating too. They need more time though as they are very complex and large and had dramatic consequences. I'll see what I can do over the next weeks and keep you posted. Best, Alex --Alexandru Demian (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

EditorReviewArchiver: Automatic processing of your editor review

This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 5 October 2011 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7 days. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding  to the review page will prevent further automated actions. AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured portal review/Napoleonic Wars

Featured portal review are for featured portals that have concern and waiting to be delisted, not potential portals seeking for a featured status. Try featured portal candidates instead. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Done — thanks! Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 02:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Re-written an article but wish to have it reviewed before i move on to another one.

Hi, Re-written an article but wish to have it reviewer before i move on to another one. I started to work on the Carbonite but have paused to know my quality on re-writing. Please give me some feedback's when you find time. Thanks. Pearll'sSun^TALK 04:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Done – see Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 October 3#SOS Online Backup Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 09:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, i have removed some promotional words, please let me know the areas that i make changes to make the article neutral.Pearll's Sun^TALK 18:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It was still too promotional, far too many links to sign-up pages and such. Have copy-edited it. Recommend you expand the raw URLs cited, to prevent link rot. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 21:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much, will follow your reviewing style and will fix my method's of rewriting. Sure. Will add url's where necessary and wont leave it to link rot. Once again thanks.Pearll's Sun^TALK 21:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

edit warring over templates

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please stop edit warring over the templates - there is no hurry or even a good reason to remove them. Off2riorob (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe you were the one who instigated the war editing, do not cast aspersions that reflect your own behaviour. If you have a reason, explain it, but don't push your nonsensical commentary on me, sonny-jim, I ain't in the slightest bit interested. Use the talk page and justify reasons as to why COI exists on WP:N does not, don't enforce them like some jumped up admin. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 17:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion as you can see has been closed on my talkpage and considering your attacking comments at this time please do not post on my talkpage for the forseeable future, thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you want me to salute or heil you, sir? Perhaps shine your shoes, and flush your latrine? Do you WP:OWN anything else you'd like people to stay clear of? Any more new articles you'd like to plant a flag on, or newbies you'd like to WP:BITE? Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 18:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Portal Barnstar
		I, Sp33dyphil, hereby award MarcusBritish for their good work on the Napoleonic Wars portal. Sp33dyphil © • © 07:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Phil, much appreciated!

Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 07:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

No problems. Please set aside some minutes to display your appreciation for others' volunteering effort on Wikipedia for me. Sp33dyphil © • © 09:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, I have my own criteria for issuing Barnstars, and such, every so often. I like to use them sparingly to encourage future efforts, as well as to appraise outstanding contribs, where necessary. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 11:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Chevrons

		The WikiChevrons
		I don't give these out very often, but I've been consistently impressed by your contributions to MilHist over the last few months. The thoughtful input you provide, both in internal discussions and in your advice to newbies, is truly impressive. I hope you enjoy what you do on Wikipedia, because your contributions are greatly appreciated. Best, HJ Mitchell \| Penny for your thoughts? 18:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you HJ Mitchell, I appreciate that very much!

Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 19:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for Julie Zetlin edits

Hi, there-

Thanks for re-working the references for the entry on rhythmic gymnast Julie Zetin. I have taken a look at the code and will work to make my future reflists more efficient.

Best-

Seandalytx (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

No probs, thanks, Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 06:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Le souper

no worries dude Tom B (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results
Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content
Book reviews: Nick-D and Ian Rose look at Australian air power
Op-ed: Buggie111 ruminates about WikiLife and WikiDeath

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Case

Hi MarcusBritish, I am sorry I offend you and I apologise for my out-of-line comments. FYI, one Admin said "the CU data has me thinking twice about this case" and another Admin said "All the non-stale accounts look Unrelated." in [1]. I am very grateful for your expertise, help and assistance. I know things will not be these same between you and I but I wanted to thank you for your guidance. Thank you very much. Domenico.y (talk) 02:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y

I already saw the investigation - but admins have their opinions, and I have mine, which means I don't necessarily share their thoughts or come to the same conclusions. Also, I wasn't offended. Takes a lot more than that to offend me. I simply found it an over-reactive remark that was not appropriate to the situation. You go out your way to defend yourself and the articles you are involved with too much sometimes, and it can often come across more as a guilty conscience than a sincere defence. You need to sit back and go with the flow sometimes. That investigation, for example, had already reached a conclusion, but you still went and posted a huge list of remarks and stressed points which didn't need posting, because the matter was already dropped and case closed. It simply raises fresh suspicions, against you, when you do that too often. More self-control, less self-pity, is all I can recommend. You don't need to explain, apologise or defend every action on wiki unless there is need to do so. Even then, it should be more to the point. Aim to resolve the matter, not clear your conscience or blame others. The "bullying" thing with JasperDeng and ConcernedVancouverite has long worn thin, and has also gone.. stale, i.e. wiki and "old news" don't mix. Read Wikipedia:Don't spite your face if you want to understand your position more. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 03:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

List assessment criteria

Any update on the status of the MilHist List assessment criteria? Any chance I could get a preliminary version? Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 18:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it has been implemented. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators#Implementation of "list" flag and List-Class for the details on how it has been added and can be applied to list articles. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 18:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Dom

Hi MarcusBritish,

I know you are trying to help. I don't think Being Born Again Couture Fashion Show can be rescued and I am fine with that. I have my article on "77-Pieces" to do. I am not OliviaBlond and we don't "share accounts" - she is in Sydney, Australia and I am in the USA. Check the IP address please. I really don't like being called a "dummy".

Thank you.

Domenico.y (talk) 00:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y

No one called you "a dummy", I said 'plays "the dummy"' – i.e. you're putting on an act. Clearly I've hit the bullseye, as you've moved quickly to try and conceal my concern. No matter, it's in the history now for other editors and admins to consider. I work for the better of wiki, where disruptive behaviour is concerned. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 00:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you check the IP addresses then? That will prove I am not OliviaBlond. Domenico.y (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y

Again, I did not at any point say you were OliviaBlond! I said, and I quote: "I see mentions of sock puppetry, and meat puppetry – however, I'm going to slip in a new line of thought here: Domenico.y is a shared account being used by several people". Where in there is OliviaBlond mentioned... please, do tell! If you're going to defend a point, at least defend a genuine one! I said "shared account" – which means, and you know damn well what it means, "an account used by more than one person" – I didn't name anyone, so you have no cause to put OliviaBlond in there. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 01:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Addlepated

Thanks--that one was new to me! Drmies (talk) 05:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, such a colourful word, especially when used alliteratively!

Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 07:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

FP Review

Hi, I'm just checking some remaining items and the final result should be ready by tomorrow. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

After my evaluation on the portal, I have promoted it to feature status. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 12:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Nincompoops

First of all, many thanks for your thoroughly evenhanded observations and help in regards to Dom, Olivia, Davina, BBA, iClothing, and any other fruit in that basket I'm forgetting. You've given them way more time than they merited, but I think that's what they required. And sometimes you say rather clever stuff that makes a little beer shoot from my nose.

Right now, it looks like the central figure in this might have thrown in the towel, along with some nincompoop confirmation along the lines of "I can't control what's here, so just delete it."[2][3] So maybe the end is near indeed. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 02:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I've been watching Dom's contribs this week and noticed his lack of edits. Personally, I think he/they thought I was some kind of naive idiot who would buy every tale they told and defend every move they made. Quite foolish of them not only to under-estimate me, but to sow seeds of deception and attempt to manipulate things via socks, etc. I guess I played "AGF" to its full extent, and this is the thanks I get. Not that I'm bothered.. he had his chance.. but once people dig their own graves, they have to lie in them, I don't do second chances. Clearly he got the message from my last rebuke and "Delete" vote – lost the only crutch he thought he had to support him. "Davina R" account is the predecessor to "Domenico.y". He's only using it to mask his behaviour, in case he wants to return. If I was an admin, I'd look for a reason to block one or both for socking. Needless to say, I only lost faith in him, not myself, and I expect those AFDs will carry through soon and free up some of the resources they wasted. I don't know why "Rescue" are bothering with them, for all the good it's done. Hopefully, as you say, this will be an end to the matter. Sorry to waste your beer – I can't resist sarcasm and frankness, instead of getting angry, even if it does come close to PA – a curse of being British, we're so self-deprecating that we don't hesitate to make our opinions known to others!

Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 02:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

ANI etc

Marcus, I'm a bit saddened at how you responded; you almost totally disavowed what you said earlier and wormed your way around my comments in ways I didn't expect from you. It is obvious that Black Kite and I were the only admins in that discussion who were breaking a lance for WebHamster, and it is equally obvious, then, that we should take your comment personally. No, you didn't put those names forward, technically--but again, come on. And when you say, about Black Kite, "I sympathise with him, because it shouldn't have to come to that," the rest of your answer clearly indicates that Black Kite shouldn't have unblocked him, so you can only sympathize with him for being him--the weak admin who was swayed by WebHamster, who is "like" TreasuryTag. BTW, he isn't: TT was a drama board regular, and neither Hamster nor his Oboe were.

But I've spent too much time, yours and mine, on this. I'm not here to pick a fight with you. I appreciate your use of 'addlepated' in the subsequent discussion. But I also think you were wrong, and you were barking up the wrong tree. Aligning yourself with some conspiracy theory about editors and weak-balled administrators is not a productive way in this particular case, no matter what you might think of Hamster or anyone else, and I think your comments didn't improve the level of discussion. If you want to think of me (without saying so) as Malleus's bitch or something like that, you are free to do so. I just think it's a really strange conclusion to draw. And yes, I know you never drew it explicitly. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

Curious, how could you know "what to expect of me" when our paths have never crossed previously, to the best of my knowledge, to allow you to determine my reaction? Why so surprised anyway, I don't recall condemning you?
My "sympathy" for BK is nothing to do with the actual unblocking action, but that he acted in response to faux-good faith from WH, and as a result has been scorned. Like lending cash to someone who you believe is going to spend it wisely and repay you.. but they use it maliciously and there is no return.
WH may not be TT yet, but he's getting there. I see no reason to give him a runway. Unblocking him will only give him that chance.
I reiterate that I did not support ORob's "conclusions" that several people were scratching each other's backs. Only that I support his right to present that observation. How else do you suppose to determine meatpuppets if not by hinting at.. close associations? I don't like ORob, for reasons unimportant here, but I think PoD was out of line. He clearly holds a grudge from conflicts based on his interests in BNP members.
The tree was not mine - it had already barked up. Then pissed on by a bad dog. I made sure an axe wasn't taken to it also.
I don't know of Malleus, or his colleagues, so I don't judge shared-opinions. I object to the spin employed by PoD. I have never implied that MF has "bitches", nor have I ever directly, indirectly or rhetorically hinted at the possibility - because I don't know any of you.
I know you don't intend to fight. That would be impossible. Because, for the most part, I don't know who or what you are talking about!

So there you have it. Care to differ? Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 00:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

- There's three ironic things here, really. Firstly, I'm one of those admins that doesn't assume good faith all the time, and I've been Wiki-slapped before for blocking people who whined about it afterwards. Secondly, I work with vulnerable kids, and I use Wikipedia a lot to help their learning. If I thought any of them would be offended by the word "fuck" I wouldn't be doing this. Thirdly, there's no "faux good faith" here. I was quite clear with WH - if he fucked us around again, I'd block him myself. Black Kite (t) 01:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't AGF myself all the time, it's a naive concept per se to AGF when it's clear someone is taking the piss. Kids aren't vulnerable to bad language, only to its effects. I simply don't see the need for it on Wiki - to me it's contrary to "Wiki is not a forum" where idle-talk and swearing should be thrown around daily. But I see overly exposing kids to bad language as shoving cigarettes and alcohol down their necks. Most bad language derives from sexual context, but also when kids hear it, they want to use it. It simply doesn't set a good example, imo. And if you don't feel Wiki is the type of place to set a good example, then Wiki ceases to be an educational website, and might as well just be a forum for common chat, trolling and aggravated abuse. Teachers don't want swearing in the classroom, and I don't see the need for it on Wiki. I'm not anti-swearing, by any means.. but there's a time and a place. He uses it to offend and attack, not to "make a point", and it's not a habit. Typing is not spontaneous behaviour when there's the ability to review/edit. As I said above.. give him an inch and he'll take a mile, and he'll take you down with him. People like that don't take prisoners, and have no sense of loyalty. They should be conscripted. As I also said, I sympathise with you for this last reason - you're giving him credit, but he's not thankful. Don't believe otherwise. If it comes to the crunch, he won't back you. He'll use you as a shield, but there's no respect in his words for anyone on Wiki. Not a soul. You sound like you want to give him enough rope to hang himself with. Why prolong the agony and make others endure his abuse? Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 01:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with you, except for the fact that while he was editing quietly away as TPO, none of this was a problem ... except when - eventually - he got into an argument - I blocked him myself for swearing at people when that happened. But if he hadn't stuck his head above the parapet with the rather daft WP:Run to Mommy stuff, no-one would still have been any the wiser about who he was (well apart from those who did know, which includes me after I poked through his contribs when I blocked him). Given that, he is capable of editing productively and non-confrontationally, and he's proved it. Hence why I - and Jehochman - thought it was optimal to give him one more chance. We're really not naive. Black Kite (t) 02:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you're not. But everyone is fallible, and it's easy to "believe in someone" in the hopes that your faith will be rewarded and rise you up above the countless vindictive remarks about them. Can't blame you for that, and it's a hard position to defend. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 02:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see your point, don't get me wrong. However, I believed the fact that WH would have been intensely scrutinised from here onwards would have made a difference; whereas, of course, before no-one actually knew who TPO was. Black Kite (t) 02:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Being Born Again Couture Fashion Show (2nd nomination). I've seen you around in various places, where usually I find you a decent reader. Here, you are not a careful reader of your own remarks. But now I'm really wasting electrons. Drmies (talk) 02:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, now I recall. Damn my memory. Age... Bah!

Decent reader? You mean writer? Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 02:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

No, decent reader is what I meant. As for writer, I just read the rest of that thread, where you're trying to get a rise out of Parrot of Doom. Apparently, you buy into this nonsense of a geolocatable group of editors who are a net negative to the project? "I said his observations were just, not his conclusion"? Rob had no observations except for some tripe about geolocation (I'm being serious: he has no powers of observation, only knee-jerk reactions to perceived errors). Is it his observation that all those editors associated with MF (whatever that means) are useless, or is that his conclusion? or, which part of Rob's semi-literate and all-nonsensical tirade do you agree with--do you have any idea how many GAs and FAs that group of editors is responsible for? And go ahead and geolocate--for what purpose? To identify useless editors? You'll find yourself a lot closer to MF and others than me: my Birmingham is in Alabama.

No, I'm really dismayed by your role in that shoutfest at ANI, and the only thing you have done is antagonize people. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

People = 1 person. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 02:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Clearly I'm a member of that clan as well; my IP geolocates to Birmingham (the UK one) as well ... Black Kite (t) 02:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Rob's observation: MF and several people have a geolocation matching the same city, and chat. That lead to his conclusion: They're all on the same team, a kabal, gang of buddies, whatever. Just because he mashed it into once jumble, doesn't make it any less a 2-part line of reasoning. He's performed synthesis, really - whether his conclusion is wrong or right doesn't matter. His observation was not unjustified, even if his accusation was. "Parrot", apt name if ever I saw one, for all he does is rant the same old shit non-stop, "of Doom", meaning we're all doomed to be bored to death by his prattling, is a facetious ignoramus. He thinks just because he has the nerve to write a few articles about extremist British MPs and Muslim fanatics he's "almighty" and superior to everyone. I don't care if he felt antagonised. He can kiss my backside until Judgement Day, because he asked for it, no doubting that. But seeing as he found me "laughable", he can't now complain to having been offended. That would be ironic! I've faced down worse than him on YouTube a thousand times without breaking sweat. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 02:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

So now members of a WikiProject are a "kabal [sic]". It just gets better and better, you couldn't make it up. Well obviously you and your mate Rob could, as you just did. Malleus Fatuorum 03:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Well done, you intentionally took that completely out of context, given that I was remarking upon his conclusion, not mine. I have no conclusions. Except that you're a prat if you think I remotely care what you believe. Interesting though, how you're all here within minutes of each other – those ORob named, that is. I'll let that speak for itself. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 03:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that would be wise, as you're clearly unable to speak for yourself unless your foot is in your mouth. Malleus Fatuorum 03:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Go play with your "friends", monotonous Malleus. Well past anti-riot curfew. You seem to spout more crap than the average manky Manc so I wouldn't be surprised if you and Pretty Polly are regular bedfellows. Perhaps ORob is right, and that you do cajole people into following your unadorned ambitions. Now make like Oasis, and split. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 03:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MarcusBritish. You have new messages at JFHJr's talk page.
Message added 01:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 01:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Another COI concern

Hi, I recently had the opportunity to appreciate your attempt to respect the presumption of good faith. I stumbled upon another similar issue. Albertogonpar, who created es:Ana Locking, answered me here, in the context of a copyvio issue I raised about the English article, he has no COI with the brand. Nevertheless, he uploaded on Commons as "own work" a picture of Ms Gonzalez, which is the same used on the official web site of the brand. On the Spanish wiki, he wrote he was the author of this page, which is very similar to this page. Finally, he says on his English talk page he is the owner of the copyrights to the videos of Ana Locking on Youtube. I was contemplating confronting him with my concerns. Do you think it is fair and appropriate? Is it, according to you, indirectly infringing his right to anonymacy? Thanks, — Racconish^Tk 21:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

hmm, tricky that one, especially as the use of Spanish, which I don't know, makes it harder to consider copyvio easily - though looking at the comparison tool, there is a potential concern. I found this which perhaps settles the dubious tagging at Ana González (fashion designer). Not sure why this editor is claiming ownership to photos and videos, if he has no COI. Might be worth asking him how "he" took those to claim authorship, as the photo is clearly a pro shot, and the Youtube vids are also pro. Note the name/age on YouTube channel match BLP - how can he own those and have her name/age on YT (although it could be one of those unoffic-fan channels that uses details of the person represented)? Not sure why there is a Sockpuppet case against him, I see no other socks listed on the SPI page. Might be worth backing off for a week or two and just seeing what he does, where, etc, than pressuring him - people make their own mistakes if you give them time, whereas if you stay on their back they invent all sorts of things and try to hide anything they shouldn't be doing deeper. I haven't seen any fancy tales or excuses from him to suggest intentional deceit, so play it say, give him AGF for a short while and see how things develop. If he is using OTRS channels it may yet get approved so might as well give them time also. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 22:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. A question about YT is a good idea. OTRS channels coherent with this (e.g. [4] and [5]). Quacking enough already? — Racconish^Tk 09:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

ALBERTO GONPER

Brand Manager de la firma Ana Locking.

Experto en branding, marketing y comunicación de moda.

— That's a definite COI - marketing, PR, etc. I suggest you raise that first example link with him, and then challenge the "just a fan" claim politely, asking if he'd like to reconsider his answer, perhaps link to the policy regarding "declaration of COI", rather than the "avoid editing if there's a COI", see what response you get. Wiki does after all allow editors to edit articles even if there is a COI, if just recommends editors don't. However declaring a COI is the best way to getting editors willing to help maintain the neutrality of articles, rather than bashing the editor for bad practice. This should be explained to him, as an "unaware newbie" (virtually AGF) rather than a "should know better" which only comes from experience and understanding - so communicate your concerns with him as best you can, rather than a repeat of what [unfortunately] happened with Domenico and the hounding he finally received due to his persistent deceptions. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 09:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds fair. Thanks, — Racconish^Tk 10:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Sockmaster WebHamster (blocked)

EVERY JAILBIRD HAS HIS "BITCH"

Hoary ingratiates himself as WH's lackey and sponsor. [6] Would be better served working for Wiki's best interests, not against it and undermining consensus.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It may seem that some "F-bombs" and so forth merit fruity responses, but I disagree. I've therefore brought the matter up here. But you'd be welcome to retract (and possibly even apologize for) some of your comments; doing so would be quick and honorable and appreciated. -- Hoary (talk) 03:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Apologise! Hahaha! You're funny! That was a good one! LMAO! Gotta write that one down...

Honour is between gentlemen. Webhamster is not a gentleman. Nice to see you siding with him though. But hey, while you busy browning your nose, you forgot a few quotes. I'll gladly supply them, though. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 03:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Marcus, your comments at User talk:Roger Davies were seriously out of line. Further comments in that vein will result in a block. And before you accuse me also of being a member of a "clique"...I speak for no one but myself when I say that your commentary is far below the level I would expect from a mature and educated contributor. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh please shut up with the flattery nonsense. That type of remark comes from people who look down their nose at others and thinks themselves superior. Roger Davies isn't complaining, and it's his talk page, and furthermore he's an ArbCom member who responded by my email suggesting that WH's talkpage should be blocked for implying someone is a sex offender. [7] I don't see you getting all strumpy with him over that. You really are out of line, threatening a block against someone voicing the concerns of the wider community (60–65% consensus to block WH indef) which took EIGHT years. How many warnings have you issued him in those years for his persistent attacks? Any? Few? None? So you really think I'm in the slightest bit worried that you can contend my comments which clearly aim at disallowing disruptive members to have free access (who admit to socking during their block) and support to further their abuse? Go look at the wider picture, instead of your myopic view of things, before you make a fool of yourself. You're holding back Wiki by supporting one long-term deviant, without considering the wider community. We're making a bloody encyclopedia. Not a forum for misfits, and it's not all about you, me, him, admins or who thinks what about who. I'm pro-reform, I speak my mind. You obviously don't know what you support.. rewriting "run to mommy" pages, supporting sockmasters with venomous comments, is hardly encyclopedic advancement. It looks worse for you than it does for me. Can't hide behind your mop. You speak for yourself, I'm in a 60–65% majority, remember. And by supporting WH's "run to mommy" redirect you became indirectly involved, so there are potential COI concerns clouding your judgement – perhaps you are embittered that I opposed your proposal to rewrite the page [8] and this is your attempt to get your own back? I don't AGF where GF is clearly not the case, I challenge the motives of aggressors, because AGF doesn't get things done 100% of the time. WH is looking for gullible editors to fight his battles for him to keep his own nose clean during his appeal. I'm really surprised that you fell into his trap. Maybe not in his "clique" but his gang are going to look favourably upon you now. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 04:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't particularly care what his "gang" thinks of me, nor really about the whole debacle at this point. When you say "the only good thing that could ever develop in what little brain he does have is a tumour", I don't care whether you're talking about WH or Jimbo, I don't care whether that's your honest opinion or not, I don't care whether 60 or 70 or 99 percent of the community supports WH's block, that's still an incredibly hateful thing to say. I have no idea what you and Roger may have discussed by email, and again, I don't care. He should have reacted to your attacks, and that fact that he did not reflects negatively on him, not positively on you. Feel free to argue that WH should remain blocked if you like, but WP:NPA applies even when talking about blocked users, and if you do not follow it you will find yourself blocked. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Replace WH with Hitler, Saddam, Gadaffi, Stalin, or someone similar. Let's wish they had all died of brain tumours. Does your blanket theory standard apply now, or is it also hateful to wish them that too? You're looking for a hook to hang on, and I don't feel any shame. Wishing, like praying, does not make a thing true, nor is it a threat, or an attack. I wish all the greedy bankers who damaged the world economy would drop dead. Is that hateful? I wish they'd execute all murderers, rapists and pedos then give their organs to medical use. Hateful? By whose standards?

You use the word "I" a lot. Wiki is not about "you". It never was, and never will be. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 05:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not a physical attack, but it is an attack as defined by our policy on the matter, particularly when directed at a specific editor (and if any of those people you named were Wikipedians, it'd equally be a violation of policy). And thanks, but I'm well aware Wikipedia is not about me. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Lovely. Are you finished having your rant, now, or do I need to put the kettle on whilst you finish? Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 05:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

By all means have a cup of tea if you wish. It might help you to calm down. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Haha, wrong assumption made there. I haven't lost my cool once, and rarely do via bits and bytes to faceless unknowns. Evident by the lack of "f--k off" edit summaries, real personal attacks (as opposed to hyperbolical ones), and snide remarks. Unlike some... Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 05:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Your comment at WQA (and indeed further up on this page) would suggest otherwise, but have it your way. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fram 1

Extended content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ANI

PLease note I have reported your actiosn over Webby http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#MarcusBritish.Slatersteven (talk) 19:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Please, BNP supporters are unwelcome to dirty my page with their harassment and pusillanimous contradictions! Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 19:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Trust me: all that is required is for you to make no further comments on the topic for a couple of weeks (including not at ANI). People who follow wikidrama get an instinctive feeling that often overrides any analysis they might later contemplate, and one of the first signs of unhelpfulness is persistence. Who is right or wrong does not come into it: it's just who is persisting. While the situation is frustrating, that is the intention of those who find some "up yours" amusing. The correct response is silence because nothing is going to change currently. Johnuniq (talk) 03:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Don't worry, the matter is well in hand. More than you might realise. Wiki is currently the "land of the blind" in which I have one eye, or rather, there have been some interesting "developments" behind the scenes, which some of these other cocky editors are totally unaware of that I intend on saving until the right moment, and then perhaps upset a few smug buggers over-confident egos! Until then, I'll take your advice, and joy in watching them put their foot in it until then. There are advantages to placing merit before instinctive feeling, so a few people are going to get a hard lesson, wishing they had analysed the situation correctly to begin with. Pre-judgement is a terrible affliction.

PS: Napoleon was one of the most "persistent" people I admire. His success not only in war, but social, economic and legal advances, devotion to France, Europe, and the world, don't seem "unhelpful". Persistence is often a sign of commitment, confidence and strong-mindedness. One doesn't have to be an extremist to be persistent. Don't get me wrong, persistence can also be a downfall, as was the case with Napoleon. But only as the result of being outnumbered. Fortunately, I never placed much faith in the way people try to assert themselves online. People are quicker to tire, back down, or realise they're wasting their time. Also, I'm a tough nut to crack. And let's be honest, some of the personalities here on Wiki, are hardly spectacular when you look at their user pages and consider their "real life" boasts. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 04:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

November 2011

For persistent personal attacks and serious breaches of the civility policy, you have been blocked for 24 hours. Further similar incidents will lead to longer blocks. You were warned, repeatedly, by multiple people, over the last few days (since 25 November). You continued in the same manner anyway [9]. Fram (talk) 11:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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).

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

Request reason:

Fram is in breach of blocking using NPA as a pretext for personal reasons. Refusal to admit to its own incivility thus block is a direct COI. Using block as a cool down, and to create a block log. Used as a means of self preservation. All punitive reasons: retaliation, disparagement, and zealous abuse of sysop for own gains. Fram intentionally presented a fork to support their own argument, using synthesised logic all based on a false premis and retorted to these claims with priggish self-interest, lies, deceit and this block to hide behind. Will be taking this matter to ArbCom following unblock, due to clear abuse of privileges and attempting to appear immune to action. Clearly this type of admin only serves to undermine Wiki policy and is detrimental to the community spirit of AGF. Ma®©usBritish ^{[[[User talk:MarcusBritish|Chat]] • RFF]} 11:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

See WP:NOTTHEM. For continuing your personal attacks, I have upped the block to 48 hours - if you do it again, you could lose Talk page access -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

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).

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

Request reason:

Reasons for block are fabricated, per WP:CIVIL policy: *2. Other uncivil behaviors *"(a) taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves" WP:NOTTHEM is not policy or guideline. In this case is does not apply. The AGFless circumstances surrounding the discussion which led to the block were manufactured. Civility is a subjective principle, and in this case NPA has been used as a defence method, not a legit block rationale. I was blocked for accusing an admin of being uncivil. If admins are free to attack editors and then block them, they are undermining Wiki. I have nothing to apologise for. And reviewing admin can read the full convo at AN/I and see the truth and an admin being highly condescending and enacting a block when accused of breaching WP:CIVIL. Where is their block? Anyone who reads English can see the introduction of misleading information and breach of policy, given that I have been accused of acting in bad faith for responding to a WQA where a result was achieved. The admin refused to acknowledge the good faith in the WQA, pursued a theory that I might be uncivil on the assumption I respond to further WQAs. The convo does not include uncivil remarks or PAs, but responses to an aggressive admin assault which was based on synthesised claims. I have nothing to apologise for. I was attacked first, I defended my right to respond to the WQA, and question the motives of the admin who raised it without supporting their personal beliefs with evidence. They turned the conversation into a sham by refusing to accept their mistake, by persisting with their accusations, and lying about their intentions. Needless to say, as the conversation was restricted to one page, and that being AN/I not an article or usertalk page, is not disruptive to the encyclopedic side of wiki, nor is it misplace. Blocking admin is out of line and should be investigated, for their assertions. Given that they question my right to respond to WQA, I demand that they prove that my response was disruptive. I have already acknowledged that my response was frank, because the editors embroiled in the WQA are set on accusing each other of one thing or another and did not want to use WQA to "resolve" anything, but to report each other. If the admin accusing me of being uncivil cannot justify their insinuations based on predictions, which bear malice, then they too are being uncivil, and this block represents a COI. Blocks which result from an admins personal conflicts are contrary to blocking policy, as they are retaliating. There is ample conversation to show that I responded to the admins accusations regarding WQA without swearing, name calling, etc. I simply highlighted some truths, made observations about the matter and voiced my objections. Because they feel these objections are contrary to their own, they issued a block. This block was then explained using a pretext that it was for "earlier PAs". But if that is the case, why didn't they block 24 hours ago when they first commented on the topic, why now after failing to explain themselves in the convo on AN/I? Needless to say, if they can't explain the matter on AN/I without using a block to mask their motives, they will certainly be expected to explain to to ArbCom when the matter of desysopping is raised due to infraction of admin privileges based on idle speculation. Even SPI requires more than personal beliefs to block an IP. Once again, the record does not show disruption to Wiki, does not show that I attack/harass editors systematically, does not represent any form of "persistent personal attacks" per the hyperbole given. As such this block represents punitive action, which to be honest, isn't effective given that ArbCom can be reached by email. A defence does not represent a personal attack when the defence is given as events. The last editor, who increased the block to 48 hours, did not investigate the discussion at AN/I and consider the falsehoods of the blocking admin. of any potential COI. Denying that a blocking admin could ever have COI, abuse their position, or pursue a false lead is either overly AGF, or taking my "testimony" as bad faith, when there is ample reasoning expressed at AN/I to substantiate every word I've said, so that I don't need to be a defeatist, or apologetic in order to sanctify the reason for the block as "fair and justified", then clearly that is not the case. I expect a reviewing admin to be ambivalent, but neutral, understanding that whilst my civility may have been questionable a few days ago, the WQA matter was drawn into the discussion without good cause, was used against me in bad faith, and that admin sought to promote their own convictions whilst dismissing mine meticulously. The fact that I was successfully defending my position against lesser intellect, is not grounds for a block. Hence why I maintain that the admin baited me into a negative response, whilst their impunity appears intact only due to their extensive contribs. Their attitude alone, however, was callous. The timing of their block does not support their reasoning, and they have still not explained their false claims on AN/I because they used my block as an excuse to maintain their intrigue. Ma®©usBritish ^{[[[User talk:MarcusBritish|Chat]] • RFF]} 8:58 am, Today (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

I'm an ambivalent, neutral admin, and reading this unblock request has convinced me that you are simply not ready to be unblocked. While claiming that you haven't made personal attacks or been incivil, you call other editors "lesser intellect"s and "malicious". These are personal attacks, and that you don't recognize them as such persuades me that letting you resume these editing practices in your current mindset would not be in the best interests of Wikipedia. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

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.

I've been blocked longer than this, for less. You should consider yourself lucky it was only 24. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The time doesn't bother me, it's the principle of the matter. Fram.. whether that's a he or a she, I don't know, nor care, is only pissed that I saw right through their malicious intentions, in the theories they presented. Think I'll take up full-time WQA duty on my return. ;) Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 11:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: "The last editor, who increased the block to 48 hours, did not investigate the discussion at AN/I and consider the falsehoods of the blocking admin." - Yes, he did, and he agreed that you were making personal attacks at ANI, and opines that you continued them here. (And please note that "personal attack" is not restricted to just swearing and name calling) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

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).

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

Request reason:

Block serves no purpose. Given that my so-called PAs were limited to AN/I, and that I am preparing a case for RfC/U then I am hardly likely to persist. Further to the point that remarks on AN/I that are not related to content disputes are not disruptive, and therefore the block is not preventative, as there are, and have been, no concerns regarding disruption or vandalise to encyclopedic articles. My argument stands that this block is a WP:COATRACK with my "personal attacks" being highlighted to mask the uncivil remarks and assertions on AN/I. Those assertions, based on undue lack of AGF, over my response to a WQA are based on straw man arguments, with no evidence to support the claims, and in fact run on a parallel track to the discussion at AN/I, but have in fact been misrepresented through synthesis to create an attack on my contribs, and cannot be reasonably analysed as a "bad faith" WQA response. However, this is the tone that has been used by an admin who refused to get involved in the WQA, but did not hesitate to question my ability to respond to the WQA, which was also, notably, my first WQA response, which was concluded and closed by supporting editors. Therefore the attack on my response, which was made prematurely, perhaps an uncivil approach in itself, was unfounded. Since the close, the admin has refused to recognise their critique as a bad faith attack, nor have they refactored it recognise the conclusion of the WQA. They have, instead, used my earlier uncivil remarks, which I should not pre-dated the AN/I topic by 3 days and therefore the admins right to question my WQA response was somewhat presumptious given that the two events are unrelated, and casting doubts on an editors ability to contribute to X-area of wiki because they had a dispute in Y-area of wiki is not a logical conclusion, it is a straw man argument; i.e. "Because MB was uncivil to editor-A on AN/I, he should be kept away from WQA". This flaw being, that every article, user, project and content page on wiki has a discussion page, therefore why not argue "If MB is uncivil on AN/I, he could be uncivil anywhere"? Having dismissed the admins argument as flawed, based in this discrepancy, plus the fact they were assuming I would respond to WQA, but it had been my first and there is no evidence to suggest I was going to make a career out of it, the admin drew conclusion based on a false premis. Those conclusions were used detrimentally and matter-of-fact, despite being opinions, theories and at most, concerns. At no time did the admin attempt to address those concerns on my talk page, as would be proper. Instead they made uncivil remarks, questioning the faith of my response and promoting a damning claim, using quotes out of context and lacking correct interpretation. I maintain that the intentions of the admin were uncivil, and that by addressing me "potentially uncivil" the admin was making proactive disdainful remarks, based on one solitary WQA, rather than a reactive proposal based on sufficient history, behaviour patterns or evidence to support the theory. To make matters worse, when I confronted the admin with this they adopted a defensive stance, dismissing my anger at their assertions as uncivil, and convoluted the matter further by placing my angry response above their own behaviour, whilst casting judgement, thus clouding the issue, i.e. the WP:COATRACK counter-measure. I consider this an attack on my integrity, as my response to WQA was rejected and questioned before it was even resolved, which is a clear example of attacking the faith of an editor. Because the admin continued to accelerate their case against me with condescending remarks, and refusal to accept their straw man claim as unreasonable or irrelevant to the discussion, i.e. a fork. Their persistence to use those comments can only be observed as advocating. For any admin of that experience to be unable to recognise their own bad faith, illogical attempt to predict an editor, and close-minded approach, there has to be a underlying motive, in my belief, for them to persist, to the degree of blocking me and refusing to allow their behaviour to be questioned is paramount to enacting COI. [10] So, though my responses may be considered uncivil, they are in reaction to what I perceive as irresponsible admin attitude, and pessimistic misuse of my response at WQA. That is not a PA, or uncivil, it is a legit observation with regards my POV which was made to look warped due to the late-interjection with straw man based propositions, casting aspersions on my ability to handle WQA. Unless there has been a direct complaint or issue pertaining to a page, or discussion, it is not appropriate for an admin to imply anything, and therefore my one-off role at WQA is neither here nor there, and it's use to wrongly incite other editors/admins to discuss as a "bad faith" response is foul play. My reaction, again, possibly uncivil, but no less than the attitude I felt confronted with from the admin forcing their opinion. That reaction is not disruptive to wiki encyclopedia nor my main line of editing in military history. Blocks set to kerb uncivil behaviour are contrary to WP:BLOCK which stipulates that it should be "gross incivility". Defending my position on AN/I 1:1 is not grossly uncivil. Grossly uncivil is, despite the interpretation above, more related to personal attacks on things such as gender, sexuality, religion, race, or comments made with strong language to downright foul language. Given that I have never used such level of abuse on wiki, the implication that I have been "highly uncivil" was greatly exaggerated, to maintain the WP:COATRACK shrouding the admin behaviour above. Given that the admin responded to the AN/I 3 days from opening, they should have made a point of finding genuinely uncivil behaviour in those 3 days. The quotes taken from WQA do not represent any form of uncivil behaviour, merely a lack of understanding of British usage of certain terms that were frank, but not offensive per se. The added suggestion that my WQA response was impatient, unhelpful, or otherwise was again, pre-determined due to the WQA being open, and a non-AGF opinion. This stacking number of unfair opinions being laid against me explains my harsh response. Admins are not here to judge, but to review. I was judged, looked down upon, and my contribs were abused out of context. This presents a dispute, which the admin was not willing to resolve, and their block was engineered to allow them to "break the back" of my strong identification of their straw man, and escape being scrutinised themselves. This matter, however, has been abused, as I believe the block was retaliatory, and will present the matter to 3O, RfC, or ArbCom if necessary, as I do not expect any admin should be permitted to get away with such behaviour and not answer for it, and prove their motions were within reason. Until such time, it would not serve my interests to comment further on the matter at AN/I, or attempt to disrupt or rekindle the issue, except through the appropriate channels, where admin tête-à-tête cannot be used to further vilify my accepted WQA response. It should be noted that the WQA determined that the WQA was not a wikiquette issue, and that the parties should either keep their distance or resolve the matter at AN/I. Given that a topic about them exists on AN/I within 24 hours of the WQA close, and [11] this editors comments supports the findings of the WQA itself, which shows that the admins unfairly vocalised thoughts were in fact wrong, and has led to a mole hill become a mountain. Simply because, if they'd waited until the WQA had been resolved before attacking my involvement, they would not have given me cause to argue on AN/I. Cause and effect led to this situation, not pre-meditated uncivil intents. Please do not quote WP:NOTTHEM again, it is not policy, plus there 18 uses of "I" in here. Given that the admin refuses to give their reasons for besmirching the WQA, this block only serves to endorse their WP:BITEY behaviour on AN/I, further (newbie to WQA, not wiki, but still considered bitten). This block is not a typical PA based block, but a reactionary block from a disgruntled admin whom I condemned for their unprincipled early assault on the WQA, followed without compunction. I do not apologise for my actions, I only express that it serves only as a punitive barrier rather than a preventative block, per my in-depth and justified explanation. Ma®©usBritish ^{[[[User talk:MarcusBritish|Chat]] • RFF]} 20:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Fram's block was sound, Boing! said Zebedee's extension of the block was warranted given that you can't seem to resist insulting other editors while blocked (e.g. "Fram is a pusillanimous liar"), and I've seen nothing in any of the lengthy screeds you've posted here that indicates you understand what the problem is. You would be well-served to take Fluffernutter's and DragonflySixtyseven's advice to reflect on how to fine-tune your approach to your fellow editors. 28bytes (talk) 21:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

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.

I've just explained that the bloody problem is. If you're failing to understand that, they you're not reading it right, or in relation to the AN/I topic. Fram's block was not sound, it was personal. It was abuse. I will not identify myself as the problem when it was MY contribs that were attacked in a foul and discourteous attempt to alienate my WQA involvement. The problems is, I was baited. Fram entrapped me by baiting the AN/I by using my contribs to incriminate from a theoretical perspective. That is a personal attack, which deserves an AN/I thread of its own. Period. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 21:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Note

Marcus, you're a useful and productive contributor. But you have to be more careful with what you say to people.

A good way to judge whether (X) counts as a "personal attack" is to consider how you would react if (X) had been said to you, rather than by you. Also, realize that "personal attack", like "insult", is as much in the mind of the listener as in the mind of the speaker. You may not have intended (X) to be a personal attack, but (X) can certainly be perceived as one just the same. No one will count coup on you if you apologize.

I realize that it can be very frustrating to bear the brunt of disciplinary measures, but if we-the-administrators do not impose some form of order, the project as a whole risks degenerating into even more of an anarchy than it already is.

Take the time to relax, and when your block expires, you're welcome to resume editing. Okay? DS (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but this is not a disciplinary measure, it is further offence as an admin not only attacks my WQA response, but then conceals their attack by turning my behaviour into hyperbole to reduce their guilty. I don't apologise to people with such motives, or who serve protect themselves. The project only risks degenerating when sysop is left in the hands of people who abuse it. I maintain that the block is a front, a pretext. If reviewing admins are failing to take time to determine that and recognise the integrity of my claim, instead of taking Fram's for granted, which is contrary to "we're all equals on wiki", then I will have no choice but to raise the matter elsewhere, such as RfC or ArbCom. This isn't about discipline, at my age I don't consider "you can't login" as anything like you suggest, because it's not like losing wages. It's the principle of the matter. My contribs to WQA were meticulously used as spin against me, instead of the AGF everyone else saw them as. I don't intend to let Fram sit on a high horse any longer. Either they apologise first and withdraw their false assertions, or they'll have to explain them to RfC or ArbCom. Which I'm sure is much more complex and time consuming and stressful than admitting to any wrong-doing, but so be it, I stand for what I believe in and always have. I won't be bullied by someone like that. So really, the ball is in their court. If no one is counting coup, that applies to the admin who attacked me in an undignified manner, and continues to do so by maintaining their position – though now shielding themselves behind a wall of admins instead of facing up to the fact they erred. COI is clearly affecting their actions, or unwillingness to show face. They can either opt-in and admit they were wrong for their attack, or wait until a higher channel, one that even exceeds their stance, asks why they attacked my contribs and synthesised a despicable "bad faith" conclusion. The consequences this dispute have yet to be determined. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 21:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

No, this certainly is not punitive - one needs only to read your responses on WQA to know that the project requires protection from such affronts as you have presented there. My lord, would you speak like that to someone face-to-face? It's possibly one of the most brutal sequences of statements I have seen on Wikipedia (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Brutal? That's a hyperbolical tone if ever I saw one. Telling someone to F--k off is brutal. Calling some a C--t is brutal. If defending oneself against an admin attack on AN/I is brutal, then Arbcom must be the Western Front? Brutal.. don't make me laugh. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 21:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

True, those are two excellent examples of what can be counted as personal attacks. But i would say that the case here is more about general civility then about straight-out personal attacks. Marcus, read the comment you wrote back; Imagine that we would have a discussion face to face, and that i would started shouting that text you wrote at you. Would you say we would be having a polite and friendly discussion? There are several persons already agreeing it was not; if several people agree there is usually at least some core of truth in it, wouldn't you agree?

Admittedly, i would have preferred to see another admin respond to this due to fram's involvement in the discussion, but in all due honesty i cannot help but agree with the block itself. Come on, principal matter or not, a civil and level-headed discussion works a whole lot better in both the long and the short run. I can only parrot Dragonfly's advice. Get the annoyance regarding this entire situation out of your system (Whether you are right or not doesn't really matter in that regards), and continue with a fresh head. In fact, i would advice a good cup of coffee and a bit of IDontCare - for me that usually works wonders. And come on, you are a fine editor so I'd really prefer to see this settle without a lot of blocks, civility discussions and other timewasting yadayada. Save those for the people who are only here to vandalize. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I prefer if admins not appeal to my vanity in order to appease me. I'm not a vain, self-promotional editor, in general. Nor do I need raising before the usual admin tidal wave of rhetoric, selective policy snippets, and such.

There are, which no admin has been open-minded enough to identify because no one is interested in Fram does have COI issues or not, in fact TWO incidents of concern here:

The first was the "Webhamster should be fully banned" incident that I pursued which resulted in me facing off several of his servile supporters, and foolishly lowering myself to their standards of debate, to cope with the situation. If you're familiar with Malleus F. and his fanbase, you'll know exactly what I mean and the type of people he likes for company. The AN/I topic was regarding the uncivil nature of debates regarding that issue alone. It was perpetuated by Slatersteven who came to WQA and proceeded to argue his POV and offer no assistance.
The second incident, possibly engineered by Fran and Slatersteven, given these [12] comment which is "missing" something, possibly an email, involved Fran bringing the WQA response into AN/I. It bore NO relevance to the topic at all, it wasn't even about Webhamster, which is why Fran was forced to synthesis a link, and create a false lead, which it appears every admin so far is taking for granted. Great team work, I'm sure you'll get no favours in return.

So no, I don't see why I still shouldn't take this to ArbCom, and present the fact that two separate incidents were combined through a very weak link – that I contributed to both. Might as well dig through my RFF reviews, look for the one that involved copy-editing some gay rights campaigner BLP, and then taking my interest in Napoleonic Wars and through synthesis implying I'm attracted to Duke of Wellington. Because that is how thin the link between "uncivil to Webhamster's friends" and "his first WQA response" is. Pure 100% spin.

Note also her support with Slayersteven – the same editor who not only argued the toss with me in a WQA without meeting the requirements of a WQA, whilst my WQA actually did get a result, but he also opened the AN/I thread. So it's not hard to consider that Fran did it for him, and the COI becomes doubled, not only to respond on Ste's behalf, but to protect his own interests on behalf, for getting involved, arguing also, the blocking for self-preservation. All of which makes a strong case for ArbCom. A collaboration to entrap another editor, never looks good, esp. when an admin supports someone who argued, escalated their argument against me to AN/I without incriminating themselves, then injects an unrelated set of contribs, argues over it, then blocks because I've highlighted their falsehoods. Sure it's vadavada, or are you actually comfortable having someone who acts like that in the midst of admin circle, calling the shots? I consider abusive admins a greater threat than vandals, and if you don't feel you can try to understand the evidence, which is all there, undeniable, logged, then it ain't my problem, is it?

No I don't agree that if several people agree to something it must bear some truth.. otherwise that makes each 9/11-truth, or holocaust-denial claims, or each JFK-assassination theory true, presumably. It's a simple matter of, "if enough admins oppose him, he might shut up" behaviour – clubbing together, ganging up, applying pressure, trying to make me back down. I'm not the unnerving type. Never was. Never will be. The jury vote against Derek Bentley was due to the jury considering the cop he supposedly killed as "one of us" compared with Bentley who was a nobody, an example to be made of, a scapegoat – even the cops lied to see him hang. Fram is one of you, or rather a law unto himself. I'm not. Of course there's a natural bias to take sides betweem admins. ArbCom is less self-defeating when it comes to siding with admins only, because they manage the community entire, and if there's a chance to weed out a bad admin or two, they will. Given that that admin has failed to defend their position, I can only assume they can't explain their actions, or the link with Slatersteven who was also very much involved, and appears to have been avenged for my "BNP" remarks which really got his goat. People who live by the sword... Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 00:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. "If you're familiar with Malleus F. and his fanbase, you'll know exactly what I mean and the type of people he likes for company." The type of people I like for company are those who are here doing the right thing, contributing to a free encyclopedia project. Are you suggesting otherwise? Malleus Fatuorum 00:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

That's like suggesting Liam Gallagher likes to hang out with guys who can sing. I was referring to their social standards, specifically frequent use characteristic use of bad language and genetic incivility. 20 mins, quick response – been getting excited at my block? Although my block log is a drop in the ocean to yours, right now, what what? Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 00:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Calling me a 'servile supporter' of MF is really a dumb thing to say, and I'm sure Mrs. Drmies will want to have a word with you: I serve only her. It is also, of course, uncivil, and yet another example of your mode of interaction. But consider this: it could be, of course, that all editors are being led astray (by WebHamster, by MF, by me, by Slatersteven, by Fram--by who else, Marcus?) and everyone is swallowing it hook, line, and sinker--or it could be that you were wrong. Maybe you were blocked, and then not unblocked three times in a row, because of you, not because of all the others here. Food for thought. Drmies (talk) 03:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see your name mentioned in there, so you're only expressing your own interpretation, not mine. Though I will thank you for showing me one thing... that you can at least count... to three. Apart from that, your message conveyed nothing of importance. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 03:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad I could show you something! You're welcome. Stick around kid, next time we'll boil an egg. It's much easier than writing content or making friends, I promise. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

If I'm a "kid", you must have one foot in the grave. Maybe when you've finished boiling an egg I can teach you a few things also. How to tie your shoe laces, perhaps? Or anything else that might leave you feeling... addlepated. Cheers "ol' man", Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 04:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I did not have any contact with anyone (on or off wiki) about you or this whole situation before my posts at ANI, and I haven't had any interaction with anyone about this apart from the post from Slatersteven on my user talk page after the block, and my reply to it. Fram (talk) 08:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe you. Period. Steve's first comment is a reply, "You may be right..." which is clearly a response to... something. No one, not even an idiot, says that unless they're reacting to what you "may be right" about. Regardless, Arbcom can check if emails sent between editors, if they need to, so your testimony is worthless. And FYI, any form of admin action against a person (warning, blocking, speedy deleting their articles, ...) does make an admin involved – that's why they call it "involved" and not just "interacted". But hey, making the rules up for yourself as you go along is definitely going to make you more popular amongst those who... lack community spirit. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 13:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It is quite likely that Slatersteven's comment was in response to Fram's note at ANI that you had been blocked. Nev1 (talk) 14:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Re:"And FYI, any form of admin action against a person (warning, blocking, speedy deleting their articles, ...) does make an admin involved" - No, it doesn't. See WP:INVOLVED, where it says...

"One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches, do not make an administrator 'involved'."

-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Ta, that was a useful link for my AC case. Especially the word "minor". The heavy-handed response on AN/I was far from "minor". Enough to suggest a deviation from the policy, anyway. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 13:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the ANI response would have been subject to the "minor" clause, as it was interaction in an admin role, not an editing role - it says "administrative role ... OR ...minor or obvious edits" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC) (corrected -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC))

Engaging in a discussion is not an action, nor editing of an article/article talkpage, it's conversational which any editor can do. It isn't something "productive" so your interpretation is unlikely to constitute as definitive. And FYI it says "whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias". Farm's opinions on AN/I were condescendingly biased and far from trivial motions. Needless to say, it's not your concern, there will be room for you to comment on the AC case when the time comes, then you can use all the rhetoric you want. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 14:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, "action" was poor wording on my part, not the wording of WP:INVOLVED, which focuses on interaction rather than action - I've corrected myself, above -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)2

Yes, yes, that much is obvious. Regardless, "an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role", stressing the "purely in..". AN/I discussion is not an admin role, it's a community page, allowing discussion preceding admin action. A "purely" admin role is anything requiring sysop tools. Moving, warning, etc, any confirmed bugger can do. Protecting, blocking, deletion, etc is limited to sysops. So no matter how you read it, or attempt to define it, there's no ambiguity. An AN/I response, of questionable integrity, makes the editor not the admin involved, engaged, etc. The views were strong, the determination was discriminatory to the last. And still is. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 14:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

According to your interpretation, any admin who has issued a warning towards an editor then no longer may block that editor. Correct? Fram (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Do catch up and read everything. You didn't "just" issue a warning.. which was mainly an attempt at machoism (aka keyboard warrior gaming) on your part anyway.. you engaged in a discussion, first by making a synthesised argument, then replying to me several times with further bull to try to cement your conceited opinions because you lack the integrity to admit when you're wrong, and moral fibre to be a rational admin, from everything I've been digging through, every argument/opinion/theory/comment you enter on wiki has an "I'm always right, don't you dare question me" tone. Any editor can enter a debate and get pissed off because they've been exposed for manipulating another editors good faith to create a straw man argument. Thus bias. But not every editor has sysop to use as a weapon or to mask their views. In short, you fubar'd. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 15:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED "Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches, do not make an administrator 'involved'." Gerardw (talk) 15:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes Gerardw, but you've got it arse first. The warning didn't come first, the discussion about WQA which Farn engineered came first. The warning came last. And even then the block was still a reaction designed to censor my claims Fran synthesised an opinion. Something no one has been able to debunk. The biased remarks precede the admin "respect mah au-thor-a-thee" move. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 15:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The post by Slatersteven was a reaction to my ANI post of 29 november, 11:09[13]: "I don't think there is any chance that this can realistically be seen as retaliation for his attacks on Webhamster." Slatersteven posted two hours later to my talk page[14]: "You may not be right that he will not accuse you of 'getting even' with him,". This was clearly a reply to my ANI post (as can also be seen from my statement at ANI that I didn't have any previous interaction with you, and the statement in Slatersteven's reply that "I don't recall ever having had any interaction with him before either"). Fram (talk) 13:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

From your reply, "...considering what else he has written about me and my motives. I would consider it a fanciful, unrealistic statement though, as would most impartial readers." [15] Wiki has an answer to that: WP:DIVA, especially: "there is no issue too small for a diva; disputes are more about getting their way than getting it right" and "In citing their own value, they are implicitly denigrating their opponent's value, which is a form of validation." And as for your initial WQA persecution: WP:HUNT about covers it. Perfect! Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]}

18:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is an archive of past discussions about User:MarcusBritish. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

→