I have found that they are indeed official websites. I contacted a webmaster and even he agreed that it would be an easy mistake to make. Nonetheless, I was wrong. I apologize to you for accusing you of vandalism by adding them. Cheers, -Willmcw 04:29, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
Greetings and welcome to wikipedia. Please excuse the rude treatment you've received from the administrator who has engaged most of your attention thus far. He has a bad habit of disregarding Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, especially where a newcomer has made edits to an article or subject he deems to be his territory. You should not let a hostile reception deter you from participating here and I hope you will stay. While editing I encourage you to review Wikipedia's policies and guidelines located here. Please make a good faith attempt at abiding by each, and if you believe that another user you have encountered is not doing so a proper recourse is to inform him/her of it. Thanks and welcome once again. Rangerdude 23:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to help out here. The first thing I will do is protect you. That is my number one goal. Next, the article.
In that regard, do not make one more edit to the article until you and I go over 3RR and what it is. You want to avoid an edit war.
Check in with me and we can chat. If you like, we can go to IRC freenode.net if you have ChatZilla, or we can chat on Yahoo. paul klenk 06:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jonah, I have evaluated the Biff Rose page for possible violations of 3RR (there are none in the period I checked), and have left comments on its talk page, with one additional comment to you. Let me know if you have questions. Also, although it may be justified, I can't think of any good purpose to the remarks about stalking (except those in messages) which you've placed as sort of "notifications" on your page. Even old messages, which eventually become stale -- should be eventually removed and archived, keeping your talk page -- and therefore you -- free of any negativity. This is a complicated place, and you see to be doing very well. Just let me know if you have any questions, and thanks for coming to me for help. paul klenk
Hi - I saw your message that Willmcw is harassing and stalking you as well. As you may know I'm currently seeking arbitration against him for harassing me over a period of several months.[1] From what you describe he appears to be stalking you as well. He frequently does this and it's almost always aimed at chasing an editor he doesn't like off of wikipedia. He's a prime example of the very worst kind of editors here and unfortunately he has many friends in the admin pool who aid and abet his dirty work (not all admins are like that though...fortunately). My advice would be to begin assembling a list of the evidence of cases where he has harassed you and any case where he's broken wikipedia policy. You should then consider posting a complaint about him to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, asking for a neutral outside party to help. Be sure to note the reasons why his behavior is a problem - it violates the good faith assumption, it is uncivil, it is disruptive, and it is a form of harassment. There are also several strong precedents in previous arbcom cases that have found wikistalking to be a bannable offense. Unfortunately Willmcw is very vengeful and will likely attempt to retaliate against you for doing this - either by stepping up the stalking or posting a counter-complaint against you (or both). Don't let it get to you though. The best defense against his type is a good offense - both to keep him busy and to direct community scrutiny onto his behavior, which he often tries to slip into backpages and obscure articles where he thinks he can get away with violating wikipedia policy.
I have begun compiling a log of frivolous edits by Willmcw as evidence of WikiStalking, which I will submit as evidence if the Arbcom decides to accept this case. You may want to do the same. --HK 00:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, someone had requested (on WP:RfD) the deletion of a redirect at Wikistalking (because it went from article space to Wikipedia: space). I was simply fixing all the pages that used it, before deleting it. (If you look at my edit, I just piped the link directly to the target.) Noel(talk) 02:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jonah, I invested a great deal of time the other day trying to help and protect you. I have noticed your recent revert at Biff. I am advising you to undo your revert, for your own best interest. I'm sorry, but you seem to be missing something about what we're trying to do here. This is an attempt to help you, Jonah. paul klenktalk 01:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Here I am won't you please let this go now....Jonah Ayers 18:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"The brown pigeon," Jonah? [2] I'm afraid I have no idea of what you mean. -Sojambi Pinola 00:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! I had it all wrong. Sorry. You're a wonderful guy, Jonah! You live near me. Let's meet for lunch and work this all out. Still don't know what the brown pigeon is, though. - Sojambi Pinola 06:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit]
Ugh, this guy too
[edit]
Marking edits
Jonah, it may have been a mistake, but you cannot mark an edit as "minor," as you did on the Biff page, when it obviously changes so much content, especially disputed content.
Minor edits are for adding wiki edits, correcting spelling or spacing, and suchlike. This is why this feature is not made available to new accounts.
When you abuse this feature, you also abuse the trust of your fellow editors, and they will become less and less willing to work with you. Please keep this in mind.
paul klenk talk 22:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Jonah, you seem quite upset about Biff Rose. I'll grant you from what I've read he is quite the racist. While that is personally upsetting to me as well, the article has to stick to facts with neutral language. I think the current wording is quite clear about his racism:
Rose's newer recordings are more controversial. His later songs make use of ethnic stereotypes and contain racist and anti-semitic language in their lyrics.
Do you have a problem with this wording?
I haven't studied the edit history overly much. But, it does seem like you've deleted a few facts about Biff that added some tiny bit of notability to what seems a rather tiny career. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like maybe you've done that because you don't like the man. That's not a good reason.
What I would support is a bit more detail on his racism, maybe another couple sentences, if it has produced any citable public controversy. In other words, if there is an existing controversy about his racism in the press or major websites or some such, I'm for reporting it in more detail. If there isn't, wikipedia isn't really the place to create a controversy. And given the character of his racism, if there isn't a public controversy it's only because Biff is currently a nobody. In that case, his current racism in his current works is really only a footnote to an expired career, so the current sentence seems quite sufficient.
Also, I think you would find it helpful in your wikipedia interactions to not have lists of vandals on your page. At least not unless you can back it up with an obvious case. I know many of those names, and I don't believe any of them is a vandal. So, the list tends to make people suspicious of you, rather than them. By the way, I tagged your ip address with a reference to your name. That's just so that people can track the conversation when they look at contributions; it's not an attack. Derex 02:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Someone from an anonymous IP has taken credit for edits you have made under your logged-in. He has also claimed that he has come to me for help in the past, which he hasn't. However, you have.
Did you leave those messages to me under that anonymous IP, or is someone falsely claiming this? Either this anonymous IP is you, or it isn't. Which is it, please?
p.s. I object to having my name being placed under a list of "trouble makers and vandals" on this page. Further, I am an ally of no one. Please remove my name from this list. If you ever want to talk through this and work things out, I am happy to do so. This is an attempt to resolve a dispute. paul klenktalk 06:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No way. This is useless. I'm not your pawn. You are a troublemaker. Make your accusations somewhere else. Jonah Ayers 06:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC) 06:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
oneof my detractors-who has called me names, and rolledhiseyes, oh the horror, I tell you the horror ofbeing called a a bore and a bully. That's what he is. I say it again. A bore and a bully. Your tactics are grossly manipulative and agressive, hencebeinga bully. That you repeat them over and over makes you a bore.Jonah Ayers 23:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have read it thoroughly and intend to abide by it. How about you?
Most recently, you are calling me "A bore and a bully." And here on your talk page, you are calling me and others "troublemakers" among other things. Care to reconsider this sort of behavior?
The above title is Jonah's. After I left the following comment, it was immediately moved to an archive page and responded to only there, and the above title was added. It seems odd to archive something before it has ever appeared in public, but whatever. Here's my original comment: -Sojambi Pinola 17:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have read it thoroughly and intend to abide by it. How about you?
Most recently, you are calling me "A bore and a bully." And here on your talk page, you are calling me and others "troublemakers" among other things. Care to reconsider this sort of behavior?
Jonah's response, on the archive page, was as follows:
oneof my detractors-who has called me names, and rolledhiseyes, oh the horror, I tell you the horror ofbeing called a a bore and a bully. That's what he is. I say it again. A bore and a bully. Your tactics are grossly manipulative and agressive, hencebeinga bully. That you repeat them over and over makes you a bore.Jonah Ayers 23:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To which I now respond, gently, simply and thusly: Whatever your opinion of me and the others, you are, nonetheless, violating the "no personal attack" rule of Wikipedia with this namecalling. Here, again, is the link to the official Wikipedia policy, fully explained and defined: No personal attacks. Again, I ask politely and with respectful seriousness: Care to reconsider this sort of behavior? Will you please cease in these personal attacks, and remove the existing ones (including the "troublemakers list") from this page? The people you are name-calling are not breaking the rules. From my understanding of Wikipedia policy, you are. I don't know what the further policy is, but in many communities, an official retraction would be considered appropriate as well.
Paul Klenk was within his rights, by official Wikipedia policy, to remove the personal attack on him from your page. He gave you an opportunity to do so, which you ignored. He announced his action to administrators, and took action according to the policies. That is not vandalism. -Sojambi Pinola 17:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I realize if you are a troll that this will only further embolden you, but I must make the assumption that you are a human being first and foremost. While I have had personal experience with vandalism by Steve espinola and various socket puppets, I do not recall *any* problems from your nick, per se, nor any cognizant evidence that you are — in fact — tied to him. In the end, I based my faith in that Will and the real Steve had probably done more research than me on the issue of your identity and had good reasons for assuming a relationship. So I'm coming directly to you. Could you at least tell me exactly when they started saying you were steve? Do you have any idea at all why they might make that assumption?
As far as wikipedia is concerned, yes it does seem over-political. I believe the #1 problem is the lack of restrictions to number of edits an article can receive per day. there should be a system were *all* new articles would be marked with the {{cleanup}} tag and after an article has been, in fact, decided to be clean (aka of good quality) — hopefully via community vote, like VfD — the page edits would be restricted, automatically, to 3 wiki edits per 24 hours by any one person and, say, 15 edits (very loose/changeable figure) by every one. — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 12:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Further more, I empathetically denounce you adding me to the troublemakers list! I have never, as far as I recall, called YOU (Jonah Ayers) a sockpuppet or controller of sockpuppets. I have always referred to the controller of steve and others as Bob, since I have never known which, if any, was the master identity. Also, I recall reverting your edits maybe*once* but I know I have never wikistalked *your* edits as you simply have never massively vandalised pages that I have edited like Bob and his puppets. So, if you insist on calling me your enemy, then either show me where I have massively reverted your edits, called you a sockpuppet or a controller, or otherwise harrassed you. Or write me an apology on my talk page, remove negative mention of me from your own. You may just end up w/ me as an ally if you behave rationally. — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 12:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Klenk recently edited my page and removed material from it. No one came to my aid in this instance. This is another of the myriad ways in which this Wikipedian process exposes its inability to work in a fair manner. Klenk was listed on my troublemaker list, and by his action it seems this was a wise choice by me, as he came and vandalized my page. Jonah Ayers 16:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You removed my comments [3] twice about Wikipedia's No Personal Attacks policy. That would strongly imply that you have no intention of removing the personal attack. I'll give it another few hours....ooops, phone call....It said "Stay off the Brown Pigeon's talk page." The only person who has ever mentioned "the Brown Pigeon" to me is you. [4].
It would appear that you are calling my house??? That's a real problem. -Sojambi Pinola 21:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear you have become insane. how would I get your #? Don't add things here anymore. You are now spreading unsubstantiated rumors.Jonah Ayers 00:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Man! Headlines: Most Strage Motive: Man Kills Over Wiki Revision :O — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 01:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Klenk recently edited my page and removed material from it. No one came to my aid in this instance. This is another of the myriad ways in which this Wikipedian process exposes its inability to work in a fair manner. Klenk was listed on my troublemaker list, and by his action it seems this was a wise choice by me, as he came and vandalized my page. Jonah Ayers 16:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You removed my comments [5] twice about Wikipedia's No Personal Attacks policy. That would strongly imply that you have no intention of removing the personal attack. I'll give it another few hours....ooops, phone call....It said "Stay off the Brown Pigeon's talk page." The only person who has ever mentioned "the Brown Pigeon" to me is you. [6].
It would appear that you are calling my house??? That's a real problem. -Sojambi Pinola 21:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear you have become insane. how would I get your #? Don't add things here anymore. You are now spreading unsubstantiated rumors.Jonah Ayers 00:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Man! Headlines: Most Strage Motive: Man Kills Over Wiki Revision :O — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 01:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Florida Cello weighs in, maybe needs to grow a pair[edit]
Jonah Ayers, while I'm not condoning anyone's actions here or saying anyone did anything wrong, I must give you a firm reminder that personal attacks, such as calling someone a vandal or wiki-stalker, does nothing but raise the tensions. While I appreciate and understand your frustration, doing so accomplishes nothing. Also, I think this dispute has gone on long enough — I would recommend all parties read up on the dispute resolution process. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 13:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jonah, Jonah! Please stop deleting my messages asking you to play nice with others. We can ask you one more time. Please stop acting immaturely, and discuss any edits before you make them to the Biff Rose article. As I said before, take some time during these Holidays to reflect about how you are acting. I suggest listening to user:Flcelloguy and resolving this using a dispute resolution mechanism. 216.175.112.9.. 19:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not move fresh posts into the existing archive. The archive is supposed to reflect discussion up to the moment it was created, and should not be changed after that. Thank you. Owen×☎ 05:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove other people's comments from Talk pages. Thank you. Owen×☎ 06:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is your final warning. If you continue removing Talk page comments or creating ridiculous 1kB "archives", you will be blocked. Owen×☎ 15:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To contest this block, add the text {{unblock}} on this page, along with an explanation of why you believe this block to be unjustified. You can also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Please be sure to include your username and IP address in your email.
Do not erase this page or any of the warnings on it. Doing so is also considered vandalism.
Next time you remove other people's comments from that page I will impose a longer block. Owen×☎ 19:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
archive of suspected but not proven sockpuppets[edit]
Just pointing out that the rule is the 3 *revert* rule. A revert is where an edit takes an article and goes back to an earlier version. It is explained at Wikipedia:Revert. What you put on the 3RR page are users making more than 3 *edits* in a 24 hour period. That is ok. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you appreciate my love of nose picking. In case you would like to give it a try, here's a nose to pick! Be sure to send me some boogers.... Marcuse 01:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop disrupting this project over your obsession with Biff Rose. Posting the {test4} template on the page of a user who is editing in good faith is not truthful and not helpful. We're just trying to write an encyclopedia. So agree to something and then let's just all forget about Biff Rose. He's not worth the effort. -Will Beback 08:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have not logged on to wikipedia in *several* weeks, and yet I'm accused of being variuos people. Go to my user contributions. I was last seriously active 22 October. Give it a rest. O, here's a link to my site — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 16:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- My mistake. Harrassment of your style appeared, what was I to think?Jonah Ayers
Just pointing out that the rule is the 3 *revert* rule. A revert is where an edit takes an article and goes back to an earlier version. It is explained at Wikipedia:Revert. What you put on the 3RR page are users making more than 3 *edits* in a 24 hour period. That is ok. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
jonah, i don't give a hoot about rose. where you make me doubt your good faith as an editor is in two things (a) removal of factual information (b) use of sockpuppets. it may be that the version of the rose page is favorably biased. what i _know_ though is that your version is biased against. if you'd stop the shenanigans and simply make edits under the rules, then you'd get something accomplished.
as it is, i can guarantee you that you're going to end up being unable to edit the article at all. i'm well familiar with how arbcom works, and i know full well that you could have been banned from it months ago had anyone gone to the trouble.
so do yourself a favor. quit it with the puppets. quit with the removal of any facts. source your criticisms. remove any positive pov; there is some (e.g. the word "memorable"). don't inject any negative pov. it's really not very hard. if you can't factually support your position in this article, maybe you ought to reconsider your position.
if on the other hand, your real intent is to annoy sojambi, i think you're failing. you are, however, doing an excellent job of annoying me. and what do i care about rose? nothing.
Derex 19:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
look, where you put every neutral editor off is by removing stuff that's factual. you may not think a Time profile or a connection to Carlin is worth including. but others disagree, including me. it's simply a red flag. i see someone removing what seems to be fairly innocuous facts, and i'm going to assume he's here to pursue an agenda. so is everyone else, and it's based on long experience.
so, if your real fight is about racism, fight that fight first. there, the position is reversed. you're trying to add information, not remove it. your challenge is to add it in a way that can be sourced. this thing about the show being canceled ... can you document that in any way? how do _you_ know about it? i'm sympathetic to the possibility, since his album titles are suggestive. but you need to show it's made some sort of impact on his career or public perception, and do it in a verifiable, sourceable way.
it's not that all the other editors on that page are biased for rose. i doubt most of them have heard of rose.
update: ah, i see you're getting closer with the last edits. you should put back the personaldata template ... i put that in, it's a new standard being implemented for all bio's. Derex 19:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
oh, and remove the stalker/vandal list from this page. what good does that do? you already know who you consider an enemy. anyone who looks at that will immediately you're a crank -- it's a common red flag. i know that's been told to you before. but that sort of list leads to immediate loss of credibility with any neutral editor. at this point, there's not a whole lot you can do about that to anyone who reviews the case carefully. except to stop doing it, and play by the rules when editing. Derex 20:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you post any personal information about a user you will be instantly blocked indefinitely from editing this site. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
veiled threat by someone that daniel brandt identifies on his wiki watch page[edit]
Jonah, you've been reported on WP:AN/I regarding one or more articles you've created, which are perceived (rightly or wrongly) to have been created for the purposes of harassment. Could I ask you please to consider dropping this issue, regardless of how it started? I'm prepared to discuss this with you by e-mail if you'd like, so please e-mail me using the link on my user page if you'd like to try that. In the meantime, I'd like to delete the recent article that's causing the problem, because I think it's fairly clear the person is non-notable, and the reason for creating it does seem to be related to the dispute between you. Please e-mail me and we can discuss this in detail if you'd like to. Cheers, SlimVirgin(talk) 22:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jonah, you've been reported on WP:AN/I regarding one or more articles you've created, which are perceived (rightly or wrongly) to have been created for the purposes of harassment. Could I ask you please to consider dropping this issue, regardless of how it started? I'm prepared to discuss this with you by e-mail if you'd like, so please e-mail me using the link on my user page if you'd like to try that. In the meantime, I'd like to delete the recent article that's causing the problem, because I think it's fairly clear the person is non-notable, and the reason for creating it does seem to be related to the dispute between you. Please e-mail me and we can discuss this in detail if you'd like to. Cheers, SlimVirgin(talk) 22:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note. You mention the case with Rangerdude; if you saw that, please don't make the same mistakes, because look what ended up happening. In his case, the whole thing seems to have started as a misunderstanding, and maybe there's a similar misunderstanding here, but once these things escalate, they take on a life of their own, and everyone loses. The subject really isn't notable enough, and if he is, someone else will create it. It looks very bad to suddenly create an article on someone you're involved in an on-going dispute with. Would you mind e-mailing me (or posting here if you prefer) with some details? I'd like to try to stop this escalating any further if I can. SlimVirgin(talk) 22:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jonah, you've been reported on WP:AN/I regarding one or more articles you've created, which are perceived (rightly or wrongly) to have been created for the purposes of harassment. Could I ask you please to consider dropping this issue, regardless of how it started? I'm prepared to discuss this with you by e-mail if you'd like, so please e-mail me using the link on my user page if you'd like to try that. In the meantime, I'd like to delete the recent article that's causing the problem, because I think it's fairly clear the person is non-notable, and the reason for creating it does seem to be related to the dispute between you. Please e-mail me and we can discuss this in detail if you'd like to. Cheers, SlimVirgin(talk) 22:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note. You mention the case with Rangerdude; if you saw that, please don't make the same mistakes, because look what ended up happening. In his case, the whole thing seems to have started as a misunderstanding, and maybe there's a similar misunderstanding here, but once these things escalate, they take on a life of their own, and everyone loses. The subject really isn't notable enough, and if he is, someone else will create it. It looks very bad to suddenly create an article on someone you're involved in an on-going dispute with. Would you mind e-mailing me (or posting here if you prefer) with some details? I'd like to try to stop this escalating any further if I can. SlimVirgin(talk) 22:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Thanks, Jonah. I honestly have no knowledge of the Biff Rose page. I've been asked a couple of times to look at it, but I haven't done it (or at least don't recall doing it), and this was a long time ago. Whatever the dispute is, it's time that it stopped, and I'd like to help with that. I was hoping you could tell me what it is you're trying to achieve that you feel is being thwarted, and we could start from there. SlimVirgin(talk) 22:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
well this has been a troubling spot for me, and I'll tell you why. there was an editor named willmcw who mutated into Will Beback. If you look through the pages and pages gahtered in this archive, almost always something is directed in a snide and mean fashion by willmcw/beback. he's worked as a agitator and in collusion with SlimVirgin and Sojambi Pinola to get edits doen without having a sockpuppet, they have an eestablished agreement to circumvent the need for sock puppets, to cover each others asses and do the others bidding here on wikipedia ... unsigned comment by User:Jonah Ayers
\(caint) 22:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)