User talk:CodyJoeBibby

WP:ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Discussion here. SuperMarioMan 22:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Blocked

Having read the number of diffs on WP:ANI where you gratuitously attack other editors, it is clear that you are not here to edit collegially and even admit that you don't care if you are banned for it, so I have granted your wish. Black Kite (t) 22:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll be back. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

My name is Legion. For we are many. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 15:41, 29 October 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).

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

---

Request reason:

My comments were fully justified. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

In that case, your block is fully justified. I stand by it. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:52, 29 October 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).

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

---

Request reason:

I was not given any reasonable chance to respond on AN/I to explain my case, thus basic principles of justice were breached. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

One of the guiding lights on Wikipedia is our policy of civility. You've demonstrated you are unable to abide by this policy with edits such as this and this and this. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:36, 29 October 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).

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

---

Request reason:

But this doesn't change the fact that an accused person should be allowed to explain their case before being condemned. My actions may have been wrong, but were a response to wrong actions from other editors. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This does not justify your incivility. I'm sure you know the expression two wrongs don't make a right. only (talk) 21:02, 29 October 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.

So the first wrong (committed by the pro-guilt cabal on the MoMK article) goes unpunished, but the second 'wrong' (some robust comments made by me) is very severely punished? Now that's interesting. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you have a look at WP:NOTTHEM, and come up with a more convincing unblock rationale. SuperMarioMan 21:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

You know SuperMarioMan, I'm not sure I really want any 'helpful' suggestions from you now that you've caused this disaster for me. But thanks anyway. Why you obsessively stalk me to this extent is something of an issue. If it continues, I think I'm going to need to call law enforcement. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Then I'll second the comments about WP:NOTTHEM. The time to discuss other editors (through the proper channels) has passed for you. If you intend to edit here, your next unblock needs to address your own behavior, not the edits of anyone else. Dayewalker (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Further unblock requests

I have revoked talk-page access for this account while blocked, pending the resolution of your above mentioned possible legal action. Additional requests to be unblocked can be made by emailing unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org or by email to the arbitration committee. CIreland (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

This is the second time an obviously off-hand joke has been contrued in the most ridiculous, literal sense to justify an otherwise overly harsh punishment. Cody can be very uncivil, and for that his 48 hour block was justified. But closing his talk page access over that last statement borders on the absurd. Just like his first block being justified by him not coming out and affirmatively saying that he wanted another editor to be alive was absurd.LedRush (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Funny though that he didn't make it into your "incivility list".TMCk (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Only people who repeatedly made personal attacks against me and/or threatened me made that list. Congratulations!LedRush (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

If that would be true there would be no list.TMCk (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

All evidence to the contary.LedRush (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure...!TMCk (talk) 19:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with LedRush here - that is not a plausible legal threat. I've noticed some overreaction in the wp:nlt area in general on many occasions; perhaps it's just seen as being safer this way. pablo 20:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Although I agree that the legal threat is thin, the person who should be taking action here is CJB. He can easily climb out of this hole by understanding the issues above. - Glrx (talk) 00:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, it's extremely unlikely that he'd post anything that might look like a retraction when he doubtfully thinks he's done anything wrong. But in this case, this is ridiculous. Block him for the other posts, sure. But for NLT? That's crap. For whatever reason, he was venting about something that day and literally asking for a block. Cody does NOT like anyone that isn't pro-Knox as far as I can tell, so while SuperMarioMan meant well, it was probably like waving a red flag under a bull's nose. This is a really, really, REALLY marginal NLT call. Unlock the page. Ravensfire (talk) 02:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 18:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)