User talk:FeloniousMonk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

FM cleaning up with style!feloniousmonk

 

Archives

Contents

[edit] Too many forks by Ed Poor

It is just his general habit. See e.g. Scientific study of religion. Andries 06:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I am aware that Ed Poor is on the arbcom for doing that but I think the assumption of bad faith POV pushing by creating many POV forks that I have seen during the arbcom case is at least exaggerated and probably totally untrue. He does it for all subjects, not only for subjects on which there is some reason to assume that he wants to push his POV. Andries 16:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Email

Hello again, FeloniousMonk. I just wanted to let you know I'm still having the same problem we talked about before- I dropped you an email earlier today. Just let me know if you regularly check it so I don't feel compelled to leave a reminder on your talk page. Thanks! --HassourZain 19:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal remark on Talk:Uncommon Dissent

On the above-mentioned talk page you posted the following comment: "I agree. I've pointed this out several times already but it's like talking to a wall with this guy. FeloniousMonk 04:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)". Please restrict your comments on talk pages to discussion of the article content and avoid making remarks about other Wikipedians. Note this quote from Wikipedia policy: "Comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people.". Please assume good faith and try to help establish an atmosphere of collaboration.

Also, when editing the associated article at 18:01, 24 January 2007, you said in the edit summary: "rv, see talk, consensus is it's fine and you're trying to poison the well. please don't start disrupting this article again with this new "issue")". Please don't use the word "consensus" to describe one side of a dispute which has not been resolved. Also, please avoid saying things like "you're trying to poison the well" about other editors; please assume good faith and restrict your comments to article content. --Coppertwig 02:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It is already established to the satisfaction of a good portion of the relevant editors that Tim Smith is running a low-grade vandalism campaign of misusing templates in a bid to gain the upper hand in a simple content dispute: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Tim_Smith There's a point when it becomes not a personal attack to call out patterns of policy violation, but simply a matter of calling a spade a spade, so give it a rest. FeloniousMonk 04:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Tim Smith's edits are not vandalism; see Wikipedia:Vandalism. Putting a dispute tag on an article where there is a dispute is not vandalism, for example, and is not a misuse of a template. I have read the RfC and have not seen any policy violations by Tim Smith.
If someone's behaviour is out of line, please discuss it in the appropriate channels as described in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes or other Wikipedia policy and guideline pages. If someone's actions are against policy, it's important to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines while responding to the situation. Making comments in edit summaries or on article talk pages about the motivations of other editors is not one of the proper dispute resolution avenues and tends to escalate conflict. Please follow the procedures recommended in Wikipedia policies and guidelines so that the discussion can focus back onto article content and become more productive. --Coppertwig 13:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Who the <little fluffy bunny> are you lecturing? You've been here a whole whopping four months and are fundamentally clueless about Wikipedia policy except where it suits you. FM, on the other hand, is a very well-respected editor and admin, who has dealt with more vandals and POV-pushers than you have edits. Give it a rest. •Jim62sch• 13:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
One pov pusher trying to gain the upper hand in a content dispute does not a valid dispute make; and there's consensus on the talk page that his objections are baseless. I'm sorry, but you're as mistaken about policy as your lecturing is misplaced. From WP:VAND: "Improper use of dispute tags: Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus. Instead, follow WP:CON and accept that some edits will not meet consensus." Furthermore, we have been following WP:DR, hence Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tim Smith, so again, your lecturing here is clearly misplaced. FeloniousMonk 17:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Langan

Use your own judgement, if you think they are Langan or his wide, treat them as though they are. Use the duck test... Fred Bauder 20:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. Fred Bauder 22:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure the section about the society is worth fighting for--the article looks just as effective without it. The first paragraph, standing alone, is better than any amount of rhetoric & makes a good example for how to deal with articles about similar geniuses--just quote what they say, and don't bother refuting. DGG 01:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you might try a brief paragraph, for to an outsider it would look as if it is out of proportion. DGG 02:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "About your method"

Re your post on my talk page:

About: [1] Since when is an explanation for every edit mandatory? This could be taken as biting newbies. Viewed with your leaving of clueless "warnings" [2], this raises some questions about your method. You are not an admin and clearly not up to speed on policy either. I suggest you stop taking action against other editors and focus on contributing to that article. FeloniousMonk 17:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Not every edit summary requires an explanation: reverting obvious vandalism doesn't require an explanation, and new, non-disputed edits require a description, not necessarily an explanation. See Wikipedia:Edit summary. I feel that all users, however new or experienced, need to be told or reminded when they do things that are advised against. Perhaps my wording could have been a little gentler. If you think I've done anything wrong, please tell me what it is and give a link to the policy or guideline you think I've broken.
Please avoid using the phrase "poisoning the well" on either the talk page or edit summaries of Uncommon Dissent, unless you also specify there that you don't mean the definition given at the beginning of the Wikipedia poisoning the well page, which refers to an intention of discrediting; otherwise it may be seen as a comment on the intentions of other editors. --Coppertwig 18:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
"Please avoid using the phrase "poisoning the well" on either the talk page or edit summaries of Uncommon Dissent" Still insist on issuing bogus warnings I see. I'm afraid that sort of behavior won't get you very far around the project. Poisoning the well is indeed a reference to the well documented problematic behavior of a particuluar editor. FeloniousMonk 18:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Look at the diff!

Could you check the diff of you edit, and point out what exactly is "more in line with current practice"? The only significant fix that you reverted is the "as a rule" edit, and while I'm not native English, two other editors considered this could be interpreted as a loophole, see the talk. --Merzul 19:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, sorry about being so aggressive here. I realize my edit summaries there made absolutely no sense. Here's what I meant, I suspected that there had been a mistake, and applied the substantial changes one by one. And note, that I'm not trying to change this proposal, and I have had very little to do with it, I only like it a lot. --Merzul 20:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Benapgar

I noticed that you commented that 24.57.157.81 was previously used by Benapgar. Due to the IP user's recent activity being similar to Benapgar's POV, I requested that someone check it out. If you have information regarding this IP being used by that banned user, please let the declining admin know. Thank you. Vassyana 00:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for any misunderstanding. You just apparently rephrased the self-admission by Benapgar. Apologies again for the misunderstanding. 00:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] An RfC brought up by User:Lukas19 et al.

Hello, sorry to disturb but I thought you might be interested in commenting on this rfC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/LSLM·Maunus· ·ƛ· 19:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I had made my case on WP:COI

And you reverted without discussion. The guideline should reflect the fact that this now used as a reason by arbcom member to ban members, regardless of the quality of edits. My edits were described as responsible. Andries 22:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

See User_talk:Jdforrester/Arbitration#Sathya_Sai_Baba_arbcom_case_2:_banning_of_Andries_for_one_year Andries 23:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:BLP courtesy deletion

FM, do you have any interest in helping to write this? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate comments

Hey FM,

I was hoping that you might have some idea as to how to deal with this comment of PalestineRemembered's. He insinuates not only that I'm somehow creating an "apartheid" in the article, but that I'm doing the same to him and other editors. The comment is so extremely offensive that I'm not even quite sure how to respond. Please let me know, TewfikTalk 02:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requests for arbitration: "Bad"ministration

Just to let you know that I have begun a "Requests for arbitration: "Bad"ministration" in which you will be involved. This will include what I feel are some of the unsubstantiated decisions against me. --Iantresman 23:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Your puzzling remark about "undermining"

In an edit summary, you wrote:

Ed, are you trying to undermine how the scientific community's views are represented? [3]

I'm not sure what you mean here, but I hope you are not accusing me of a policy violation. You have been admonished before about that, by the arbcom, and I've personally asked you to bring any concerns to me directly. If you feel one of my edits is not just incorrect or unhelpful, but amounts to a rules violation I wish you would:

  1. Tell me what rule you feel is being broken (or bent), and
  2. Tell me how what I wrote or did violates that specific rule.

(You'll recall being told, "FeloniousMonk is admonished not to use his administrative tools or give warnings in content disputes in which he is involved." And this is a content dispute. You disagree with me about how to represent the scientific community's views.)

Our long-running dispute is over how various Wikipedia articles should characterize the degree and proportion of support for various controversial scientific ideas (or if you prefer "ideas about scientific matters"). You, like most liberals, insist that the mainstream is "correct" and that all views outside the mainstream should be dismissed. Some, you want dismissed as pseudoscience.

As you ought to know, I am aware of the Wikipedia community's consensus-derived policy, that minority views should not be misrepresented as having more support than they do. For example, if only 20% of the parties to a dispute endorse a particular position, it would be wrong to state (or even imply or hint) that the parties are split 50-50. I have maintained this stance since long before you yourself joined this project. I fail to understand why you think I might not agree with or understand this idea. I mean, I just explained it to you for the dozenth time, with a fresh example. Please be reasonable, FeloniousMonk!

Likewise, if a view has as much as 20% opposition, than there is some question about whether the 80% constitute a "consensus" or simply a "majority". I would not mind even calling it an "overwhelming majority" or "prevailing view". However, I am unaware of any policy page indicating a decision by Wikipedia to treat science as a matter for voting. It really only takes one counterexample to falsify a hypothesis. (If there is a policy page which says that a particular percentage such as 80%, 95%, etc. shall be deemed to constitute a "consensus" and that dissenting views shall be labeled "pseudoscience" then I will be happy to stand corrected. Before I post the second half of my intended remarks, I will pause for a reasonable amount of time for you to locate and quote such a policy.

See you soon. :-) --Uncle Ed 19:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PA's

Hi FM,

I responded in brief to your notes on my Talk page. However, this post is about something else:

I do not have a personal ax to grind against you. I appreciate that this is your perception, but it is not a personal axe, but an idiological one, over the use of the word "denialism". I respect your reasons for needing to have that word given a full article, but I have completely different reasons for opposing it -- because it is used almost always in a pejorative sense.

Thanks for your understanding.

--Otheus 01:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Erroneous remark about "no discussion ... as claimed"

FeloniousMonk, please discuss reversions first, instead of making false claims. Your behavior here is highly inappropriate and disrputive. You've been admonished by the arbcom for this sort of thing.

Look at the history of the template. [4]

I clearly said in the Edit Summary that there had been discussion about the distinction of use - not that there had been an agreement to restore. It was because you failed to follow up on the discussion that I thought you had no major objection and were bowing to consensus. If you had a rejoinder to the points brought up in discussion, you should have made them instead of taking unilateral action. Wikipedia works on consensus, you know.

By your false statement no discussion on the talk page for restoring as Ed claimed you put words in my mouth to accuse me of lying. Is that civil? Or did you mean no consensus for restoring? Anyway, Ybbor and I both disagreed with your previous hasty destruction of this template, and know you are doing it again.

You have:

  • Refused to continue the discussion you were in about the template.
  • Accused me "falsely claiming there was a discussion" even though you yourself participated in it
  • Put words in my mouth "Ed claimed [there was] discussion on the talk page for restoring" when what I actually said is that the three of us discussed the distinction of use. You said there was no discussion. The Ybbor and I felt there was a distinction.

Please stop this sort of behavior. If you disagree with an edit or 'move' or deletion or anything I do, I would like you to give REASONS for you disagreement, instead of accusing me falsely of something. Anyone would think you were trying to build some sort of bogus case against me to get me in trouble. That is hardly collegial. Don't you want to work together?

Also, the false statement about me is completely unacceptable. If you had said that you disgreed with the other editor and me, that would be fine. If you even claimed there was no consensus - because you it was only 2-to-1 against you, that might be okay. But to put words in my mouth and call me a liar - that is not civil. Please don't do this any more. --Uncle Ed 03:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Also, there's a guideline about moving pages suddenly, lest such an action cause disruption to the project. When I tried to edit the Template:Weasel word, I accidentally wound up editing Template:Views needing attribution, and it took me several minutes to repair this. Please stop doing things which disrupt our project. --Uncle Ed 04:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let's cooperate instead of fighting

  • The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars. Rather than reverting multiple times, discuss the matter with other editors. If an action really needs reverting that much, somebody else will probably do it — and that will serve the vital purpose of showing that the community at large is in agreement over which course of action is preferable.

I'm going to leave the template alone, in accordance with the above-quoted advice from 3RR. But I wish you would discuss matters of dispute, instead of acting like you know better than everyone else. Rules-lawering is no substitute for building consensus, and it doesn't hurt to have a little patience. Explain what you plan first, and wait for understanding. What's your rush all the time? --Uncle Ed 04:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More civility leads to less stress

  • Whereas incivility is roughly defined as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress, our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another.

It causes me a lot of stress to be called a liar. To say that I made a false claim means you are calling me a liar. Why not just say you disagree? Or say that you "were unaware of" what I was referring to?

Better yet, why not come to my talk page and ask me, "What did you mean by that?" Please try to engage me rather than thwart me or out-maneuver me. We are working together on various topics of mutual interest. It's only going to work if you make some effort to be civil. Please stop targeting me, it just stresses me out.

If I say something unclear or odd or unsupportable, just ask me about it. Maybe I made a mistake in haste, or maybe I used the wrong word, or (rarely!) maybe I'm just plain wrong. Or maybe I was right but you misunderstood. It will save us both a lot of stress, aggravation and embarassment if you will approach me in a gentle and patient manner. I'm here to help the project, same as you. Work with me on this, I respectfully request. --Uncle Ed 04:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible sock of Raspor/Everwill

Hi, FM. Since you enforced the blocks of several other socks of Raspor/Everwill (if I recall correctly), you may be interested to know that a newly-registered user ElderStatesman (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) with similar editing patterns (predilection with race/the term Oriental, the Orient, fussing and assuming bad faith on the Talk:Intelligent design page) has recently surfaced. Just thought you should know. --HassourZain 19:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey FM. I hate making an accusation without a lot of evidence, but it's starting to be a trend. I try to give people like this a chance (you know, assuming good faith), and it's always abused. I'm not sure if this guy is Raspor or VacuousPoet (who knows, maybe those two are the same), but he really does write in the same manner as the other ones. Orangemarlin 20:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Everwill has the same article editing pattern as ElderStatesman: [5] [6] 151.151.21.103 20:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey FM. He continues to revert or blank out the sockpuppet tag. See dif. I hate being a rat, but he's getting a bit out of hand. Orangemarlin 19:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Langan

Three points in relation to your threats left on my talk page. (1) I do not know what you mean by my "edit pattern." To what does that refer? It has to be the weakest reason to threaten blockage I can imagine, especially given the extensive, logical, and unrebutted argumentation I offered for my actions (and which contrasts with the lack of explanation offered by those reverting my edit). (2) The arbitration rulings you mentioned have absolutely nothing to do with the section currently in dispute. These rulings occurred in December, and did not address the issues of libel raised by Asmodeus on 7 February, and which have yet to be properly addressed by those currently reverting my edit. Just because there was a ruling on one matter does not mean you can "apply" that ruling to other matters whenever you feel like it. (3) There is no sense in which I am the one "edit warring." I made and justified an edit, which has been reverted three times without attempting an explanation. At the same time I have been accused of vandalism, and threatened with blockage, all in contravention of policy. FNMF 03:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Checkuser

Ah, no wonder no one is responding to me. [7]. Sigh. Okay, I understand now why you thought I was compiling an attack page. *sigh* --Otheus 00:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Otheus

Otheus has asked me to look into his recent accusations of being a sock puppet. I, having nothing to do with any of the individuals involved, or articles involved, agreed to look into it as a neutral third party. Do you know of any particular edits that may lead to suspicions that Otheous is a sockpuppet of Agapetos angel? The article that I am aware of them having common edits on are Jonathan Sarfati. Is there another article that I am unaware of? My research has shown that Otheus has only edited that article 6 times, of which 5 edits were reverting edits by an anon to a previous state, reverting himself or making minor grammatical changes. The only edit I could possibly see as tenditious is [8] which appears to be a re-wording of the content. I am not very involved in this case, so pardon my ignorance, was Agapetos angel and his sock puppets known for re-wroding phrases? If so, I stand corrected in my assumption that Otheus is in fact not a sock puppet. There are several other reasons why I believe this to be the case as well. If you have a take on this, or a personal opinion or anything, I would love to hear it. Thanks, -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Everwill

Oh, aye. That's a match. Definately a sock. But not a Raspor-sock. =) Adam Cuerden talk 04:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No, he's a sock puppet of Everwill, who is under a ban as well. 151.151.21.101 20:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Overturned

I have removed your block of FNMF as I could not find evidence of personal attacks, disruption, or any remotely significant similarity to Asmodeous to justify it per your statement in the block log. Further, even if there were clear basis for the block, in no case should you have been placing it after being involved in the dispute. If you wish, I can explain my reasoning more fully and provide diff links. However, I would hope that everyone could leave off making this a matter of conflict and just try to collectively produce a neutral article on the matter. --CBD 12:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That's fine: I'm not going to challenge your unblocking of FNMF, he's had enough time off to consider his method of participation. But I do stand by my reasoning for issuing the block, which was reviewed in advance by four other admins who all agreed FNMF clearly has been contributing in the exact same manner of DrL and Asmodeus at Christopher Michael Langan (you seem to miss the point that the relevant contributions are those of DrL and Asmodeus, not just Asmodeus). Thus per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ScienceApologist#DrL_2 "All remedies which apply to Asmodeus also apply to DrL and, after warning accompanied by a link to this matter, to any other user with a similar editing pattern.", the remedy applied to Asmodeus being "Asmodeus is indefinitely banned from editing Christopher Michael Langan and all related articles." As far as evidence of disruption and personal attacks, this is clearly a personal attack and there's no shortage of evidence of the disruption from this and his other rants and snipes at Talk:Christopher Michael Langan. As for my being previously involved at the article precluding my being able to block, I remind you that WP:SOCK clearly says when dealing with meatpuppets (which is what the RFAR ruling I invoked applies to) "Accounts operating in violation of this policy should be blocked indefinitely; the main account may be blocked at the discretion of any administrator." Also note that I not haven't made any notable edits the article or its talk page for over 3 weeks, a fact that is really a non sequitur in the light of WP:SOCK. Should FNMF continue down the same path, walking in the footsteps of DrL and Asmodeus, I'll simply refer him to the arbcomm for clarification moving forward. FeloniousMonk 16:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Rest assured that I reviewed the matter carefully before taking any action. The edit you note as a personal attack is markedly less nasty than many I've seen from any number of long-time users, admins, and even ArbCom members. It is well below any thresh-hold for 'blockable disruption' which I have ever seen before. Likewise, I don't believe the ArbCom had this sort of thing in mind when they said that further bans could be placed for 'similar editing patterns'. That case cited long term repeated edits to promote Langan's theories as more credible than mainstream science, sustained incivility, original research, tendentious editing, et cetera... in short, 'editing patterns' which constituted solid reasons for a ban from the article. FNMF introduced no original research, did not edit to promote Langan's theories at all, and in truth was involved only in a minor content dispute, running a grand total of five days (from his first edit on the page to your block)... by that measure of 'similarity' ANY disagreement with you on this topic could be a bannable offense. He hadn't done anything significantly wrong. Finally, even though you had not edited for a few weeks I don't see how you could be 'neutral' on the content issue... the very passage FNMF was seeking to remove was introduced and kept in over objections by you. You can patch together a 'reason' for blocking here (claims of 'personal attacks' and 'similar' editing), but not I believe a need for a block. FNMF wasn't doing anything more 'disruptive' than a thousand other editors do on any given day without being blocked... he disagreed with you, and that's not enough. --CBD 18:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
CBD, please try to assume good faith. Your summary also mischaracterises the situation - FM wasn't the only one who characterised FMNF's actions in that way, and at least one other admin reviewed the situation and saw it as valid. You are free to disagree with FM, Arthur Rubin, JzG and me, but you are not free to pretend that this was a unilateral block based on an edit-dispute. Guettarda 18:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I reviewed the matter carefully as well before taking any action, going so far as to seek several second opinions, and stand by the block. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. And it's not as if you and I have not had similar disagreements over blocking in the past. Come to think of it, considering our past conflicts over blocking and unblocking, you're not what I'd call exactly neutral either, but whatever, neither Langan nor any of his proxies that show up there are worth much of my time. FeloniousMonk 19:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
If we've been in dispute(s) before I don't remember it... and thus perforce it didn't influence my decision. Agree to disagree works for me, but to avoid continuation of the dispute I'd suggest seeking general comment on AN/I before further use of the 'walking in the footsteps' block reasoning. --CBD 19:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, we've locked horns over the blocks of several users before, but that's neither here nor there, I take you at your word. Please extend me the same courtesy. As I said, I'm not opposing your unblocking of FNMF and I'll just let the arbcomm clarify any next steps if this particular editor rouses the same suspicions for others; he's gathered enough supporters with dubious histories to make any reasonable outcome arising from discussion at WP:AN/I problematic. FeloniousMonk 21:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure you don't have me confused with someone else? I checked and I've never edited your talk page before today, you've never edited my talk page at all, and none of the blocks I've reversed previously were made by you. If we've 'locked horns' several times before we somehow managed to do it without ever... you know, talking to each other. :] --CBD 21:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

FM, in your response to CBD, you said "which was reviewed in advance by four other admins who all agreed FNMF clearly has been contributing in the exact same manner of DrL and Asmodeus". Since part of my claim -- that you abused your authority in making this block -- was based on your failing to consult with other admins on the matter, you could of course set the record straight and provide evidence or diffs where you did exactly that. But of course, before making my claim, I checked your user-talk history and found no such conversation. I suggest to you and urge you, therefore, to make any such counsels a matter of record by using the talk pages. Otherwise some, including myself, might see such a claim as a bald lie to cover your ass. --Otheus 21:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

No reason for suspicion. Presumably they discussed it off-wiki. --CBD 21:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Otheus, claiming something as a lie is unacceptable. Claiming something is a lie when you have yourself edited the pages in which two of those opinions were expressed...well, that's more than a little disingenuous. Guettarda 02:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Guettarda, once again you have failed to understand a nuance here. I did not claim FM lied. I said, that if in the future FM does not discuss these things on-wiki, others and I might see [the hypothetical future claim of conferring with others] as a lie. And just because we might see it as such does not imply we would publicly claim it as such.
Failing to follow the ArbCom's rulings in a transparent manner harms the project. Wouldn't you agree? --Otheus 17:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Failing to follow the ArbCom's rulings in a transparent manner harms the project - but it wasn't done in a manner that wasn't transparent. It was discussed out in the open. So not only were you obliquely accusing FM of lying, you were either being irresponsible in your accusation (having not bothered to look for the discussion, despite the fact that it occurred on pages that you have actually edited since it took place), or you were implying he lied despite being aware of the discussion. So, once again you are being disingenuous in your accusations. Guettarda 06:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I scanned his contributions to the User_talk pages between the 21st and time of block and found no discussion. If I overlooked something or he made the discussion elsewhere, then, yes, then you will be right that my particular accusation was irresponsible. --Otheus 06:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I am just observing this from the sidelines, but I would argue that out of courtesy, CBD should have asked for clarification from the blocking admin before undoing the block. That is not only a matter of courtesy that should be extended to a fellow admin, but a way to allow the blocking admin to address any concerns that CBD may had and explain his rationale for the block. After that is done, and if there is still disagreement, other admins can be asked to comment to ascertain the level of support or lack of support for a block. Unilateral undoing of an admin block, without asking questions first is not the way to do this, gentlemen. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, I'd agree with you except for two things;
  1. Several people had in fact already "asked for clarification". There was no 'lack of information' on my part when I unblocked.
  2. Some blocks can and should be overturned immediately. There isn't any justification for an admin blocking a user they are in a content dispute with [9] [10]. There isn't any validity in claiming that this is a personal attack so severe as to constitute blockable disruption (and if there were, several other participants in this dispute would seem to be missing a block). And there is no way that the ArbCom meant a tiny five day content dispute to be sufficient grounds to ban someone from an article... especially when that person's supposedly 'disruptive' edits to the article were endorsed as valid by Jimbo.
Yes, we need to respect our fellow admins. However, we need to respect our users too. --CBD 09:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course that is a given. But asking one question from the blocking admin, could have saved you all a lot of aggravation. If I block someone, I expect anyone challenging the block to contact me first. I am sure you would appreciate the same. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Endorsed by Jimbo? Jimbo endorsed linkfarming and personal attacks? Wow, that's news to me. Guettarda 06:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heads up

Rednblu is trying to organize an RFC against you by recruiting DrL and FNMF. The link he posts there is DrL trying to get the arbcom ruling lifted against himself and Asmodeus to which you contributed, so there's his angle. 151.151.21.103 22:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. This is nothing new, he's a chronic malcontent and agitator. If the project got 5 bucks from every editor blocked or banned who complained about it we wouldn't need any more fund drives. It's already been explained to both parties that the line they're considering for the lifting of User:DrL's and User:Asmodeus's ban is not an option, RFAR appeals are heard only by the arbcomm or Jimbo, not the community. Simply stirring the pot to fuel strife and find support while posing as the aggrieved won't work against arbcomm rulings and often backfire due to the additional disruption and ill will they create. Considering the weight of the evidence presented in the RFAR and their own contribution histories, getting the ban lifted against editing their own article has an exceedingly low order of probability of succeeding. FeloniousMonk 17:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I saw your comments to Otheus and whole-heartedly agree with your characterization of the situation. He confirmed it when he split up your comment with his responses (no doubt in order to lessen its impact). Sincw that violates talk page guidelines and makes it harder to follow your thinking I restored your comment to its original form - I hope you don't mind. I too felt his edit summary to me was uncalled for and not civil, so thanks for setting him straight. 151.151.21.101 17:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] framing merge proposal

Please see Talk:Framing (sociology). - Grumpyyoungman01 14:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dominionism

Based on what I know of your editing, no one could make a case that would satisfy you, and I'm not going to try. I can only direct you to read WP:NPOV#Bias and try to "write for the enemy". Obviously, I'm aware that when I turn my back on the template, you will immediately seek to re-impose your terminology, which is biased, and all I can do is ask you not to. Those who adhere to "dominionism" do not generally call it that. Its opponents do. You are aware of that. Sadly, you are also one of those opponents and seemingly unable to leave your biases at the door. So I can only ask you to consider whether you are approaching this subject fairly, and in particular, whether those you are writing about would accept your categorisation of them. They don't necessarily have to like it, but would they accept that it fairly describes them? Given that it is generally used pejoratively, I think you know that they wouldn't.

You might also like to read Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#How_to_make_a_choice_among_controversial_names. "Dominionism" clearly has POV connotations. It is nothing like a neutral word. I accept that "Christian reconstructionism" can also be argued to be POV, but at least it is not derogatory. Further on in that same article, it notes that "Where self-identifying names are in use, they should be used within articles." I think that is sound advice. If a group calls itself the foos, but you call them the bars, you should strongly consider calling them foos. This is a reliable means of resolving difficult clashes of POV. Grace Note 07:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/e/l/User_talk%7EFeloniousMonk_476a.html"