User talk:Mindspillage/2005archive11

Happy Holidays

Tony the Marine

O.K. Kat, so you don't believe in Santa, but I still want to wish you and your loved ones all the happiness in the world and the best new year ever (Especially in Virginia). Your friend, Tony the Marine 04:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

I'd like to thank you, first and foremost; if you're receiving this message, it's because I think you were one of the people I adopted as a personal mentor, and who helped to make the whole Wikipedia experience more enjoyable.

The fact is, I've got no choice but to leave. The recent sordid affair with User:Deeceevoice and my appalling conduct in that showed me that I have not the calibre required to maintain good relations with users on the wiki. Worse still, I violated almost all of the principles I swore to uphold when I first arrived.

I've now been desysopped, and I plan on devoting a little more time to what I am good at, which is developing. I don't fit in on this side of the servers, but perhaps I can still be of use to the project.

Thank you. Rob Church ^Talk 02:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Did we forget?

This is a friendly reminder that apparently, the winners of Wikipedia:Article rescue contest have not been determined! I am posting this to all the judges listed there. Maybe it would be a good idea to get this done soon? --HappyCamper 03:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Florida

I noticed from Category:Wikipedians in Florida that you are a floridian and I have created a state wikiproject, Wikipedia:WikiProject Florida. So far is it very small but it could be expanded later. Join it if you want and help set tasks etc. Thanks --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Poetlister block

Hi there. I got an e-mail from User:Poetlister asking for me advice for how to present the case with regards to the mediation for List of Jewish jurists where User:Poetlister, User:Jayjg and User:RachelBrown were involved in an edit war with primarily User:Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters and had filed a mediation request here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#List_of_Jewish_jurists, also mentioning User:SlimVirgin (although from what I saw in the evidence, Slim Virgin wasn't really involved). I note that your stated reason for the block is that Poetlister is a sock puppet of RachelBrown, however RachelBrown has not logged in for a period of time. They apparently live near to each other and talk on the phone. There should be no suggestion of sock puppetry as 1) they were both logged on at the same time on many occasions and edited at the same time and 2) RachelBrown has ceased editing as at about 3 weeks ago, while Poetlister is continuing. I respectfully ask you to remove the block so as to facilitate in an appropriate mediation, and to allow due process. From what I can gather of the evidence, it seems that Lulu of the Lotus Eaters is primarily at fault, and a Request for Comment would seem to be the logical next step up from here. I can see many breaks of the 3RR rule for one thing. Please can you remove the block so that things can be sorted out. Thank you. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 22:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Zordrac and Mindspillage, there is no ongoing RfM. RachelBrown made a request for mediation some weeks ago and Lulu of the Lotus Eaters turned it down. There are no outstanding issues, and RachelBrown has stopped editing, so the matter is over. The issue at the time was that Rachel Brown would not supply sources for her edits when Lulu asked; then she did and Lulu wasn't happy with the particular source; then Rachel agreed to provide sources in future, and Lulu accepted the particular source she had offered. That was the end of it.

For reasons known only to herself, Poetlister keeps posting in various places that she is in mediation regarding what she calls a "complex issue," sometimes including me in the list of people who are opposing her, sometimes not. We've asked her what she believes the issues are, and Lulu has made it very clear he will not go into mediation with her, but she doesn't respond. The whole thing is decidedly odd. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The issue at hand is the block. This needs to be reverted. Other things can be dealt with later. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 22:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the RfM, here is Lulu's very clear response [4] and that was probably the third or fourth time he said it. Whether she needs to be unblocked is a separate issue, but if you're saying she should be unblocked to engage in mediation, it's important to know that there is no mediation for her to engage in. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It is a RfC issue actually now that mediation has been refused. I see evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Lulu of the Lotus Eaters requiring a RfC and possibly ArbCom. If this blocking is being used in any way to cover this up, then it is very much out of order. There was no rational reason for the block. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 22:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

There was a rational reason for the block. Evidence was presented to the arbcom, a checkuser was done, it was found that there was likely sockpuppeting used against policy. There does not seem to be a mediation taking place -- nor is there currently an RfC taking place. (Note that the main RachelBrown account is not blocked.) If you have an RfAr to bring, Zordrac, then bring one, and when that happens the appropriate action can be taken; however, the block stands until there is sufficient justification to remove it. THe blocking is to stop the sockpuppets being used to stack debates. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I think that it would be inappropriate for me to bring an RfAr as I am a neutral party and have no personal knowledge of the dispute. I think that it would be more appropriate if User:Poetlister brought it to RfAr, or, alternately, for User:RachelBrown, although since one has quit for good and the other has been permanently banned, that seems somewhat ridiculous. Thus I will simply acknowledge lack of process here. If in the end there is no attempt to follow process, and no effort to fix this problem, then I guess I will leave it. It seems that I have inherited a second Wikistalker from this, in Lulu. LOL. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 21:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I have no knowledge about the block on Poetlister, and will not comment on whether it is proper or justified. However, I am not participating in any mediation with Poetlister (nor with anyone else); any such alleged mediation should not affect a blocking decision. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

That's correct. You refused the mediation, thus leading to an escalation of the problem to an RfC, which was to be filed an hour later, which was why I was contacted. Yet, just minutes before it was to be filed, User:Poetlister was banned. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 12:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I feel I should join in here, I have been having conversations with these people separately and there is no way that Poetlister, RachelBrown or Londoneye are the same person. While it may be true that they support each other in disputes (Rachel's flatmate did revert on the British jewish page, once logged in on Rachel's account, but otherwise correctly logged out showing as an ip) I don't feel a block is justified at all. Arniep 01:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

If CheckUser shows conclusively that they are sockpuppets, then the sock accounts should be blocked. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Seriously? Is that the policy? Can you show to me this policy? I have never seen it anywhere else. Also what is the definition of "conclusively"? These 5 users all had vastly different editing patterns and contributed to totally different articles, the only similarity being that 2 of them voted on 1 or 2 of the same AFDs as each other, which made no difference to the result. It seems quite bizarre that a block could be justified when there is no evidence of any "vote stacking" or any other undue interference. If the CheckUser is true, a likely explanation is that they all use the same Internet Service Provider. ISPs often cater for thousands of users, and in some places are region based. In the absence of evidence of any actual wrongdoing or any consistency of their actions, it seems quite a ludicruous decision. So we've got a poet, a historian, a geographer, an S&M fashion person and a religious zealot yet we are saying that the 5 of them are the same person? Seems quite bizarre to me. Are such conclusions normal practise? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 21:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid they are. If a certain group of editors want someone banned, they're going to be banned. If it wasn't this, it'd be something else. -- Grace Note.

Oh. Are there worse examples than this one? I am still quite dumbfounded by this. I didn't believe it at first, but yeah. I did ask Poetlister directly if they were the same person, and she said that RachelBrown and her are bestest best friends and visit each other regularly. She didn't say whether or not they are flatmates, but they might be. Is there a rule prohibiting 2 people contributing from the same house? I didn't think that there was. If there is, it should be listed somewhere. But the other 3 weren't friends. One was a cousin, and the other 2 used to go to school together but have nothing to do with each other now. It just seems bizarre. Not only that, but all of these users had talked on the phone to other Wikipedians, proving that they are all different people to each other. They even gave their real names and put their real photos on to Wikipedia. And I am sorry, but someone explain to me how User:Taxwoman can possibly be a sock puppet of User:RachelBrown? They had ZERO in common. There's thin links and then there's thin links. Maybe there is a case for investigating whether Poetlister and RachelBrown were the same person, but the other 3 are so far removed from it that it is a joke. And besides which, why ban Poetlister for supposed impersonation of Rachel Brown 3 weeks after Rachel Brown left? That's just absurd. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 09:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Poetlister

Hi, you're usually a pretty reasonable person, and not an admin who generally throws their weight around. You have banned Poetlister as a sock of RachelBrown. However, you don't seem to have presented any evidence in an accessible place, such as in the place provided on the template or on the talkpage for the user in question. Please do so. Not providing evidence in either place leads one to believe that you have come to the conclusion off your own bat, and that's not really fair on the user concerned. I've removed the sockpuppet tag, because I think we should not permit unsubstantiated accusations. I am also making this request because I'm sure you acted in good faith and that you can provide substantial evidence that the users are one and the same. Thanks. -- Grace Note.

I concur. Please explain why you believe that User:Poetlister and User:RachelBrown are sockpuppets of each other. Further, an indefinite block appears to be unjustified even if true. --Nlu (talk) 03:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

There were several IP matches in close temporal proximity on several distinct occasions between Poetlister, RachelBrown, and the other involved usernames in a manner that makes it unlikely that they are separate people, and I have received no correspondence from any of the blocked usernames nor from RachelBrown (which is not blocked) either protesting this or attempting to provide explanation. The indefinite block is justified for a sockpuppet being used to reinforce one's own position in debate. If they are separate and I have placed the block in error I will apologize for having done so, but currently the evidence suggests otherwise and I cannot justify lifting it without hearing a good explanation to the contrary. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

This is Poetlister's e-mail address: ig26yh@hotmail.com. Her name is Giselle Hillman and is no relation to Rachel Brown. You can contact her, and she will talk to you on the phone, as will Rachel Brown. She is not particularly technically savvy (nor are any of these girls) and hence likely didn't realise what they were supposed to do. Now that you've explained what needs to be done, I am sure that she would be happy to give you everyone's phone numbers, including her own, and you can talk to them each on the phone to verify who they are. Note that it has been explained many times previously how it is theoretically impossible for them to be sock puppets. However, Poetlister did visit RachelBrown's house regularly. I don't believe that there is a rule prohibiting 2 friends who are both Wikipedia editors, from visiting each other from time to time, or even using each other's computers when doing so. Is there such a rule? I understand that Londoneye once visited Rachel Brown's house as well, as they are first cousins. The other 2 apparently did not. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Emails?

Mindspillage, are you getting my emails? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! I've emailed you back. And it was pretty chilly today... :-) Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A compromise

I have just received an e-mail from Poetlister, which states the situation as follows:

• User:Poetlister and User:RachelBrown are best friends, and likely used the same computer from time to time. There may be a very thin link towards them being "meat puppets" because of this. I understand that they visited each other virtually every weekend.
• User:Londoneye was Rachel Brown's first cousin, and came over to visit once or twice, over a month apart from each other. Being cousins, they called each other from time to time.
• User:Newport went to university with Rachel Brown, and when they found out that they both used Wikipedia, they called each other up on the phone to talk about it, and catch up on old times.
• User:Taxwoman also went to university with Rachel Brown, although they were never friends and have nothing in common with each other. Newport apparently called Taxwoman up on the phone at one stage to talk about what they had in common.

Now, since Rachel Brown has stopped using Wikipedia, and Poetlister doesn't have Rachel Brown's password etc and has no desire to log in pretending to be Rachel Brown, I suggest the following temporary compromise:

Ban User:RachelBrown and lift the ban on User:Poetlister so that Poetlister can contribute to the ongoing debates.

If you are right, that they are all sock puppets and all the same person, it should make no difference which is the account that is allowed to remain.

Since it is the ban on Poetlister that is the most controversial one, I suggest that this be the one that is lifted.

I would also suggest that User:Taxwoman's links are the thinnest, and request that her ban be lifted as well.

As Londoneye and Newport had minimal involvement in Wikipedia, I don't really think it makes any difference if their bans remain or not. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Also note that all of the 5 supposed "sock puppets" have their own phone numbers, their own voices, their own addresses, their own photos and so forth, that prove indisputably that they are 5 completely different people. If you like, you can call them to confirm this. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Help

Hi, I uploaded an image of Ari Meyers within the the accordance established by Wikipedia (source and licence) and someone put it up for deletion because "it is unencyclopedic". The image is of good taste and just because it is a wallpaper image I don't think it should be deleted. Please view and if you can, express your opinion. Images and media for deletion/2005 December 24 Thank you, Tony the Marine 04:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clarified (like butter)

In case you saw my comment to Aaron on my talk page, I should clarify. When I said that I disagreed with your endorsement of the "edited deletion policy," I meant that along the lines of "I disagree with my girlfriend that Sun Kil Moon's new album is as good as the first," rather than "I disagree with Bush's decision to take the United States into a war of choice in Iraq." The reason I disagreed with the endorsement was that the allegation had been framed in a way to suggest that the edit was something no one is allowed to do. Since Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia anyone can edit," I figured that it was a reasonable edit, and having it be part of an RFar was out of place when the implication was that the edit had been used in an extra-policy manner. After all, Snowspinner has been quite a busy beaver on policy in the past, and he has frequently edited policies as they were being exercised, so it seems to me that that, by itself, is either all in or all out of arbitration evidence. (The aghast tone of Tony and Snowspinner's "he edited the deletion policy!" is bewildering, in other words, given who it is who's speaking.) I remain convinced that it was a poorly licenced RFar, of course, but I've said my peace there. Anyway, I didn't want you to read my disagreement as criticism. Geogre 15:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Query - Freestylefrappe RFA

I tried to get Theresa Knott to answer my question, but she responded angrily and lectured me without actually answering me. There are a few complaints against me that I find...insane.

My RFA(dminship) voting style is accused of being Boothyesque. (First of all this is of course a personal attack against Boothy...) Not only is this mysterious to me (no one has provided any reasonable diffs or any particular RFAs and I have been repeatedly accused of voting against LifeisUnfair and WikiFanatic which I did not) but I hardly see how it violates any policy. Wasnt Boothy brought to an RFC/RFA(rbitration) for this? Didn't nothing happen? Have I somehow done something different than Radiant and Zordrac have been doing for quite some time? freestylefrappe 19:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Brazilianethanolposter.JPG

Sorry about the delay of my reply (I have been on holiday in New Zealand), but the source of the poster is a Time-Life book called Library of Nations: Brazil (ISBN 705408558). I assumed the poster was a government publication, but I was probably too hasty in uploading it. It probably ought to be deleted, and I'm sorry for any trouble I've caused here. —DO'Neil 00:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merry Christmas!!

MERRY CHRISTMAS, Mindspillage/2005archive11! A well deserved pressy!--Santa on Sleigh 22:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year. --Bhadani 14:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Final statement

I have revised my final statement in regards to Nobs01 and others, please have a look if you have the interest. Cheers, Sam Spade 07:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DeadLand Departure

I'll bet the atheist population of DeLand has been halved. Yeltensic42.618 19:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I figured there must be more than two atheists in DeadLand....I just can't think of any off the top of my head. Yeltensic42.618 18:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tears

Quite offtopic, but just in case you're interested: User:Kosebamse/stuff#Weep_o_mine_eyes. Am currently looking through Arvo Pärt and Leonard Cohen; suggestions welcome. Kosebamse 13:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. I had already considered Barber's Adagio and Pärt's Fratres (superb recordings by Kronos Quartet on one and the same CD, IIRC) and Mozart is another obvious choice, and I agree with "the whole thing" (but my personal favorite is the opening bars of the "Lacrimosa"). Will look into your other suggestions, and again thanks. Kosebamse 20:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] do you know Bill Thayer

Are you familiar with user:Bill Thayer ? He isn't an admin but he has a lot of edits and I'm just seeing if anyone has encountered him before I ask him if he'd like to be nominated.RJFJR 16:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Just spotted this, from a Google search for something else. Thank you, I'm flattered — but am quite happy to stay very much in the background at Wikipedia. My own site is responsible, actually, keeping me quite busy! Best, Bill 18:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I've nicked your user page theme

Dear Mindspillage: I've stolen your user page theme, which, amusingly, you originally stole from Talrias to begin with - I do hope you don't mind :) All the best, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Hah! It would be awfully hypocritical of me to mind, now, wouldn't it? And now we're categorymates, too. (You can keep your color scheme, though; I look awful in yellow...) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Are we having fun yet?

Well I hope you are enjoying the holiday season. And I hope ArbCom is not getting you down. Here's a little poem (Sung, more or less, to the tune of '"The Shadow of Your Smile"), my holiday gift to you.

The spillage of your mind I find refined

The hat upon your head is black not red

The head beneath your hat

Spills forth the thoughts of Kat

Never to be maligned

The spillage of your mind

Paul August ☎ 20:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Several comments from AndriyK concerning the arbitration

1. The Arbitration Committee is going to punish me for something what was (and stil is!) not forbidden by any rules (creating artificial histories of redirect pages). I did it to prevent disrupting Wikipedia and violating the Policies. Why not simply to say "do not do it anymore" instead of punish me for something which is not forbidden? How could I know that I was not allowed to do it if none of the policies forbids it?
2. In view of the Arbitration Committee, the existing policy about Ukrainian geografic names do not address the question of names associated with the Kievan Rus. How could I know it? There is no any restrictions to particular historical period in the policy about Ukrainian names. How could I know that spelling of Ukrainian names in Wikipedia should be different from Britannica and other English language encyclopedias? Which policy says it? It seem the policy states the opposite.
3. It's very funny that for a single revert of copivio article made by mistake I will get the same punishment ("Warning") as Ghirlandago will get for multiple insultigs and personal attack made on purpose!
4. It's very surprising if I will be forbidden to correct Ukrainian names and those who were distorting them and ignoring the naming convention are allowed to do it further.
5. It's very strange that multiple edist of my opponents that disrupted Wikipedia: broken links, sneaky vandalism, POV-pushing etc. were completely ignored by the Arbitration Committee.
6. The group of users that has been squeezing Ukrainian editors out of the Community by persisting and scoffing trolling, insulting and personal attacks now is about to succseed to use the Arbitration Committee for this purpose. I called this group "Russian Mafia". It was not a personal attack. It was merely a stating of the fact. Is there a more appropriate name? I do not think so.
7. The Arbitration Committee voted for decissions that were not discussed in the Worshop. And if any of them were discussed, the discussion has been ignored. As the result, the decissions contradict each other. The proposed enforcement #1 refers to Russian names, while #2 refers to Ukrainian names. What have I to do with Russian names? I did not change a single Russian name since I am here. What is the reason for this strange decision about Russian names? Can somebody explain me?
8. Nearly all my statements, comments, evidence, proposal were ignored. It would be OK if the Arbitration Committee would discuss them and then reject. At least I would see a fair procedure. But I did not see anything but silent voting.

Even a serial killer has a right to be heard in the court. You deprive me of this right just for the attempt to protect Wikipedia against pushing of Russian POV and distorting Ukrainian names!--AndriyK 21:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks...

...for your suggestions User:Kosebamse/stuff#Weep_o_mine_eyes (comments here). I would be grateful for a handful more opinions (but I don't want to make it a big project right now - it's just a whim after all), so if you know of another one or two Wikipedians with some expertise... Thanks again and a happy new year, Kosebamse 10:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More wishes

Hello, I wish you and your family a prosperous and happy New Year 2006! We shall surely remain actively involved in the Project Wikipedia. --Bhadani 16:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)