From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Politics 1.1 Good editing 1.2 IN RE Coulter talk 1.3 Rove Proxy! 1.4 Plame Affair 1.5 operative/agent 1.6 CIA leak grand jury investigation 1.7 Gertz article in the Washington Times of July 23, 2004 1.8 Coulter quote 2 Netoholic 2.1 Middle-earth Portal 2.2 breaks every existing language box on Wikipedia / Transition should be made smoothly 2.3 competion 2.4 point 2.5 Replacing CSS hack with qif 2.6 Rewrite of WP:AUM 2.7 Bot? 2.8 AUM 2.9 Sanity 2.10 server load 2.11 Wikipedia:Infobox templates 2.12 Netoholic 2.13 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole 3 Andy Mabbet 3.1 Die Lustige Witwe 3.2 Thank you 3.3 Andy 3.4 Honesty 3.4.1 One More Thing 3.4.2 No Problem 3.4.3 Ut-Oh Figaro 3.5 Citing Who 3.5.1 Notice 3.5.2 Signature 3.5.3 Worrysome 3.6 Arbitration Question 3.7 Injunctions and personal attacks 3.8 Pigsonthewing 3.9 81.5.140.5 3.10 Karmafists ArbCom candidacy page 3.11 He's a Smart Anon 3.12 Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Probation 3.13 Pigsonthewing RFAr Motion 3.14 Re:Block of Pigsonthewing 3.15 More block of Pigsonthewing 3.16 Geo microformat 3.17 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2 3.18 COinS removed from infoboxes 4 Freestylefrappe 4.1 Freestylefrappe - issues you didn't mention 4.2 Freestylefrappe 4.3 An honest question 4.4 Thanks for pointing that out in the Freestylefrappe RfArb 4.5 Links in Freestylefrappe RfAr 4.6 Arbitration Evidence 4.7 Hope your not too busy... 4.8 Ya Ya Ya Ya Ya Ya Ya Ya Ya Ya Ya oops too many 4.9 Apologies if you believed I was trolling 4.10 Freestylefrappe 5 Karmafist vs Rbj, Kmweber, & Anakinskywalker 5.1 Thank you 5.2 Rbj's Rfc 5.3 Continuing Our Talk 5.4 The Best Way To Grow 5.5 I Just Thought I'd Share This 6 Mistress Selina Kyle 6.1 seriously 6.2 heyy 6.3 MSK 6.4 Serena 7 Other 7.1 Re: Comment 7.2 Thanks... 7.3 Edit warring, the 3RR, and YOU! 7.4 Re: marriage template 7.5 Protection 7.6 Importance of good faith 7.7 Kosher 7.8 Blainetologist 7.9 Thank you 7.10 Could you take a look at this? 7.11 Re: Content dispute 7.12 Well done 7.13 I need your help 7.14 Sasquatch 7.15 Wow. 7.16 restore and move Wikipedia:Conservative_notice_board/categories ? 7.17 Wikiproject User Page Design Committee 7.18 Info request 7.19 Is this legal? 7.20 MONGO 7.21 Uncivil behavior 7.22 I don't get it 7.23 Proposed Georgia Move 7.24 Georgia 7.25 Help Me With This Guy 7.26 Gary Williams page 7.27 Hi Dunkerson, please, please, please email me. Thank you. 7.28 Your opinion please 7.29 Personal info 7.30 User:Jusforasecond 7.31 Thanks 7.32 Pat8722 7.33 Your comments on User talk:Ebacherdom 7.34 Re: User Fabricationary Incident 7.35 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pat8722 7.36 User_talk:Dwain 7.37 Could you have a look at this please? 7.38 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2 7.39 Request your attention to the GoldToeMarionette case 7.40 Admin votes for State Route Naming Conventions poll 7.41 Highways 7.42 cats for deletion 7.43 Poll 7.44 State highways 7.45 ipa-0 7.46 Kayah Li 7.47 Kayah Li Part deux 7.48 Pschemp 7.49 Template:User ipa-0 7.50 Thanks 7.51 Wheel Warring 7.52 Please help 7.53 Possible need for adjudication in roadnames 7.54 Hauke 7.55 Personal attacks? 7.56 Discussion on ANI 7.57 Hauke 7.58 Discussion about accountability of admin behaviour 7.59 "block people for things they are doing themselves" 7.60 The note you left on my talk page regarding User talk:J.R. Hercules 7.61 Re: User:Pewlosels 7.62 WP:AN/I archive 7.63 Invalid Warnings 7.64 one more abusive deletion? 7.65 Civility 7.66 PLEASE PLEASE HELP! 7.67 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2 7.68 Comment out of context 7.69 Mr Conradi 7.70 CBD I need help on merging a page 7.71 ISO 15924 7.72 Persistent and unending dispute with Mr Conradi 7.73 Wikipedia:WikiProject_AdminRightAbuse 7.74 Tobias and probation 7.75 Don't defend disruption 7.76 my talk page 7.77 Please help 7.78 Blocking users for removing warnings 7.79 Your evidence section 7.80 Request for advice 7.81 Regarding chilling out 7.82 Hello CBD 7.83 Thank you 7.84 For what it's worth... 7.85 CBD I need your help 7.86 Civility 7.87 Atlanta Braves 7.88 User:Worldtraveller AN:I thread 7.89 Worldtraveller blocked? Can't believe it. 7.90 The WT situation 7.91 My RfAB 7.92 RFAr/InShaneee 7.93 Worldtraveller/InShaneee 7.94 "Disagreed with you" 7.95 Timeline of events leading to block of FNMF by FeloniousMonk 7.96 Lessons from the Langan entry 7.97 Latest developments at the Langan entry 7.98 Need your help 7.99 Tobias Conradi & WP:AN 7.100 Need your help again 7.101 MfD result - do not understand 7.102 two people vote something for delete 7.103 Hey bud can you look at this for me? 7.104 Sockery 7.105 Your message 7.106 Calton's inappropriate comments 7.107 Inquiry about Wikipedia Policy regarding Commentary of Banned Users 7.108 Calton 7.109 Thank you very much

[edit] Politics

[edit] Good editing

I just wanted to drop you a note to say that I think you've contributed in many very positive ways to the development of the Plame affair article. Your comments in the discussions are helpful and well stated and the edits and organizational work you've done have also been really good. Thanks for helping to make it an informative article that's interesting to work on. My best, Calicocat 05:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] IN RE Coulter talk

In the interest of keeping inane chatter off the Coulter talk page, I am responding on this page to your comment, following:

Illogical. It is just as possible to 'stalk' an IP address as it is a username. Heck, you can just click on it to get a list of other edits. Thus, your reason for remaining anon does not achieve its stated purpose. Even slightly varying IP addresses only offer limited impediment. As to slander... well, technically this is written so it'd be libel and... what do you call your accusation that Eleemosynary has no interest here but to edit war with BD777? That's assumption of good faith? Mr pot... meet mister kettle. --CBDunkerson 14:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

CBD, I have been watching this discussion at Coulter, while taking a break from editing that article. Take a look at Elee's behavior and tell me you really believe he is acting in good faith.

Whatever the faults of Big Daddy, Elee seems to be totally out of control. Some people think good faith is like a bottomless cup of coffee. That's a very foolish outlook. Many at that page have betrayed their bad faith, sometimes in ways they do not yet realize. We all have our tells; they have theirs. Many have cracked out of turn in this con.

I have no idea what your edit history is like. But please be careful not to step into the trap that so many others have stepped into. Engaging in this little Coulter/BigDaddy war is doing neither side a lot of good, and it is leaving Wikipedia the worse for it. Both sides are to blame for that. Your credibility here is the only thing you really have, and to not notice what Elee has been doing and saying means you are not paying attention. Just a word of friendy advice, to protect you. paul klenk ^talk

Paul, I have no idea how these 'user talk' pages work so I dunno if you are notified when I respond. I'll just assume you are checking back in.

I believe that Elee is reacting badly to provocation... note however, that is different from acting in bad faith. I agree that Elee is largely out of control, angry, violating civility, et cetera. However, all indications are that he is doing so in reaction to BD777. The claim that his ONLY interest in the Coulter page is to fight with BD777 seems quite inappropriate to me. I don't doubt that Elee >believes< he is trying to stop vandalism. No, I haven't been paying attention to every twist and turn, but I have seen nothing to suggest that Elee's PURPOSE is to be disruptive / bad faith.

As to 'good faith', I brought it up because the anon poster who made that comment about Elee has repeatedly invoked the need to assume 'good faith' in regards to his own actions... most recent about three paragraphs higher on the page.

Thanks for the 'friendly advice', I'm certainly as prone to reacting in anger as the next guy (ok, more), but in this case I feel the comment needed to be made. --CBDunkerson 15:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your civil response. Elee is not being "provoked," however. One can insist on receiving good faith, even while accusing others of bad faith, as long as there is good evidence to support the accusation, and the accuser has clean hands with respect to AGF. Also, I have watched the edit wars on Coulter very, very closely. A lot is going unnoticed by many; when I choose to pay close attention, I really see a lot, including some highly correlative behaviors by logged in users that smack of sock puppetry.

Anyway, I appreciate your getting back to me. I just don't want everyone at that page to sacrifice everything for the sake of "not much." Ciao, paul klenk ^talk 15:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rove Proxy!

No need to apologize. I've taken Karl Rove off of my Watchlist. No consensus can be reached there until people try to focus on the article (and Wikipedia in general), rather than racking up attack points against other editors and squatting on the article. Honestly, it appears that people are editing with the perspective that this article is the only article in the Wikiverse, and that Wikipedia has somehoe morphed from an encyclopedia into something akin to the Associated Press. It really doesn't help that there are few sluggishly applied consequences for violating Wikipedia policies these days. Pretty much you get a 2 month free pass as long as you've registered to wreak havok and totally drain editors time. It is too much like work to edit in such an environment. I didn't come to WP to be a cop *sigh*. Good luck. --NightMonkey 21:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Plame Affair

Hello CBDunkerson,

I’m going to be bold and start a new entry dealing with the Plame CIA Grand Jury Leak Investigation aspect of the Plame Affair. Very bare bones. After I finish, we can decide if they should merge or stay separate. Plame Affair is not current and some of the information is strong POV. A new entry is the easiest way for me to sort out the grand jury timeline, update the witnesses list, etc. I wanted to let you know what I’m doing because you did a wonderful job on the entry in the past.--FloNight 21:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] operative/agent

hi

Thanks for your helpful and interesting answer on Talk:Plame affair#operative/agent. So what you're saying is that an "operative" in this context is more or less like a "field agent". And does it mean that Novak should have suspected that Plame was covert? eman 13:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CIA leak grand jury investigation

Thanks for the feedback about this article. I'm trying to keep it lean and to the point. So far, so good.--FloNight 20:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gertz article in the Washington Times of July 23, 2004

I believe you mentioned in one of my entries (March 23, 2005 of the "Plame affair timeline") that the Gertz report had been disproven. Since I have not seen any articles or evidence on that, do you happen to have those handy? Thanks.

[edit] Coulter quote

CB, do you have a credible source for this quote you added to the Ann Coulter article?

Finally, during a May 1997 episode of Politically Incorrect she responded to the question, "You're talking about [repealing] the Emancipation Proclamation?", with "That would be a good start."

I did a Google search, and all I found were blogs. I asked the folks at Talk:Ann Coulter and gave my reasons for doubting the quote's reliability there too. 64.154.26.251 02:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Netoholic

[edit] Middle-earth Portal

I saw that you did all the work to set up the Middle-earth portal to use the more usual 'multi-page' method for handling content changing on a schedule... but why? What is better about that format than the one it had before? It doesn't use parameter defaults, but is that really a big deal? The CSS conversions you've been doing make extensive use of them so they can't be that bad. Just trying to understand why this eight page version for content scheduling would be better than the one page version. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 01:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

1. You asked for an alternative.
2. It doesn't use meta-templates.
3. The "clever" way is a barrier to fellow contributors.
4. You're welcome. -- Netoholic @ 01:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was just looking for commentary on the way I'd done it. Thanks for your input. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 01:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] breaks every existing language box on Wikipedia / Transition should be made smoothly

"breaks every existing language box on Wikipedia" - Did you check every box? I checked every language article starting with "C" and that version worked. So what it a few bad apples are in there. I will find them. "Transition should be made smoothly" - yeah, when I try that I get reverted there as well. Which is it? -- Netoholic @ Netoholic @ 20:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it broke the five language boxes I checked. That this same pattern applied to all was an assumption... predicated on the fact that this version does not include a parameter (familycolor) which was required for the prior version. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 20:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

In the articles, familycolor is most often not, in fact, set to a color... it is used as "|familycolor=American" (the language, family) or somesuch. This makes this edit useless. In any case, it is not required, since the language family is described in the "Genetic classification" section. No information was lost in my change for most articles. Some articles would need updating, but it is only because the present template is fault-tolerant of bad template calls in the articles. I am prepared to run through every article and make corrections as needed. -- Netoholic @ 20:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

rely on the genetic classification for the color is currently not possible. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

This edit is useless as well. When I say useless, I mean it has no effect whatsoever. Don't experiment on live templates, and stop helping people stonewall against getting rid of meta-templates. -- Netoholic @ 22:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think you understand... sub-templates like Template:Language/familycolor ARE meta-templates. You could rename that page to template:Language-color, and change the call in template:language and it'd be the same. It still involves multiple database calls. -- Netoholic @ 22:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The 'useless' changes I made converted {{Language/familycolor}} from being a meta-template calling {{switch}} to a single template. True or false? Yes, {{Language}} is still a meta-template because it calls Language/familycolor and various others, but familycolor itself is no longer a meta-template... and thus not 'useless'. Going forward the calls to Language/familycolor in Language can be moved out to the top-level call to language (what I call multi-templating)... removing another level of meta'ing. One step at a time. Not complete replacement with something that doesn't work the same way. No stonewalling... just going about it in a less disruptive way. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 22:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Before you waste a lot of time on making color work, or make any more impractical suggestions, please read this. -- Netoholic @ 02:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, "impractical" is better than "useless" so things must be looking up. I looked at the diff-link above and obviously I don't agree that the thing I just did cannot be done. As to whether or not it should be done. Not my call. That's a question for the linguists to sort out amongst themselves. Has nothing to do with meta-templates. I'm just trying to give them what they currently have / seem to want so as to minimize the disruption in transitioning. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 02:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] competion

Do you view these various template discussions you've been getting in with me as competition? Why? You seem to always have a counter-proposal for everything I suggest, and insist on placing yours side-by-side with mine. You basically stole the source from the infobox I created to make Template:Language/newdraft, and are now agressively using it to deepen the divide between me and that Language group. Why? I've made the design choices I have for specific reasons based on a good deal of experience with templates. If you have ideas, you can present them, but stop being so directly competitive. -- Netoholic @ 06:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure you aren't projecting here? Who was it that edited another person's user space to place a "counter-proposal" for the book reference template "side-by-side" with the first version? Something about "crap"?

I'm not doing anything to "deepen the divide" between you and the linguists... they had rejected your approach in no uncertain terms before I came along. Indeed, the only reason I got involved at all was to help 'bridge the gap' between what you had provided and what they wanted. Same as with the taxobox template... they had definitively decided to not use your template. Rather than let that happen I made a few small changes and now they are happy with it.

This isn't a competition and I haven't 'stolen' anything. Setting aside the whole GFDL issue (which you might want to take a look at) I have repeatedly gone out of my way to say that I was building on your work and otherwise give you all possible credit. I tried making updates to your version directly so that it could be developed collaboratively, but the same 'ownership' issues which now have you accusing me of 'theft' made that unworkable. You have devoted alot of time and effort to doing these conversions and that is a great thing. However, if you continue to insist that things are 'good enough' or 'this way is better' when the people who use the templates disagree then they aren't going to use your templates. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 10:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I did edit your sub-page, and placed my suggestion side-by-side. What I didn't do is create a separate page, nor did I jump on Template talk:Book reference and directly extole the virtues of mine over yours. What you've done repeatedly is post on the related talk pages and acted as a yes man showing how your template achieves everything the old one did. But yours still has a big cost and my alternative is more realistic. This sort of competition naturally confuses people who don't care or know how templates work. -- Netoholic @ 19:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

As I've already said, my goal has been to replicate the existing functionality / give people what they are asking for. I think of this as 'being helpful'. If you think that makes me a 'yes man' you might want to check with Karmafist or Kelly Martin, as I suspect they may have different opinions. Or examine how obsequious I have been to you for that matter. I do what I think best... not what the 'people in charge' want unless they happen to be wise enough to agree with me. :]

As to 'costs' and 'realism'... I haven't seen anything which suggests that there are substantial drawbacks to any of the template changes I've developed. Again, this isn't a competition (to me). I encouraged Adrian to use your version of 'Book reference' over mine. I've openly stated that I'm not as familiar with templates as you are. If it's a competition I've been going out of my way to 'lose'. I'm trying to make transitioning to non-meta templates easier for people. That's it. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 00:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] point

Don't fight battles on individual infoboxs. Address the accessibility concerns on Wikipedia talk:hiddenStructure. -- Netoholic @ 03:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Brion may be lead developer, and with that, his paying job is to make sure Wikipedia is running well. He certainly can never be expected to say it isn't. Jamesday, who I trust is better on the database side, has said we should avoid meta-templates. Even Brion said we should, but from the other perspective. We're at an impasse at the present. There is no need for either side to make moves. Leave the status quo. I am working on addressing concerns over accessibility, but the main jist of it is that too many uses of hiddenStructure in any one template is annoying to blind readers... not the concept as a whole. By taking up this accessibility issue, you are doing precisely what you've accused me of - using an issue of limited impact drive a major effort. At least in my case, I did have a developer specifically denounce meta-templates. -- Netoholic @ 15:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Where to begin. Ok first, 'Brion is not telling the truth' is a less than convincing argument. Second, 'There is no need for either side to make moves' might be less ridiculous if the hiddenStructure method actually worked and/or you hadn't continued to 'make moves' to implement it after Brion's statements. On 'limited impact to drive a major effort' - I don't recall having accused you of that, but obviously a developer (and everyone else) have specifically denounced reducing accessibility too... no matter how 'limited' the number of users impacted. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 17:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say Brion was lying... he said he has yet to be show evidence. He also said that we should avoid meta-templates. The accessibility concerns with hiddenStructure have been improved since his comments, and we're working out some guidelines for hwo it can be used responsibly. I am working on addressing the raised concerns but, to my knowledge, I have not pushed hiddenStructure further since Brion's comments. You're welcome to prove me wrong. Please leave hiddenStructure alone on Infoboxs for the time being. I fully endorse it's removal from the reference templates. I also would prefer if {{Qif}} were used as the only conditional template, for now. Weeble is a no-go. It's far more fragile than Qif, and involves far too much effort to implement. Stop suggesting it, please. -- Netoholic @ 17:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, latest batch of false statements:

1. You have repeatedly claimed that we can't rely on the accuracy of what Brion is saying. Look right up there... three paragraphs ago, "He certainly can never be expected to say it isn't (running well)." Acutally... yeah he can. If it weren't running well I'd expect him to say so.
2. Brion did not say that we should avoid meta-templates. He said that we should avoid them if they are fragile/hard to understand... like hiddenStructure is. Qif isn't particularly hard to understand.
3. Umm... it is impossible for weeble to be 'far more fragile' than qif given that qif uses 'weeble'. That's how qif works... it uses a blank parameter default, aka 'weeble method'. Weeble isn't a conditional template... it's a method used in templates, including qif. It isn't 'fragile' or 'hard to implement' at all. Frankly, it is the best method of handling conditionals currently available. In most cases it can do so directly... occasionally it requires a sub-template call. It ought to be used far more extensively, but to avoid your edit warring I've held off on that while waiting for conditionals to be implemented in Mediawiki. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 18:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Replacing CSS hack with qif

Hi. I would like to make clear that I fully endorse the replacement of the CSS trick (Wikipedia:hiddenStructure) with template:qif given that WP:AUM has been vaporized by Brion and that he has expressed support to implement conditionals in MediaWiki in the long run. I would like to thank you for your support on this matter. --Adrian Buehlmann 18:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite of WP:AUM

Please edit Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates/rewrite. No need to talk first. --Adrian Buehlmann 23:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bot?

Reading the Bot Policy, you seem to be correct - "Sysops should block bots ... doing something the operator didn't say they would do"', and "The burden of proof is on the bot-maker". Note that Omegatron asked about Netbot a week ago and didn't get an answer. If in doubt, the person to ask would be AllyUnion. >Radiant< 17:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AUM

He didn't declare the entire page to be inaccurate, certainly not the areas to consider when using them may or may not be a good idea. --Wgfinley 20:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sanity

As I said: it will never end. WP:AUM -> WP:IAR. --Adrian Buehlmann 20:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] server load

I am done talking about server load with regards to templates. I am satisfied documenting the conflicting developer opinions, but that's it. Please don't flame WP:AUM or me based solely on the old "server load" justification. -- Netoholic @ 00:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Infobox templates

Your change here is reasonable, neutral wording. I would only change "It may be possible to incorporate text..." to "It is preferable to incorporate the text...". Perhaps you could restore the section? -- Netoholic @ 22:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Netoholic

Spam - You might want to comment on this: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Administration. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 10:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andy Mabbet

[edit] Die Lustige Witwe

Thank you for the excellent work that you did on the ballet section, and also for your other work on the article. Figaro 13:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Your edit of the "Ballet version" looks good. Figaro 17:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you. Andy Mabbett 12:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Andy

Any positive contributions that he gives to the project are duplicated in other ways by hundreds of other users every day while he meanwhile makes many negative contributions in dealing with other users: the number of people who have left this project because of him is probably beyond counting.

The RfC and the Rfar -- That's not a valid excuse. He thinks everyone is biased against him because he thinks he's the center of the universe and anyone who disagrees with him must be wrong even though he, like all human beings, is wrong often.

Coleshill -- I was probably quick on the trigger there, but I took a composite of both side's views, with about 80% of Pigs' content since I thought neither sound could come to an agreed edit. 80% isn't enough for him, he wants 100%, every time. You did what I wanted him to do since he's a local expert on the area and could have avoided so much hassle by doing so. I Assumed Good Faith in the fact that he'd learn that, and I was mistaken.

SS -- You'll have to show me what you mean by that, I saw him compared Jeremy Clarkson to the SS, and then deny it a few times even though he wrote that a few lines above.

Pigs -- I call him that for a few reasons.

1. He puts himself out to be a tough and gruff editor, and that nickname is an attempt to counterbalance that image.
2. The more he tries to bully other editors, especially myself, the more I use it as a symbol that when he doesn't listen to others, others don't listen to him. If he just asked, as a polite request instead of a threat, i'd more than likely stop.
3. I figure since he's angry all the time, the more time he's angry on talk pages and other non-article space, the less time he's creating edit wars from here to Timbuctu.

Wikipedia is more than just an encyclopedia, it's a community (Key rule #4 of WP:RULES,WP:CIVIL,etc.) I thought I could help teach him that, but I obviously failed. Quite frankly, if he ever could work with others, i'd jump up and down in joy at the abilities of Wikipedia to help reform people into being able to collaborate with others. However, at this point, I don't think that's ever possible, and if he can't work with others then he can go back to his flame wars on usenet as far as i'm concerned. Karmafist 17:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, Figaro also added a bit to your comments here. If you haven't already, check POTW's rfar and his rfc and you'll see that i'm not alone here -- for every positive thing Pigs does, he does several negative things. Unless that changes, Wikipedia is hurt by his presence. Karmafist 18:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Honesty

I guess there's always a price to pay with honesty, and this price has been you coming in as a proxy on the side of POTW since he doesn't want to come in there himself.

It was fantastic what you did with Coleshill, Warwickshire, but Andy is an expert on that area, he could have done that very easily, and cleaning up his messes all the time isn't going to solve anything unless he can get his behavior corrected at WP:MENTCOM, which by the way, I think you'd be excellent in. You've definately given me a bit of hope that his negative contributions can be reduced even though in there it's about a 2 to 1 margin still in negative things he does compared to positive things which is astronomically higher than most other users.

I'd also like to ask you to change the comment "Karmafist lied" in regards to Jeremy Clarkson. Several users responded to that and missed it, as I did,and he was the only one who wanted the tag there, which is what I said. I don't understand where the lie comes in unless it's about updating that quote, but I'd prefer not to touch Thewubs comments since I try not to delete the comments of others except in cases of vandalism. Karmafist 02:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] One More Thing

Me and Ral315 agreed that moving the continuation of the workshop conversation to the talk page was the right thing to do, and I put a little request there, assuming others would be fine with this since we should try to respect the arbcom's room to breathe there and since that's what talk pages are for. I apologize if you took this personally, it was just a space saving measure. Karmafist 02:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, it was not my intent to suggest that you lied. I do believe you simply made a mistake on the 'SS' thing (as you say, it makes you look bad). However, other users did request the NPOV tag on Jeremy Clarkson and there is ongoing dispute over what is needed to make that page neutral. Thank you for the compliment and I agree that Andy could be easier to work with, but I think your approach to him isn't helping... presumably that's in part because you think he should go, but I don't think that should ever be our goal. On the workshop, I agreed with moving that conversation to the talk page, but didn't intend my comments to be a continuation of it. Most of that was about the 'hate page' stuff, which I haven't commented on. Still, not a big deal. --CBDunkerson 02:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No Problem

No worries, i'm glad we cleared it up. Quite honestly, it's just a thought right now, but I would probably rescind my status as a party in the rfar if POTW agreed to mentorship under you. You are doing a great job in that capacity, even if it's fairly unofficial. Karmafist 22:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I've been trying not to make this too adversarial. As to Andy, I don't really think of it as a mentoring role... he's got far more wikiperience than I do. More an issue somewhere between mediation and advocacy (which makes the non-adversarial part difficult). Problems have a tendency to compound and reinforce each other. I just tried to nudge things back onto a somewhat even kilter and then stepped back. He and Figaro mostly sorted things out themselves. --CBDunkerson 23:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ut-Oh Figaro

I thought that too, but Figaro told me otherwise on my talk page. As for his edit count, I think that makes mentoring for him far more necessary since he's become so entrenched in his poor behavior that it'll probably take several mentors to straighten him out. Also, I wouldn't be too hard on Locke Cole, since as you could see from that rfar, the list of people who Andy's annoyed extends around the block. I'm actually kind of honored that he's started using my nickname for POTW, as I assumed, even though I stopped using the moniker "Pigs", he continued on being obnoxious since he's basically a "Give an inch, take a mile" editor. I'm going to start using it again, at least it makes me smile while reading his nonsense. Heck, I began a candidacy for the arbcom just because of my frustration with the current arbcom's seeming inability or disinterest in stopping his regular edit warring.Karmafist 18:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, you started calling him "Pigs" again a couple of days ago... did you think I wouldn't notice?

That WAS me being nice to Locke Cole... I could have waited until after the RfA went up.

And I'm afraid you can forget about the non-adversarial bit. Not cool Karmafist. --CBD ^T _C ^@ 18:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

That's your call about being non-adversarial if you seem to want to do such a thing over an edit summary. I'm asking the arbcom now to remove your evidence against me, and let you put it in an rfc against me if you wish. That rfar is about POTW, not me, but I assume it's hard enough to find positive things about POTW since you're the only one there who wishes to do so. User:Karmafist 00:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm asking the arbcom now to remove your evidence against me

On what grounds? The introduction to the Evidence page says "If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading". If someone isn't allowed to show that the evidence or process is faulty, it's little more than a witch-hunt.

The witch-hunt atmosphere is the main reason I haven't provided evidence, and I don't think my arguments would help POTW. As I've said elsewhere, I've little sympathy for those POTW gets into disputes with, because they're almost invariably problem users themselves for various reasons: for instance, those with style problems they can't/won't address, POV warriors, narrow-topic editors who've drifted into article ownership, and so on). To show that gets into a tedious mass of evidence that I'm sure no-one wants to hear. For instance, how welcome do you think would be another 500 words debunking Locke Cole's reference to Scottfisher as a largely blameless editor? Or a similar amount explaining the background to the Bill Oddie dispute? (POTW opposing a collective POV bias among a cabal of editors who airbrush out the real origins of Birmingham celebrities who were born elsewhere).

POTW isn't doing anything so unusual. I think very many experienced editors, if they run into a dubious edit, instantly try a lookup on the author's contributions to see whether they've repeated the error elsewhere. POTW's error is in locking on and trying to handle it singlehandedly, and not knowing when it's too trivial to dispute. Tearlach 23:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

My view exactly. Pigsonthewing doesn't often 'just let things go'. But hey, if people were calling ME "prick", "scum", "douchebag", et cetera without ever facing any repercussions I might get a bit peeved about it too. --CBD ^T _C ^@ 23:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

If you have evidence to submit to make POTW's reversions of the alleged Scottfisher edits look good, submit it. I don't think you do, because POTW's actions were totally uncalled for. But don't make vague statements like the above and expect to be taken seriously. —Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 23:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

That's not what I'm addressing. I'm talking about the potential for biasing the reader by misrepresentation of the background as Scottfisher being "otherwise a good editor". If he wasn't, it puts POTW in a more favourable light. And he sure wasn't: he was a nuisance editor fond of posting vanity links to his own website and including images where his great grinning mug was more prominent than the supposed subject. He repeatedly blanked, as "damage", reasonable complaints by POTW and others about this and other problems such as garish HTML. At one point I had to ask that he be temporarily blocked for going on a rampage (again miffed at reasonable edits) and trying to destroy all the pages he'd contributed to. Finally he was blocked, first temporarily then indefinitely, for a long-running refusal to comply with image copyright conditions. And now he's flouting the block by coming back incognito. Why would you call him "otherwise a good editor"? Tearlach 00:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

You haven't presented any diffs, but if that's your only problem with my evidence I'll happily remove that passage. It still doesn't change that what POTW did was wrong (and he knew it). —Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 01:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

It still doesn't change that what POTW did was wrong (and he knew it).: Tosh (on both counts). Andy Mabbett 12:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

So are you now saying you had a momentary memory lapse? How do you explain that you could know the difference between a banned and a blocked user one day, then treat a blocked user like a banned user later? —Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 12:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

So are you now saying you had a momentary memory lapse?: Please point out where I said that. a banned user: Andy Mabbett 12:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

You said it here. —Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 13:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I said no such thing; and you seem to have missed this. Andy Mabbett 13:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

It's amazing. At 15:32 UTC you understand that Scottfisher is blocked and you understand that being blocked is different from being banned. But by 15:39 UTC you suddenly state he's banned. I ask again: momentary lapse of memory? —Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 13:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I say again; you seem to have missed this. Andy Mabbett 13:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

No, I didn't, but I'm confused how what you said here is changed at all by what you say here... I ask again, momentary lapse of memory? —Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 13:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm confused: You certainly are. Look again at who said what. Andy Mabbett 14:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Nice, an insult. I wonder if that would qualify you for a personal attack block. And why precisely couldn't you point out who said what in those diffs? This back and forth is just another example of why you shouldn't be here. —Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 14:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

That's an odd way to admit that you were wrong. Andy Mabbett 15:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

he was a nuisance editor: and provably dishonest; and abusive with it. Andy Mabbett 12:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Citing Who

Repsonse to User_talk:Who#Arbitration. Hey, no worries. Although I wasn't implying that the user had broken 3RR, I was assuming Good Faith on the part of Karmafist, stating that they had. I am not offended by the citation, and thanks for the heads-up note about using it. Cheers. «»Who?¿?^meta 02:53, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Notice

I'm going to be archiving all this stuff soon. Just leaving it here for now since there are actually some links here from the arbitration.

Locke Cole - when you find yourself blaming someone for failing to prevent you from repeatedly making a false accusation against them it's time to step back and go do something else.

Karmafist - ditto on the above and try not to think in terms of 'good users' and 'bad users'. Leonig Mig is not an angel and Pigsonthewing is not a demon... and vice versa.

Andy - good luck, try to remember that people sometimes need detailed explanations, don't let it get you down, and let them 'win' a few now and again.

Take care guys... see you around the Wiki. --CBD ^T _C ^@ 17:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Signature

Thanks on the Signature, I think it's fixed now. See? I don't think forgetting about being non-adversarial goes with either of our personalities, we enjoy helping others. We, like most users on Wikipedia are lambs while Andy for one reason or another, is a wolf. I'd prefer to continue being a lamb, but if I have to act like a wolf and be villified for it in order to fight the wolves, I'll do it. karmafist 01:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I meant 'adversarial' in the judicial sense of 'opposed' rather than 'hostile'. You needn't worry about that. On the lambs and wolves... too often we become what we only pretended to be. --CBD ^T _C ^@ 01:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Worrysome

I know, I often fear from instances like this rfar that i'm becoming more like Pigsonthewing, the only real difference is that he's more detached in his disdain of others that I am, and his disdain is broad while my disdain is only towards him, specifically his behavior towards other users. I'm stepping back from the rfar for now in the hopes that the injunction will help ease all tensions. POTW is fine when he doesn't interact with others.

Also, the comment you put on Kelly Martin's talk page just now more than likely would have been called a Personal Attack by POTW if he was the one who had done the deed. He's called far less than that a "personal attack" before. karmafist 16:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration Question

Now that we have confirmed that I'm not Pigsonthewing would it be appropriate or allowed for me to add myself as a 'Party' in his arbitration? While I wasn't involved in the original dispute I have obviously been heavily involved on the 'evidence' page and should probably be held to account for my actions like everyone else. Also, the text on the evidence page says not to place edits in other users' evidence sections, but not the procedure if someone does. Should I respond on the page, move the comments to the workshop or evidence talk pages and respond there, or something else? Thanks. --CBD ^T _C ^@ 11:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you want to be a party unless you were involved in the dispute. As to them making comments, I would just ignore it. Fred Bauder 19:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Injunctions and personal attacks

If an enjoined party is being attacked by another party to the same RfAr, then perhaps the ArbCom needs to enter another injunction. Feel free to make a motion to do so. I would, at a bare minimum, need a diff to look at. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pigsonthewing

[1] is not helpful, much as I appreciate the attempt at humor. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 19:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. Humor is a good thing and truth is always helpful. --CBD ☎ ^✉ 19:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 81.5.140.5

I've never seen anything stating that it's encouraged to redirect IP's to userpages before, so sorry for undoing the redirect. Can you point me to where this has been discussed in the past? Thanks! —Locke Cole 22:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I'll take it on faith that you're right (but if you do come across it, please let me know). The only reason I removed the redirects were because it made it annoying to check on contribs (and was kind of jarring when clicking on an IP and ending up at a user page). I'll leave it as a redirect though, it's just two more clicks. =) —Locke Cole 22:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Karmafists ArbCom candidacy page

Hi, I'm almost sorry for asking my question on Karmafists candidacy page, seeing now what it led to. Perhaps you and Karmafist could try to talk things out? I think you've gotten quite off topic with regards to my question (and Karmafists candidacy). Perhaps Karmafists or your talk page would be more appropriate? 131.155.229.224 13:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I considered suggesting both of you stay out of each others way, but I didn't think that would solve anything. I thought, it would merely delay another conflict, but I hope you're correct. Best of luck. 131.155.229.224 14:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] He's a Smart Anon

I remembered you said once why you wondered why I don't give Andy a break. Well, it's basically because he doesn't give a break to others. I've stepped far out of the way here over the past few days in the feeling that I wouldn't have to do anything anymore, that while i'd like to rectify this situation, it's better to just stay away from him. However, he won't stay away from me it seems[2]. Personally, I think i'm an inferior person for it, but i'm a "crusader for justice". I can't stand by when people think they can muscle their opinions through on others, and if he wants to continue to involve me in his behavior, I can't let him think "he's won" or whatever he's thinking over there. Ok, I gotta get back to work. karmafist 21:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I won't block him since that'll cause me problems, and he knows that. Even though he doesn't want to admit the rfar exists, he knows it all to well and is basically just trying to goad me into confrontation at this point. I'll just continue keeping an eye on him out of the corner of my eye and letting all those that he affects negatively that the don't have to put up with it. karmafist 21:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

You don't seem able to avoid making personal attacks, and ascribing to me motives which are your own invention. Andy Mabbett 21:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Have you two ever heard of 'mutually assured destruction'? The idea is generally to avoid it... not rush headlong in. --CBD ☎ ^✉ 23:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm trying man, i'm trying. Like I said before, when I see people trying to force their ideas on others, regardless of the content, it makes me angry. It's like a subconscious instinct I suppose. Next time I feel like he's taking me down with him again, i'll come to you. karmafist 02:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

when I see people trying to force their ideas on others, regardless of the content, it makes me angry: That didn't stop you from reverting the Coleshill page to your preferred version, before protecting it; nor making repeated threats against me if I didn't comply with your instructions; nor blocking me under fasle pretexts for not doing so, did it? Andy Mabbett 11:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Probation

Thanks for your comments on Pigsonthewing on my Talk page. I have moved the discussion to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Probation, and it's my intent to try and focus discussion to that place. There are battles raging up all over the Wiki, and that needs to stop, so I'm encouraging discussion to focus to that place. I have also replied to your comment. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 18:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pigsonthewing RFAr Motion

In the interest of fairness; your statement that you can find no non-edit war article edits by him in December is inaccurate. Prior to December 10th there were many ([3], [4], [5], Tim Tolkien, et cetera). Since then only this one. I'd also suggest that 'wikistalking' ought to require active disruption of the person's efforts to contribute rather than just complaining/noting every time they make negative comments about you. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 18:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe that there is active disruption -- for example, voting on Locke Cole's RfA before it was linked strongly suggests that he's monitoring Karmafist's contributions closely, which he has no legitimate reason to be doing. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Block of Pigsonthewing

Hi there: My reasoning for going ahead with the block was that, after checking each diff carefully, it seemed to me that the effect of each of the given diffs was to revert another user's change. Perhaps I'm reading too much into this. As for the BLP issues: I didn't take this into account at all; my block was based solely on what I believed to be a 3RR violation (the length was also based partly on the user's history of being blocked for this sort of behavior). Anyway, suffice to say I wouldn't be offended if someone unblocked Pigsonthewings (I don't take WP:WHEEL that way). I expect SlimVirgin wouldn't be so pleased, though, so it might be worth discussing with her, too. Thanks for your input. Heimstern Läufer 03:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't unblock Pigsonthewing, CB. He violated 3RR, and has been blocked umpteen times for so doing, including a one-year ArbCom ban. Whether you agree with his edits or not is irrelevant; 3RR is not dependent on content. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This arbitration case is still in operation. He is on indefinite probation, He may be banned for good cause by any administrator from any page or talk page which he disrupts. From a brief scan of his edits, it looks to me like he has improved his behavior since his return, but vigilance is called for. --Tony Sidaway 16:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just been made aware of this comment of yours about "false statements from another participant." I was the other participant. It was a very obvious 3RR violation, so which false statements are you referring to? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The inaccurate items are identified in the same link you listed. --CBD 15:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More block of Pigsonthewing

It appears my block of Pigsonthewing remains controversial. I thought you'd want to know that I've provided my rationale for the block on my talk page and am ready to respond to comments and questions if necessary. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer 03:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geo microformat

Please note this comment. Andy Mabbett 12:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 21:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] COinS removed from infoboxes

FYI:

1. User talk:Pigsonthewing#COinS in Infoboxes
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_Book&diff=151866703&oldid=149146693
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_Journal&diff=151950399&oldid=151900215

Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 17:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Freestylefrappe

[edit] Freestylefrappe - issues you didn't mention

Hi CBD. Regarding your outside view on Freestylefrappe's RFC, there's also his blocking of Stephenj and response to it, including unfounded accusations of Bunchofgrapes and repeated threats of unjustified uses of his admin tools. You don't seem to have commented on any of that, and it's a rather important part of the difficulties as far as I'm concerned, because it indicates a pattern of misuse of admin tools and misunderstanding his role as an administrator. Do you think those parts should be considered as a separate RFC to avoid muddling things, or did you just not think they were very important? Thanks. -- SCZenz 18:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Freestylefrappe

We can probably avoid another Pigsonthewing situation if you mentor him from now on. I disagree with just about everything you said on the rfc(I was wrong before, apparently it's from a government website, and I don't know if Macedonia has different intellectual property laws, but government made things can't be copyrighted unless they're released to a publically owned entity AFAIK, although to me that still really isn't the issue here), but that's irrelevant.

I asked FSF to stop doing what he's doing on the talk page, but it doesn't seem to be enough. I wouldn't know where to start on giving him a ray of hope on ending this behavior of his, or if he'd even listen, so I figured I'd ask you, the apparent Wiki-Patron Saint of Lost Causes ;-)

I hope we can make him stop acting like this, but I fear it'll be another POTW, except without me getting so passionate since he has made me incredibly jaded towards the entire Rfc-rfar process. karmafist 19:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Lost causes was probably the wrong word. "Devil's Advocate" or something maybe. You always seem to stick up for the causes that are vastly outnumbered in these things, although less so with FSF than with POTW, and rightly so because the content portion of FSF and Bitola's contribs was all in good faith IMO. Hopefully you're right, and things are settled, the best rfcs are the ones that just die because they've more or less been settled. If FSF can chill out, I think that'll be the case, I know i'm probably not going to check it again. Right now, i'm mulling over whether or not it's worth going for another 100 edit day, i've had 7 in the past 9 days. The vast majority of anything having to do with policy right now makes me sick, but i'm addicted to this place. karmafist 23:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

We can probably avoid another Pigsonthewing situation: You appear to be obsessed with me. How touching. Andy Mabbett 10:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] An honest question

I have tried to be unfailingly polite to Freestylefrappe, and to make suggestions and offer help rather than trying to 'get' him. Based on your outside comment on the RfAr I filed against him, it appears that you might think the situation is otherwise. Can I request some suggestions on where I might have done better? -- SCZenz 01:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I thank you for your comments. I disagree with them, and I think it's because you and I do have different ideas about my obligations in handling this situation. I don't think a point-by-point rebuttal is necessary or requested, but I am happy to discuss further if you like. -- SCZenz 03:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for pointing that out in the Freestylefrappe RfArb

This, I mean. If nothing else, I wasn't aware of the modification, which seems like a good one to me. (Tangentially, even were the policy at the time as it is now, Freestylefrappe - it seems to me - failed to be clear in his communications with Bitola or others about exactly what copyvio was taking place, leaving it to me and others to hunt it down ourselves.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure. freestylefrappe 06:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Links in Freestylefrappe RfAr

Hi CBD, I don't follow the relevance of some of your links in the new evidence you added. Either you made a mistake or two, or I'm just dense. Just so you can check, the ones I'm confused about are "here" (2nd-last point) and is "87" (last point) in this version of the RfAr. -- SCZenz 18:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oops, I now see the point of "here"... I'll double-check "87" too; maybe I'm just an idiot. -- SCZenz 18:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• The problem with '87' is that it's a diff, which caused me to assume that the text that changed was the point. It might be better to clarify that...? -- SCZenz 19:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I didn't scroll down enough, I am an idiot. All the diffs were right on, and I apologize for bugging you. -- SCZenz 20:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration Evidence

Hi I'm here to thank you for your evidence in the freestylefrappe arbitration case. It really is very helpful when someone stands up for people in this way. I'm here is to encourage you to do it for other cases. The sad fact is the kind of people who end up in front of us are often unable to properly present their own evidence. There is the WP:AMA which was set up to help people in the dispute resolution process but in my experience Advocates have not been very good. So I'm hoping that by saying thanks in this case I can persuede you to stick your nose into other cases as well. If you don't want to don't worry though, I'll hassle someone else instead. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hope your not too busy...

I saw you had some recent trouble on WP:AN/I, so I hope you're not too busy to help an ex-admin, admin-hating, user. I've been blocked on my current account under the most ridiculous of accusations, for 48 hours no less, for merely stating my case on WP:AN/I and insisting sources be cited. I'd appreciate an unblocking so I can start an RFC, but if you're reluctant to help out the infamous... I understand. -Freestylefrappe

You've gathered quite a following, CBD. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance thus far. Unfortunately, the version you have reverted to on Vicente Fox has vandalism on it - some anon inserted "blah blah blah." Before I am blocked again, please either provide an email or email me at danofalltrades7@hotmail.com. I have some diffs I'd like to show you. I know I'm not supposed to evade a block, but since my talkpage on User:Ya ya ya ya ya ya is protected I have no way of conversing with you. Please unprotect that so I can communicate with users. I promise to remain as civil as can be expected given the circumstances. Regards, Freestylefrappe/Republitarian/KI/Tchadienne/NOBS/Republitarian (freestylefrappe 20:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Ya Ya Ya Ya Ya Ya Ya Ya Ya Ya Ya oops too many

That's absolutely fine, I was just scrambling around that ifdef block at the time. There's a bit of a flurry of admin action that seems to be flying around on Freestylefrappe and his other accounts right now, and I'm worried that hasty things are being done. See the bottom of WP:AN right now and also see the tag just slapped on User:Tchadienne. Yeah, a checkuser showed he's the same guy as Freestylefrappe. We absolutely knew that already. I don't know what the best thing to do is. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

See [6] and especially [7] for the last two AN/I threads on this topic. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to pester -- you should know that none of his new accounts were admitted alternate accounts "from day one" like you said in that edit summary... but they were eventually admitted. If memory serves, the admitting has always come about around the same time the new account runs into edit-warring or civility troubles. Anyway, thanks for looking into it. I don't think he'll want me having much to do with it -- last I checked he still seemed to hate me quite a bit. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Just chiming in to verify what Bunchofgrapes said. He admits the accounts when he's found out, which really isn't acceptable. Mackensen (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

If you can point to an instance of that actually being true please do so. However, in my experience he has always done so before being 'found out'. Nor has he ever used two accounts to 'vote together' or 'edit war together' that I know of. Again, if I am mistaken then by all means please show me evidence of it. Otherwise, I think these repeated accusations are not helping the situation. --CBD 17:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think CBD is right. He admits to the accounts when they get in trouble for some reason -- but not when the identity issue is found out. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, CBD, I think the instance of one of these "other" accounts running for adminship is pretty serious. Wouldn't you say that the community has a right to know that an arbcom-desysoped admin is running for adminship under a different name? Incidentally, your characterization of the Ya ya request as an IP outing attempt is quite wrong. People often list observed IPs along with usernames in a request and we always ignore them. Listing only an IP along with the main account cannot be anything other than an outing request; listing multiple usernames is a different matter. Mackensen (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Mackensen, when you say "your characterization of the Ya ya request" I assume you mean the request by Chacor about Ya ya (rather than vice versa). Note that you also say, "Listing only an IP along with the main account cannot be anything other than an outing request"... and thereby answer your own question. Because that is exactly what Chacor did. It was a request to verify that Ya ya ya ya ya ya = IP address. 'Tchadienne' was added to the request a day later... again, not to check if Tchadienne = Ya ya ya ya ya ya (because the user revealed that himself), but as another account to check the IP address against. Chacor stated that his entire purpose was trying to prove a 3RR violation by Ya ya... the fourth revert having been made by that IP address. Ergo, it was every bit as much an 'IP outing' request as the one for which Ya ya has been criticized and blocked.

On adminship... sure it would be nice to know a user's entire past history in judging an RfA, but do you seriously think that none of our thousand admins ever got there after getting into trouble and then creating a new account? We have never required such disclosure before... our policies even state that you CAN run for adminship with a new account. The only restriction placed is that you can't have two admin accounts at the same time. If we don't want to allow users to 'start over with a clean slate' we should say so... rather than calling it a 'serious' offense - despite the fact that it was implicitly allowed by all past practice and policy. --CBD 00:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

CBD, a further point. I dislike being contrarian and dislike even more assuming bad faith, but I'm puzzled by your attitude throughout this affair. Freestylefrappe isn't misunderstood and he certainly isn't being picked on; rather he's one of the most unpleasant people I or anyone else ever dealt with, who was desysoped for those reasons alone. Any user who has ever disagreed with him (or even came to his attention in a few cases) has found themselves harrassed, belitted, and falsely accused (such as when he accused me of sockpuppetry during the Arbcom elections for no apparent reason). He's run for adminship under false pretenses and repeatedly disrupted the encyclopedia. Why, exactly, are you so intent to find fault with the harrassed parties? As I said, I'm not trying to stir things up and I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm just completely mystified. Best, Mackensen (talk) 23:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I know you weren't asking me, but I could be seen as doing a little of the same, Mackensen, and my answer is straightforward -- I just didn't like seeing people get the facts (a little) wrong, because every little incorrect thing gave Freestylefrappe more fuel for his red-hot anger furnace and made life that much more unpleasant for the admins trying to deal with the situation. (I think the new ArbCom motion is spot on, anyway.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

As Bunchofgrapes says... I'm just trying to keep the accusations true and 'fair'. We don't help anyone by accusing him of things he hasn't done or giving him unequal treatment. He was criticized and blocked for that 'IP outing request'... but Chacor did the same thing and nobody has said 'Boo' about it. He was right that there were WP:BLP violations on the Vicente Fox page (like... a full paragraph calling Fox a racist with zero references backing it up) that started the dispute (making that 3RR check moot BTW - 3RR doesn't apply to BLP) and nobody seemed to care that blocking him allowed those violations to be restored. In the above you describe it as 'Freestylefrappe' vs 'the harassed parties'... but FSF considers himself the 'harassed party' and unfortunately there are some valid reasons for that. I try to look at the facts rather than picking one person to define as 'the bad user' and ignoring any legitimate concerns they might have. Look at the realities of the situation from his perspective;

1. He is reverting violations of WP:BLP
2. A 4th revert is made by an IP address
3. He is accused of using that IP as a sock to violate 3RR... when he didn't need to do since it was a BLP issue
4. He suspects that the person filing the IP check (Chacor) made the IP edit himself and asks for a counter IP check
5. He is blocked for this... because we don't allow 'IP outing'... but Chacor isn't blocked
6. He complains... more and longer blocks.
7. He complains ALOT... more blocks

Et cetera. Now, people can disagree as to how much of 'his perspective' is valid and whether they assume that IP really was him or not, but it isn't like he has no reason at all to be upset. --CBD 00:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies if you believed I was trolling

I've no idea quite what makes you think that, I honestly do believe that you should be in charge of the site. Your level headed way of thinking typifies all that is decent about Wikipedia, and I believe the site would be vastly improved if more people were to follow your lead. Again, apologies if you have presumed my motivations to be different from the intent. --Pussy Galore 23:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

He has been targeted by much sarcastic commentary from uncivil admins, I think your remark just got caught in the crossfire, dont take it personal. --User:Zer0faults 14:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep, if CBD takes a swipe at ye, it's a misunderstanding that you shouldn't take personal. If anyone else dangles a participle or asks a question, it's an attack and evidence of a massive admin conspiracy. The rules to Fizzbin are easier to follow than this. Please explain the double or even triple standards you apply to help clarify this. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:Harassment. I'll cite an example for your review: [8]. I believe you are attempting (clumsily) to harass me because of our recent disagreements. I'd like to ask you again politely to stop. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Sound advice. --User:Zer0faults 15:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm beginning to suspect that you're not editing in good faith. I look forward to hearing CBD's take on the matter. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

AGF please, do not be offended by your own comments, you stated its harrassment to edit talk pages that you have edited, did you not? Or are we still complaining that I added sources to that Idaho article ... Ohio? Who knows anymore, anyway please stop following around my edits, considering you made this edit after the one stating Galore was indef blocked, I am sure you did not expect a response from him. Good day. PS I am starting to assume that you do not know what assume good faith is. --User:Zer0faults 16:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

My take? Please stop polluting my talk page with your apparent inability to comply with Wikipedia:Civility. --CBD 18:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freestylefrappe

I have proposed a community ban at AN/I. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Karmafist vs Rbj, Kmweber, & Anakinskywalker

[edit] Thank you

Hi. On your issues with the ArbCom and Karmafist - people have noticed and you aren't alone in your concern. If he continues to have trouble with various users it'll probably result in action being taken against him. However, unless he starts making more comments here or you have some future run-in I'd suggest just letting it go and getting back to what makes Wikipedia fun... or weird math things which I don't understand. Whatever floats your boat. :] --CBD _☎ ^✉ 17:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

i don't have a real "issue" with ArbCom, i think the are mistaken in ignoring this and as Tony Sidaway said "Apologies all around doesn't cut it". particularly when Karmafist and Phroziac have no inclination to apologies for anything. but i think the present ArbCom folk are good people and i'm sure mine isn't the only case they "misunderestimated" and dismissed. (it would be pretty scary if Karma got on the ArbCom. i think that will be the anvil that breaks the camel's back, for me.)

i think Karma has shown his true colors already, and doing what he did to me is clear evidence that "he continues to have trouble with various users" since this crap began long before i was unfortunate to have crossed paths (actually, i had nothing to do with him, Phroziac sicced him onto me, for utterly no justification). the way it stands now, the way it stood last week, is that he is not fit to be an admin. why wait until he violates someone else before desysopping him? he's already had many second chances. it's time for Wikipedia to recover some credibility.

lot's of things float my boat, but abuse under the cover of authority, whether its Karmafist or the Diallo cops, sinks it. r b-j 18:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rbj's Rfc

I don't understand your comment there since it often seems like you think you're a regular user who "has crossed me", yet I have nothing but respect for you even if I disagree with your methods and beliefs. After POTW, apparently we've each taken roles of Public defender and District attorney apparently, so from prosecutor to defender, let me tell you this. I have zero problem with rbj, I have a problem with the way he acts. I told him to walk away from rudeness towards people like Phroziac, or something like this would happen. He can now make it worse, or walk away. It might not be too late, but you might be his only shot. I've built upon your idea and asked Woohookitty for some ideas for projects that he could get involved in.

Don't worry, once the incivility issues stop, my concern towards the user stop. Rbj's no difference You can just see the instance of Kmweber for that one. Before I came along, he called everybody "Deletionist Vandals" and caused alot of disruption on afd. After I didn't pull any punches with him, he realized that what he was doing isn't acceptable and he began to act civilly, albeit eccentrically. I haven't checked, but since then I haven't heard any issues from him. karmafist 11:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Continuing Our Talk

Eh, compared to the POTW days, this isn't so exasperating :-)

I am surprised you're a regular on Usenet, but then again since you learned the ropes before Eternal September or whatever they called it, I guess it makes sense that you're different than them. Other than Trelane(who's usually an anon from what he told me on IRC), you're the only courteous peron on there compared to that long, yet only partial list or trolls from there on here.

Oh, speaking of IRC, it seems fitting to mention what today's challenge of the day is... "define the logic of our wikilaws". Ultimately, per the bureaucracy section of WP:NOT, I was perfectly within policy to ban Kmweber forever, if unfortunately because the text of policy doesn't really mean anything compared to its intent, which varies from person to person, ultimately making him claim on IRC that as his block was reduced several times that he could game his way out of having to be nice to anyone who agreed with him, making me think that he would never learn.

I wasn't sure it would it would work, but I tested David Gerard's theorem (if someone is hated enough and they break enough rules, blocking forever is the only real option), something that i've heard POTW is edging close toward these days(I haven't heard from him in a few weeks for the most part, as now half of Wikipedia is watching him like a hawk, which only came after that rfar.)

Check his talk page and history, it is unlikely that Kmweber (talk · contribs) would have listened to anything outside of his own views. Being indef blocked and then basically hearing a slew of editors thinking he was obnoxious on a regular basis made him change his ways, as least as far as i've heard so far(I haven't heard of any more issues since then.)

As for Alcantar, he sounds very similiar to Maoririder (talk · contribs) and EddieSegoura (talk · contribs), who are apples and oranges to the various rbjs of the world. Maybe people like him can be changed, refocused towards something like you said, but I have to be wary because in my opinion, if usenet changed during that September a decade or so ago, we're at about mid-August at this rate.

You're right, the Mailer Diablo thing was a mistake on my part, but with the way things are around here now, I think we'll see other things just like it from numerous other people unless our policies and guidelines are reformed. karmafist 21:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with disagreement. I look forward to more debates in disputes in the future, hopefully we'll either help Wikipedia in our individual ways or at least rub off on each other and both become really damn moderate :-P. karmafist 21:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Best Way To Grow

Is to take your critics into account...

Lemme know what you think here. I was basically thinking "What would CBD do here", and then did that, which was go through the red tape. I mean, Ardenn (talk · contribs) is a clueless newbie and Anakinskywalker (talk · contribs) has caused problems at that article before, but what the hell right? I've gotten too much bullshit in the past for trying to come and save the day, so i'll let you or someone else handle it. Oh yeah, and that part on the bottom might sound familiar from POTW with Coleshill, Warwickshire, so i'll give you the answer to the question I assume you'll ask later -- "I'm not going to bother doing it myself because I have better things to do than cleanup after trolls, especially when they could easily cleanup after themselves..." karmafist 01:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, when you get 2 or 3 of these per day, you get jaded pretty quick, man. Looking at Anakin's edits(he has about 500 or so edits since August, and almost all of them are on this article), I think the only way to deal with him is to remove him from editing that article altogether, but if he can be reformed, that'd be wonderful. I just don't think Las Vegas would put very good odds on that. karmafist 01:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I Just Thought I'd Share This

I followed your advice, and I figured i'd show you what I recieved via e-mail.

It didn't work out, I'll go and contribute my efforts somewhere less hostile.

Ardenn.

No offense, but I shouldn't have cared so much about your opinion. Thanks to that, this unfortunate new user is now gone where I could have done something. You can think what you like about me, but since there seems to be no more law and order on Wikipedia, I am going to do all I can to make sure nobody lands into a troll minefield like that ever again, and if ardenn doesn't return, Anakinskywalker (talk · contribs) is going to have to deal with me and my cabal, and you know how nasty I can get when I see people trying to harm others on here.

Oh, speaking of people trying to harm others, I glanced at POTW's comment above, and I'd suggest you ask him to look at my edit history and then look at mine and compare the percentage of how many of his edits have to do with me compared to the opposite. karmafist 06:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mistress Selina Kyle

[edit] seriously

hey it's not like you have a debilitating physical condition I made fun of - all you need is exercise!

exercise is good, will make you live longer and feel happier.. so you would thank me in the end :) --Mistress Selina Kyle 18:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I actually feel a bit guilty now tho. bleh. especially after reading the funnyish reply on Talk:Jimbo Wales -hope I didnt upset you or anything. --Mistress Selina Kyle 18:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] heyy

I did say sorry

too random for my own good >_< --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 00:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, not in so many words... but it's all good. I was just ribbing you. :] --CBD _☎ ^✉ 00:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MSK

Hi Conrad, it is better to leave reference to a 3RR block on the talk page for the duration of the block in case another admin sees the violation, doesn't check the noticeboard, and blocks again, which I've seen happen a few times. That is why I restored it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Serena

Sure thing, she's a fiery one, but a good kid. karmafist 22:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other

[edit] Re: Comment

While I agree that the brouhaha over the 'clerks' is largely groundless there is never a good reason to be making threats. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 15:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I also talked this over with another user and agree that the summary was a little rash. Rob Church (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks...

... for your edits here. I was also wondering about the summary yesterday and was planning to raise it today when I saw that you have done it already. Keep up the good work, --Gurubrahma 06:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring, the 3RR, and YOU!

Hey there,

The issue between User:Michael Martinez and you was brought to my attention through WP:ANI/3RR. I blocked him for a 3RR and came this close to giving you a block as well, though you did not hit the electric fence. Why? Edit warring is bad, no matter what. Three reverts in 24 hours is, in my mind, just as unacceptable as four. Keep in mind the dispute resolution process, and keep in mind that you can be blocked for edit warring without hitting that electric fence. Otherwise, keep up the good work! —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 03:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: marriage template

Does the template also promote violating the rights of polygamists? It does say one man and one woman. Point is: this template promotes a respectable, mainstream viewpoint. It is only as "offensive" in the sense that some people disagree with it. (And there are homosexuals opposed to same-sex marriage, you realize.) --Hyphen5 10:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

In answer to your question - "yes", though obviously the current 'one man / one woman' drive is motivated primarily by opposition to same-sex marriage. As to the rest, the opinion does indeed appear to be 'mainstream'... but that doesn't make it "respectable". Bigotry based on skin color, religion, gender, et cetera have all been (and in some cases / areas still are) 'mainstream'. To extend your reasoning, those bigotries are 'only offensive in the sense that some people disagree'... and 'there are women opposed to women's rights, you realize'. A tiny minority, like your example, and no reason to have an 'A woman's place is in the home, barefoot and pregnant. Property of her husband.' userbox. I don't agree with censoring even the most vile 'opinions', but the fact is that it is wiki policy... and not applying it to some cases results in the policy being not against 'divisive userboxes', but rather against 'unpopular opinions'. We shouldn't be keeping just the divise userboxes which a sizable percentage of Wiki users happen to agree with... that is far worse than either keeping or getting rid of them all. --CBDunkerson 11:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

So a template that promotes monogamy would be "divise" and should be deleted? That's absurd. But at least you're consistent. Polygamists don't have marriage rights, except to marry monogamously. Homosexuals don't have marriage rights, except to marry heterosexually. We regulate marriage up the wazoo. You can't claim that excluding people from it is "violating their rights" because, frankly, there are non-arbitrary reasons to do so. We discriminate based on age, sex, number of partners, family relations, species, etc. There is no right to marry whomever or whatever you want to marry. Marriage has a definition, and some things fall within that definition and some things don't. Defining anything necessarily entails defining what is not that thing. This is (one of) the essential differece(s) between the traditional folks and the gay marriage supporters: the former believe marriage is an anthropological reality that the state merely recgonizes and incentivizes, whereas the latter think that marriage is an arbitrary legal convention that is changeable at will. If you think that sex is not essential to the idea and historical phenomenon of marriage, there is no reason for you to think that any of the other requirements are essential to it, either. And ultimately, you've destroyed the entire definition of marriage by rendering it meaningless. It becomes a mere association of persons.

In any event, I doubt that there are women opposed to "women's rights". Are there women who think they have no rights? Who think that they are property? I've never heard anybody say that. And why are "barefoot" and "pregnant" always indicators of female backwardness? Are only men allowed to go barefoot? Do men who wish to enslave their wives forbid them from buying shoes?! (Oh, the inhumanity!!) As for "pregnant", bearing children is the one fundamental difference between the sexes. Women can do everything men can do, but men can't do everything women can do: men can't bear children. It's such a stark and obvious difference that one might be tempted to think that somehow maternity is essential to true femininity and fulfillment for women. But no! Radical feminism is making women more like men. It glorifies sex, but at the same time it takes away maternity. And thank goodness! because otherwise we men wouldn't be as free to take advantage of women sexually. (Maybe you mean to say that some women have a different understanding of what womanhood fundamentally is, and you choose to deride and exaggerate that intellectual disagreement as "opposing women's rights". Instead of actually engaging it.) The irony of radical feminism is that it satisfies only the most base desires of men.

My point about "mainstream" was to counter your assertion that the userbox is "divisive". If you've paid attention to the news lately, and all the referenda on same-sex marriage, this is hardly an issue that "divides" the American public. To the contrary, it seems to be uniting huge majorities in opposition to the cause of samse-sex marriage! --Hyphen5 06:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

Hi CB, would you mind unprotecting the guideline and policy templates? You've recently edited the guideline template, and you expressed a position on April 26 on the matter under discussion regarding both templates. [9] See Wikipedia:Protection policy, which states that admins "should not protect pages in which they are involved. Involvement includes making substantive edits to the page (fixing vandalism does not count), or expressing opinions about the article on the talk page before the protection." Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

As I noted on the requests for protection page, I really don't think I was 'involved' in this debate. My edits to the guideline template had nothing to do with it (making that particular accusation somewhat... odd) and my only comments on the issue were general efforts to promote discussion instead of insults, threats, and edit warring. I did not "express a position" unless, 'that is historically accurate but I do not know that it needs to be stated here' is a 'position'. I certainly didn't advocate any 'side' of the debate. I did suggest alternate wording, but that was after I protected the pages... a fairly standard attempt to steer the discussion towards compromise.

I felt protection was warranted. I still do. You had gotten to the point of violating 3RR over trivia (which page(s) the discussion should be held on). That's ridiculous. If it seems like more reasonable behaviour will be displayed going forward I'll be happy to unprotect so that a compromise can be worked out. If someone else decides to unprotect before then that's ok too - but on their head be it. :] --CBDunkerson 10:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

CBD, I don't want to ask someone to undo your protection, because I take the view that admins shouldn't undo each other's actions. But your protection is in violation of the protection policy. You were involved as an editor on the guideline template. And you commented on the issue in dispute, and expressed your opinion about it, on April 26, which was before you protected. You then went and protected two versions that supported your opinion. That's a clear violation of the policy. I'm therefore requesting that you unprotect because of your involvement as an editor. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Er... we already talked with a non-involved admin at WP:RFPP. He agreed with protection. Why are you still beating this drum? Unless you want someone else to unprotect and reprotect it, which seems kind of futile...? —Locke Cole • t • c 21:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like CBDunkerson to remove his protection, then if someone else wants to re-protect, they can do so. It's actually none of your business, Locke Cole. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if it's on-Wiki, it's my business. So please don't tell me what is or isn't my business (you might want to read up on WP:CIV, BTW). Also, since another admin already agreed with protection, I find your continued insistance that CBD remove protection highly dubious. Or did you not understand Voice_of_All (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) when he said "I support the page protection, for the record"? —Locke Cole • t • c 22:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps she wants "her version" or perhaps she'd rather have the status quo upheld until consensus reached (which makes very good sense for policy pages). I don't think that you should start accusing (or suggesting) anyone of anything like that yet. You guys need to WP:AGF; you and SlimVirgin are seing bad intentions, where as all that I can see is ambivilance and uncertainty. There really is not enough to suggest any wrongdoing on the part of any of you three.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 00:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, if any of that were an accurate description of my involvement you'd be correct in your conclusion. Since it bears no resemblance to reality as I perceive it I'm going to request that someone else take this one. You'll have to take it up with whoever that turns out to be. For the record, my "opinion" is that neither version of the wording is going to have much impact... people will do what they are going to do and this wording difference would change that maybe one time in a hundred. In short, you two were edit-warring over a matter of little significance... until you graduated to edit-warring over a matter of no significance with the fight over where to hold the discussion. You both know better. --CBDunkerson 22:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

CB, please take the point: Locke Cole and I are disagreeing over point X. You expressed a view about point X on April 26 on one of the talk pages in question. You have also recently edited one of the templates. You then protected both templates on the version that you had expressed a preference for. It's precisely to avoid this kind of thing that the protection policy exists. I'm concerned that you can't see that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed your protection as you seem unwilling to remove it yourself. If an uninvolved admin feels there's a need to reprotect, I will of course have no objection. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm concerned that you claim I expressed a preference for either version (which is simply false) and that my completely unrelated edit two weeks ago means I am involved in this dispute (which is simply ridiculous). Wheel warring to get your way... also not a good thing. Kind of like your recent civility and 3RR violations on this issue. Are you really so sure that >I< am the one not 'seeing clearly' here? It is inconceivable to me that you claim I am too involved to take a protection action on this page, but feel that the same apparently does not apply to yourself... after you edit warred over it. Despite two other admins having agreed with the protection. What!?!?! --CBDunkerson 23:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I supplied the link above. Here on April 26 (i.e. before protection), you expressed your view about the issue, in response to a post from me. I would also be too involved to protect the page, of course. If it needs to be protected, an uninvolved admin should make that decision. Please note for the future: if you express a view on the issue on the talk page before protection, you may not protect the page. See WP:PPol. Which 3RR violations on this issue are you talking about? I'm not aware that anyone has violated 3RR on either of those templates. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

That diff says two things about CBD's opinions: a)People should talk first with policy edits, b)The "wp:bold" line is not something that should obviously stay, though it may have merits, and has proven usefull in the past. The quote marks only suggest more ambivilance. The status quo version did not have the "be bold" lines, and status quo is best left protected in such cases (like policy pages). This would have to be done by 3rd admin or two. Perhaps he was just protecting the last version he saw...I don't really know. Certainly, he never removed the lines himself. The issue is whether that diff shows that he protected "his version". I honestly can't tell from that diff whether he supported or opposed the change. That is the problem here. He did comment on it, mentioning its merits, so as I said, for the sake of dispute resolution (more issues created b/c he protected it, which has happened) and formality (never protect something you list an opinion on, however ambibivilant) he should not have protected. Honestly, I wish a third admin reverted to the status qou version, since policy needs consensus first, by definition. Personally, I'd prefer not having WP:BOLD on there, but I don't care much either way, depending on the wording.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 00:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Voice of All, I don't see any need for protection myself. There's an article RfC about it, so people will express their views and then we can insert whatever the consensus version turns out to be. Locke Cole is also about to be placed on revert parole by the arbcom, which may help on these and other pages. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)SlimVirgin... I know the policy. The point you seem to keep ignoring is I did not express a view about the issue. I did not say, 'we should use Locke Cole's version' or 'we should use SlimVirgin's version' or 'we should use this other version' or anything like those. It didn't happen. Ever. The link you keep citing doesn't show anything of the kind... can you somehow not see the part about how it may not be neccessary to cite 'Be bold' in the template? THAT'S what you call taking Locke's side? You accuse me of protecting the page on 'my favored version' based 100% on assumption of bad faith. It wasn't 'my favored version'... it was the version that happened to be current when I put on the protection. I don't care which version is used. I think you are both being silly to edit war over this. Get it now? I was an "uninvolved admin"... now I'm an admin annoyed about your assumption of bad faith, specious claims of 'editing involvement', wheel-warring, unprotection policy violation, harrassment, et cetera. As to the 3RR violation... as previously stated you did so on the RFC page. Now please just go away... I already told you that I was handing this off before you decided that you were a properly neutral admin to make a decision on the issue. --CBDunkerson 00:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

No, that was not a 3RR violation; the first edit was an edit. CB, you expressed a view on the issue on the talk page before protection. That's it. Right there: that means you can't be the protecting admin. WP:PPol says (my emphasis): "Admins should not protect pages in which they are involved. Involvement includes ... expressing opinions about the article on the talk page before the protection." You expressed your opinion on April 26 on the talk page of one of the pages you protected about the very matter in dispute. I've said this several times already, so I won't keep repeating myself, but please take the point for the future, so that this doesn't happen again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Importance of good faith

I understand the 3RR policy very well because I enforce it a lot. My first edit was an edit. Of course you could count as it "undoing another editor's work," because it didn't include part of a sentence that was in the version I tidied, and so in theory it was a revert to a previous version, but then all deletions are reverts to previous versions that didn't contain that material. This would be taking 3RR to the very edge of what counts as a technical violation.

I suggest we agree to disagree and let this entire issue go. I believe you may have violated a policy, and you disagree. You believe I may have violated a policy, and I disagree. We can either argue about it for the rest of our lives, or we can forget it. I suggest the latter, because there's nothing at stake. Although I believe you protected while involved, I don't believe you acted in bad faith. I just believe you made a mistake or that you interpret the policy differently from me. Similarly, although you believe I reverted four times, you probably also don't believe I acted in bad faith. What counts above all for me is good faith, because we all make mistakes, and we all have our own interpretations of policy, but so long as good faith is there, these differences can be overcome and worked with. I do still trust you as an admin (very much so, in fact), and I apologize if anything I wrote gave you the impression that I don't. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see my comment on my talk CBD. I never said, or meant to at least, that you are not "gracious".Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 17:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kosher

thanks for the clrification about user talk pages. re template:featured, i clearly stated any further GA-spam would be treated as vandalism, after which the user went on to ignore the talk page discussion and re-add GA-spam to template:featured. so as per warning it was treated as vandalism. all is now well as raul654 has locked the template to prevent further GA spam from this nuisance user. as for "mental retards" i never said such a thing - just quoting another user in the talk page discussion, nothing to do with me. Zzzzz 22:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blainetologist

See User:Blainetologist. According to Essjay he's Enviroknot. Guettarda 13:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you very much for your message, im not this enviroknot person, someone was playing a cruel joke. I just want to help. Blainetologist 16:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Could you take a look at this?

There's a request for mediation here: [10] and it was suggested by a mediator there that a vote initiated and monitored by an Admin could resolve this dispute. I don't want to write the vote myself because I feel it would be fairer if a neutral third party oversaw this high-profile matter. (In case you're wondering why I picked you, I skimmed through the admin list and saw your "fair shake" tag and so thought you would be open to mediating.) -- Mr. Tibbs 20:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Content dispute

Actually the current piece of information has been worded with the disclaimer of early reviews so there's no need to remove the information at the moment. Bignole has been adamantly denying that piece of trivia's existence in the film, even though it's been commented upon by both regular users on various messageboards and accredited reviwers from the press. The user had been making a series of deletions of this content, despite the information's verifiability thru various reliable sources. I actually had to apologize to a new editor for Bignole's poor-faith edits. --Madchester 00:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Well done

elements cross-posted

You could have asked anyone to do that, but instead you chose to involve yourself, and also chose not to mention to anyone that you had done it (least of all, myself, per my request).

Quite frankly, I'm not even remotely surprised at your behaviour, and that really rather saddens me.

James F. (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree - I was involved. I was, indeed, already involved. You, however, were completely uninvolved in this manner until you decided to go charging in, and ignored a direct plea (that was essentially directed at you and no-one else) not so to do. I agree completely that I erred in doing it myself, but you erred both in bringing yourself into a situation wherein you were comprimised and in deliberately provoking a wheel-war when none existed, as well as your actual action itself; all I merely did was follow policy where I had a minor stake in proceedings. Nevertheless, I'm sorry if I upset you - it was not in any way my intent.

I wasn't aware that Locke hadn't made any actual edits with his account for two weeks until after you went against my request - had you pointed this out to me, I would (of course!) have undone my actions. However, you evidently don't get the emails - I'm very happy for you, and, certainly, envious. But to say that Locke has actually left the Wikimedia bubble is... well, probably not true. Which is sad, because I don't want Locke to have to float around in the ether - I want him back, making a difference and helping with the project, along with the rest of us. I do find it rather odd that you seem to think that I have some sort of vendetta against him, though... where did you get that impression from?

And you really didn't try hard enough if you say that I'm not on IRC - I'm currently connected to over a dozen Wikimedia channels. :-) Out of curiosity, why do you hate IRC? I find it a most wonderful, free-flowing medium wherein useful and rapid discussion and agreement can take place...

James F. (talk) 22:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I assume James is talking about this (excerpt):

• 13:16, May 27, 2006 CBDunkerson deleted "User:Locke Cole" (Call it 'wheel warring' if you will, but Jdforrester absolutely should not be the one making decisions on this issue. The supposedly 'not' vanished user had made no edits in two weeks. And none to this page but deletion requests for a month. Harassment wo)
• 11:47, May 27, 2006 Jdforrester protected User:Locke Cole (As per my comment. Prevention of RTV crypto-vandalism. [edit=sysop:move=sysop])
• 11:43, May 27, 2006 Jdforrester restored "User:Locke Cole" (I'm terribly sorry that you want me to "go fuck [my]self", but that doesn't allow you to request RTV when you don't go away.)

I'm also wondering what it needs to let Locke Cole finally go. Jimbo himself even deleted Locke's talk [11] (excerpt):

• 00:10, May 18, 2006 Jimbo Wales deleted "User talk:Locke Cole" (I figure, let him go. Who cares? not worth fighting about)

What makes me wondering is James' comment "RTV crypto-vandalism"... (I assume RTV means right to vanish). --Ligulem 22:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe he was suggesting that Locke Cole was actually abusing the 'right to vanish' principle as a means of inserting incivil comments... which wouldn't be 'vandalism' per se in any case, but also just didn't make alot of sense to me. If the page weren't undeleted there'd be no nasty comments in the request to delete it again... it would just be gone. The aspect labelled 'crypto-vandalism' could only exist when Locke Cole's request was refused... rather than granted. Making such refusal seem self-defeating. Anyway, it may hopefully be settled now. --CBDunkerson 00:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The incivil comment of Locke towards James did sadden me. It was a bad day to see a good wikipedian turning to the darker side. But I assume it's hard to keep high standards after this harsh soon to be punishment by the ArbCom. But of course, it's their decision and I have to accept it. I also understand that it must be a tough job what the ArbCom is doing. I just hope they are aware of their great responsibilities. As sad as it is. AGF, once again. --Ligulem 08:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Conrad,

I wrote a response. It was about 2 kwords long (after some serious prunage), and it took me about 2 hours... and then Firefox spontaneously died. I really, really can't face writing it again. Suffice to say that I took issue with you on some points, agreed on others, and generally exuded lots of wikilove. ;-)

Sorry.

James F. (talk) 08:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I need your help

I will probably be blocked by Sasquatch for contacting you, but if you can, I need your help. It would be preferable if you could unblock my current account Tchadienne, and block him so he can stop blocking me without rationale. Essentially I have been permanently blocked in retaliation for one instance of personal attacks - which were in response to an administrator-vandal's spamming my talkpage. I have tried to contact other users but Sasquatch blocks every account I make. 4.249.66.154 23:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Number one, I never should have been blocked. My use of vulgarity was in response to the repeated vandalism of my talkpage by Sasquatch and Jacoplane. They either do not understand basic Wikipedia policies or choose not to follow them. Number two, Marknw's actions were vandalism. He was spamming every page with the same irrelevant, incorrect, pov nonsense. That's vandalism! Im tired of this bullshit. Unblock both of my accounts now. Neither one is a sockpuppet because as I have repeatedly stated I am switching over to User:Tchadienne. Neither administrator will be punished for their actions because no one ever is. 4.249.9.190 19:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sasquatch

Sasquatch has reached a new low, and is now using sockpuppets to vandalize my userpage. See 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Are you going to take any action? -KI

User has already been blocked. If you think they are a sock see requests for check-user. --CBDunkerson 13:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wow.

Wow. I couldn't have said it better on WP:AN. In fact, I'd be stumbling all over myself trying. — Nathan ^(talk) 14:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] restore and move Wikipedia:Conservative_notice_board/categories ?

Hi, I noticed you restored and moved the Wikipedia:Conservative_notice_board Thanks! Can you restore and move Wikipedia:Conservative_notice_board/categories as well? --Facto 21:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Sorry I missed that, had to run out for a bit right after I restored the main page. --CBD 23:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway falsely accused me of recreating the conservative notice board as the politics noticeboard, and he also deleted the politics notice board and page protected it. I think this may have to be brought to WP:RFAR. --Facto 03:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject User Page Design Committee

Hello. I am here to inform you that they now have the wikiproject up for mfd here. You thoughts would be appreciated. Thetruthbelow 04:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Info request

Excuse me, I need some info because I am not familiar with RfC's:

1. In an RfC can I add comments to defend myself from accusation made in the "Outside views"?
2. Why nobody is commenting my RfC?
3. In the RfC page I read "When listing a dispute here, you should also place a notice on the appropriate talk page" what is in this case the appropriate talk page?

Thank you. --Pokipsy76 07:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Generally commenting on the comments of others in RfC's should be done on the RfC talk page. I suspect you are refering to Hipocrite's addition where he talks about 'those people' and accuses 'them' of various things worthy of indefinite blocking in his opinion - without actually citing any evidence that YOU have done such. I found that particularly noxious as well and have been considering how to respond myself. The lack of comment is almost certainly due to a pervasive problem on Wikipedia where admins and other 'respected users' can often get away with just about anything because other admins allow it and shout down those who object. I am mildly hopeful that in this case there will eventually be some scrutiny given to the issues, but the fact is that in my experience there is a serious problem with Wikipedia's capacity for self-examination. As to the 'appropriate talk page' - for a user conduct RfC that is usually the page of the user named, in this case MONGO, but the original article at the focus of the dispute and the pages of others involved (such as SkeenaR and CB Brooklyn, whom I have just added following MONGO's blocks on them) would also be reasonable places for notification. --CBD 16:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that you should mention (or link) in the page Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MONGO what were the "personal attacks and incivility (on both sides)": these are too relevant to be just summarized in that way.--Pokipsy76 16:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

There'd be alot of stuff to include and standards for what constitutes a 'personal attack' are very subjective. The essential point was that MONGO should not have blocked given the existence of the ongoing dispute. --CBD 21:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask if it's within policy for a blocking admin to protect a blockees talkpage and remove the unblock request?[12] I can't imagine how this is proper. Am I right thinking the last two actions should be reversed? SkeenaR 00:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No it isn't sanctioned by policy. The whole point of the user talk page remaining editable while a user is blocked is in order to facilitate communication. TruthSeeker123 definitely earned a block for what the vandalism policy defines as 'sneaky vandalism' and violation of the 'do not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point' policy, but the block should not have been placed by an involved admin, the indefinite duration is certainly questionable, and protecting the talk page smacks of attempting to avoid review by other admins. I've raised the 'protection' issue for discussion because the same group did this once previously and I'll follow up on the block. --CBD 01:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into that. SkeenaR 01:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this legal?

Please, take a look at this edit. Is it legal?--Pokipsy76 09:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not really a question of 'legal' or even 'policy', but it wasn't 'standard procedure'. I manually copied the section to the current archives. All the changes would have been available in the edit history in any case. Not a big deal. --CBD 11:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MONGO

Conrad, it pains me to see people I admire and respect fighting on the admin noticeboard. MONGO seems to be on a bit of a short fuse, too, and there are trolls everywhere. Just zis Guy you know? 11:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the current situation either. MONGO seems generally a 'good guy', but I can't agree with what to me seem like claims that 'down is up and left is south' (i.e. 'content dispute' = 'vandalism by the other guy', 'edit warring' = 'not edit warring', 'personal attacks' = 'NPOV', et cetera) and more importantly, admin actions based on them. I don't doubt that he believes his views of these issues are correct and from that foundation has concluded that I am 'unjustifiably abusing him'. But... I'm equally convinced that I'm not wrong and that the nature of 'vandalism' and 'edit warring' are not minor issues to just 'let slide'. No question, I'm a stickler for ridiculously scrupulous 'fair play' even with the worst of users... and MONGO is trending more towards 'stomp the troublemakers until they bleed'. There are valid benefits to both, but I think the more even-handed approach (the one that doesn't involve calling your opponents "morons") produces better results in long running efforts... and I'm quite certain that Wikipedia's policies concur with me on that. I'm open to suggestions, though my current hope is that he'll stop 'stomping' things and it can just fade away. --CBD 13:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yup. In the real world this would be an excuse for a watercooler discussion; hard to know how best to handle it here. I think maybe the POV-pushers have got to him a bit (I find that a lot). If only poeple could accept "no, we just don't do things that way" as an answer... I might send an email. Just zis Guy you know? 13:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Conrad, I really appreciate and support the hard work and good principle you are putting into this RfC. I think MONGO is a good person and I see an encouraging trend in the position he is taking, largely through your efforts. Keep up the good work! --Guinnog 20:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

While I think there have been some positive developments I'm afraid calling my attempts here "good work" is overly optimistic. Perhaps it will all work out for the best eventually, but the current situation is not at all what I hoped for. --CBD 23:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uncivil behavior

CBD, please see my comment here and note that it is direct retaliation for MONGO's uncivil comment here. Thank you. CB Brooklyn 07:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

MONGO just reverted me. CBD, if you expect wikipedia to be NPOV then you should see to it that MONGO's ability to edit is blocked. And if I get blocked, I would certainly hope that you remove it. Thank you. CB Brooklyn 07:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Please LMK what page to go to file an official complaint against that character. CB Brooklyn 07:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

MONGO is also breaking wiki policy by reverting and calling it a minor edit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_edit#When_to_mark_an_edit_as_minor

"Reverting a page is not likely to be considered minor under most circumstances. When the status of a page is disputed, and particularly if an edit war is brewing, then it is better not to mark any edit as minor." CB Brooklyn 07:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[13]--MONGO 08:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Now he's reverting information that I deleted on my own talk page. CB Brooklyn 07:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I don't get it

Hi. In MONGO's RfC you wrote, "Pokipsy76 almost certainly deserved to be blocked" and several other people have expressed similar sentiments... but I can't see any basis for it. Can you explain why you think Pokipsy76 should have been blocked for [14] & [15]? To me they don't seem to be excessive POV (indeed, "Some disagree" is more neutral POV than "Some conspiracy theorists disagree"), two reverts is not significant edit warring, and the other complaints MONGO brought in after the fact were all similarly minor content disagreements from 3+ weeks earlier on entirely different issues. So far as I can see there was no justification whatsoever for that block even if MONGO hadn't been the one to make it. Yet there seems to be near universal agreement to the contrary, so I'm hoping someone can explain it to me. What exactly did Pokipsy76 do that was blockworthy? The reason stated at the time, that he reverted an admin, really doesn't work for me. --CBD 12:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I am referring to the overall complaint, not just the one or two edits that led to the block. His edits appear to me to be disruptive, on an overall basis. Stifle (talk) 12:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Georgia Move

As a past participant in the discussion on how to handle the Georgia pages, I thought you might be interested to know that there's a new attempt to reach consensus on the matter being addressed at Talk:Georgia (country)#Requested_Move_-_July_2006. Please come by and share your thoughts to help form a consensus. --Vengeful Cynic 04:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Georgia

I am vey mystified from your message on Talk:Georgia (country). First of all, Georgians are not Russian or even Slavic. According to Statistics Georgia (country) gets more American readers than the state of Georgia. Soviet Union does not exist any more and I would advise you to watch more TV than making ignorant comments. Presidnet of Georgia and the president of the U.S. met two days ago and you can read this to get an idea about Georgia and the US relations. [[16]].Sosomk 10:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I admit that it was harsh to use the word "ignorant". Trust me, you would react the same way if I called you a Mexican and told you that the article about the United States is mostly read on Spanish wikipedia. We have our own language and I don't see any necessity of using the Russian one. Georgian Wikipedua has more than 5,000 article and I edit articles on it. The first article, which I wrote on it was about [[17]]Thomas Jefferson with my experience from Virginia. If you look at Jefferson's article on Russian wikipedia, you will see that Georgian one is whole lot bigger. In fact, most standardized tests like SATs in Georgia require the knowledge of English language than Russian language. If you are in business field, you realize it well that English laguage is an international language of business and communication and English speaking world is more than the U.S. and U.K. So, thanks god USSR is not around any more and I welcome any type of advancement of information on English encyclopedia about Georgia, which simply was not allowed in the Soviet times. Not that I experienced it, I am 18 and I grew up in an independet, democratic Georgia. Also, there is no way to evaluate Bush's and Saakashvili's meeting negative, because I think it was great and I admire W, but that's my personal political belief.Sosomk 16:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help Me With This Guy

This IP Address (71.125.96.208) is constantly vandalizing the page Gary Williams with an inappropriate picture of Gary and co-eds. The image is obviously intended to make the subject look bad, and despite my efforts to stop this picture from appearing, it keeps coming back. Can you help me with this person?

Steve

[edit] Gary Williams page

With all due respect, I strongly disagree with you that the repeated addition of the Gary Williams picture on his page is not vandalism. I'm not sure how much you follow college basketball so forgive me if I'm covering familiar ground, but that photograph was a hot topic on college basketball message boards last season as it was frequently posted on rival boards with the intention of mocking or humiliating Coach Williams. In contrast, it was quickly removed every time it was posted on any Maryland site because of the perception that it was humiliating. In addition, I would submit that the intent to vandalize can be ascertained by checking the edit history of the three offenders (possibly the same person from different locations?). To me, this is not an edit war at all, but rather is a clear case of no more than a couple of repeat offenders reverting to a humiliating image that is absolutely inappropriate for the Gary Williams article. Thanks for hearing me out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ronnymexico (talk • contribs) .

You are probably right about the person's intent being to use an image which is unflattering to the subject of the article... but that isn't "vandalism" as defined by Wikipedia's policy on such. However, it comes close to the line and could certainly be called disruptive behaviour. Still, reverting such additions is edit warring... even repeatedly reverting things which clearly are vandalism under the policy is edit warring - just in that case edit warring which we tolerate if there was no other option. Requesting temporary page protection is preferable to continually reverting disputed additions. I'll unprotect the page after a couple of days and hopefully they will have moved on. If not, ask them to explain why they consider the image useful on the talk page. Try to work it out with them reasonably rather than saying 'rv vandalism' back and forth. If they can't / won't explain their reasons for including but continue doing so that's a failure to follow process / work together which is blockable... but if there haven't been any significant attempts to discuss the issue it isn't so clear cut. --CBD 20:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Dunkerson, please, please, please email me. Thank you.

Dear Dunkerson,

Can you please email me? My email address is MichaelDWolok@aol.com

I am having a hard time with Wikipedia. Thank you.

Michael D. Wolok 18:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your opinion please

Hello CBD, I would appreciate your comments on me, in my RfC. When I read your comments in various places I understand what you are saying very clearly. I have been here now, just over a month, and if you have some time, even if only for a message on my talk-page, I would appreciate your comments. Thanks. Link -- Ste4k 20:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal info

I have not posted any personal information about the user

• Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily provides or links to such information himself or herself. Wikipedia:Harassment

The user in question has repeatedly edited using an IP account, and uploaded a file containing her IP, which means she voluntarily provided the information. Linking an IP to an editor based on editing activities is not revealing personal info, and is done routinely (for dozens of examples, see Wikipedia:Long term abuse). Regarding the offsite activity, she was engaged in adding material that was written by the same IP number. I don't see how that is personal information either, and there's nothing about it in the policy. -Will Beback 22:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Adding information which is known to be false is vandalism. That is exactly what this editor is accused of doing, a charge which she has never denied. -Will Beback 23:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Since there is no need for them to prove the fraud, I've removed the links that go to pages which include email addresses. -Will Beback 23:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

See Image:Mboverload.jpg, which she uploaded, for a file containing her IP address. -Will Beback 23:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jusforasecond

Did you discuss it with Nandasuka before you unblocked him? Now he's trying to build an RfA against Nandasuka for a valid block. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I just have less than good feelings about a user with a history of harrassing an African-American contributor and who is now edit warring on the Kwanzaa article. User:Zoe|^(talk) 15:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I was initially skeptical, but I have to say I appreciate the way you handled the User:Justforasecond block/unblock issue. We all need reminders sometimes that blocks are for prevention, not punishment. Also, I heavily endorse the idea that a block, even on a past troublemaker, should always be well-justified. I've seen too many trumped-up blocks excused on the grounds that the blockee had previously caused trouble, and that's a bad thing. Thanks for being fair, explaining yourself well, and focusing entirely on damage control rather than getting obsessed over punishment. Friday (talk) 15:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pat8722

Please note that a request for arbitration has been made at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Pat8722. Your input would be most valuable. —BorgHunter (talk) 00:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your comments on User talk:Ebacherdom

Hi CBDunkerson, thank you for being one of the admins who declined to unblock User:Ebacherdom. He had made comments toward me that were uncivil (and hurtful, though I try my best not to take any situation online personally), so I reported him to AIV both because he continued to act this way after a t4-level warning and because I felt that a block would be a good time for him to cool down from the situation and hopefully reflect on his actions. (In case you didn't see the full timeline of events, I recapped it in my AIV report.)

However, I am surprised that you felt that my initial post on the user's talk page was unnecessarily provocative because I mentioned the word "vandalism." For the past several months, I have accumulated several thousand edits working on the Wikicalendar project. I estimate that in total, I revert or another editor reverts about 50 (though often more) unhelpful edits to sum of pages. The majority of these unhelpful edits are instances of editors, both anonymous and registered, adding their own birthday (or the birthday of someone they know) to the list, ignoring the tag on the bottom of each section that clearly states "Do not add people without Wikipedia articles to the list." Since this occurence is very common, I feel that it is necessary to let the user know not to do this, as a simple revert might never be checked upon again by the user. For this edit, I either give a t1 (good faith notice that an edit has been deemed unhelpful and removed), or I post a friendly note clarifying this on the user's talk page; you can see an example here. I feel that a bright orange message box appearing on the top of every subsequent page that the user views is more compelling than a revert which the user may or may not ever see. The vast majority of users see this note and do not repeat their action; the small percentage who continually add their own birthday, etc. to the Wikicalendar pages after this note get warnings.

Now that I've written a basic background on the project, my next point is that these lists of births and deaths will never be complete. I mainly focus on maintaining the pages, but a few kindly editors (User:Clay4President and User:Igoulet to name two frequent ones) devote time to expanding the lists so that they are both more complete and more representative of the spread of biographical articles on Wikipedia. When someone removes a valid name from the list (and by valid, I mean that the person was indeed born on that day, according to his or her article, and that he or she has a Wikipedia article devoted to him or her), it is not helpful to the page or the project because it erases the good work of another editor and makes the page less complete than it was. In Ebacherdom's sake, he removed the entry because he thought that person was, using the words he used in the edit summary of his second revert, "non-notable individual, should not be included," (note that Ebacherdom did not use an edit summary the first time he removed the name). I assumed good faith in my initial message on his talk page, explaining the policy on the Wikicalendar pages, though when he re-removed the valid entry from November 25, it seems unlikely that he was trying to act in the best interest of the page and make a helpful edit. It seems that it was more of a bias on his part (deciding whether someone is notable or not based on his own judgement, regardless of Wikipedia notability policy), which is not in accordance with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, which as a registered user for over two years, I'm sure he's come across in the past.

If an editor removes the name of Abraham Lincoln from February 12, for example, I think another editor would take the same course of action as I did, or even start giving out vandalism warnings. For cases like this or in the case that the user has a history of vandalism, an editor might give out a test2a, which states "Please do not remove content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism." While many would agree that Lincoln's contributions to American society were more "notable" or will have a greater impact in the future than those of Josh Lomberger, the principle, in my opinion, is the same. Both meet WP:BIO standards, so both have Wikipedia articles. While good faith should be assumed for all editors and special consideration given to new or inexperienced editors (I think Ebacherdom could only of those two be considered inexperienced given the age of his account and the number of edits he's racked up in that time), I don't think noting on someone's userpage in a friendly note that removal of valid content from a Wikipedia article can be considered vandalism is premature or particularly incorrect. Anyway, thanks for your attention, and even if you don't agree with my point, I still respect your opinion and welcome your comments. I look forward to future communication with you. Fabricationary 02:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: User Fabricationary Incident

CBD:

Thank you for being one of the only people willing to take a look at the recent situation with an open mind. I appreciate greatly the fact that you posted your views both with me and with the individual who I was quarrelling with Fabricationary. Because you agree with me that the vandalism warnings that were initially issued to me are questionable at best (both issued by fabricationary, and within 10 minutes of one another) I have made my best effot to keep them visible to interested parties while removing them from the very top of my talk page. I needed to do an annual talk page archive, and now was as good a time as any to clean things up so that my talk page remains a useful area for discussion.

Again, I want to thank you for your involvement in this matter. I know I acted out more than I should, but this was mostly the result of a mistaken understanding on my part as well as an individual who was not acting on good faith (IMO) and more interested in getting my goat than actually attempting to make Wikipedia a better place. Knowing that you heard me fairly allows me to continue to feel good about Wikipedia in general, and I want to know that for restoring my faith in the good faith of other individuals here, you have my gratitude.

Thanks Again! Ebacherdom 02:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pat8722

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pat8722. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pat8722/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pat8722/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 02:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User_talk:Dwain

While I respect your comment, other administrators had told me blanking a userpage with warnings was vandalism and had directed me to Wikipedia:Vandalism#Tyoes_of_vandalism.

Talk page vandalism

Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages, aside from removal of internal spam, or deleting entire sections of talk pages, is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page. The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments at their discretion. However, removing legitimate warnings, especially with the intention of misleading other editors, can be disruptive and inappropriate behavior even though it is not specifically a form of vandalism. Removing comments without responding may be considered uncivil or become an issue for arbitration.

That is the reason I had said anything. The user had removed valid complaints only to replace them with glowing remarks from another account they merged together. The instant that people added any comments that were negative or warned the user of misconduct, they were removed. On a related note, the user had not archived anything. I had to make the archive for him which he blanked anyway. Now you can understand, it wasn't in bad faith that I did this. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 14:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Could you have a look at this please?

Hello, I understand you are an administrator and in that capacity I'd like you to please have a look at the following three topics on my talk page: [18], [19] and [20], especially the first and last. This user, Travb has been posting diatribes and patronizing comments elsewhere too. Would it be appropriate to simply remove these topics or to archive them? I am not sure about the policy regarding talk pages. Thank you, Kalsermar 18:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 00:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request your attention to the GoldToeMarionette case

GoldToeMarionette (talk · contribs) had a WP:RFCU inappropriately completed on their account by Jayjg (talk · contribs) and Hall Monitor (talk · contribs) blocked the account after it was identified as a multiple account despite their being no violation of Wikipedia policy by GoldToeMarionette. These users did not respond to requests to undo the action.

Other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Comments on RFCU itself [21]

Other Admins contacted [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]

Hall Monitor was emailed with no reply

GoldToeMarionette posted on the account's User and Talk Pages seeking assistance when the talk page was protected without the issue being discussed. User:GoldToeMarionette User_talk:GoldToeMarionette

GoldToeMarionette notified article contributors that illustrative examples were subject to an AfD. The account strictly followed the WP:SPAM#Internal_spamming guideline. The AfD was without controversy. GoldToeMarionette did not participate in the vote. HereToCleanup removed the posts following the AfD in accord with the widely accepted Wikipedia Guideline Wikipedia:Spam#Internal_spamming that states "Clean up your mess. For example, after engaging in cross-posting to promote some election, be sure to remove those cross-posts after the election is complete." [27]

• GoldToeMarionette Contributions
• Breakdown of GoldToeMarionette's Posts
• Example post to 66 article contributors
• Example post removal from 66 article contributors
• HereToCleanup's Contributions
• No AfD participation

Since GoldToeMarionette was strictly following Wikipedia Policy, there should not have been a Check User completed by Jayjg. Hall Monitor only blocked the account because it was labeled as a sockpuppet by Jayjg's completed Check User. Absent policy violation it should not have been processed in RFCU or been blocked. I am asking for your help to confirm that policy was not violated, administrative action should not have been taken, and request that the administrative action be reversed by unblocking GoldToeMarionette and unprotecting the talk page. Thank you for your time with this request. BeautifulBarge 03:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your post. The account was not created to push the envelope. The line stating that the account was a sockpuppet was only placed there after the account was put up for a CheckUser. The terminology used was unfortunate, as it should only have been called a multiple account. GoldToeMarionette was simply created to make posts to dissaociate the content issue from the PoolGuy account which was receiving a significant amount of hostile negative attention. There was no intention to push any envelope or to violate any policy (which ultimately did not occur, which is why I am working to resolve it).

I am sorry that you did not look at anything before ArbCom. ArbCom was silent on the posts of GoldToeMarionette and PoolGuy, which is unfortunate because that is where this issue lies. ArbCom simply stated that PoolGuy must edit from one account, which was done until someone decided to railroad a community ban, despite there being no policy violation.

You asked what I would expect an Admin to do in the case of a new user making posts in compliance with policy. Well, I would expect that if someone did not like the action, they would post a message on the talk page asking for the action to cease, then see if that was effective. Any further administrative action is unwarranted absent a policy violation. I think Admins should treat other users with respect, aggressive blocking does not do that.

You asked what discussing interpretations of policies and guidelines and procedures accomplishes. Well, hopefully it will lead to a small change in culture where those vested with authority will actually use it to enforce established policies and guidelines, rather than what each individual Admin does not like. I am a mild user that did something a couple Admins didn't like. Rather than discussing the issue and the policy implications, they thought blocking would just make me go away. I like Wikipedia (except for the abuse of Admin powers) and think it would be a good idea for Admins to work on trying to include people in the project and make them better Wikipedians rather than blocking an account when they see something they personally don't like. The community should be made up of many different opinions and means of doing something. It should not be run as a police state where a select group promotes more people who think like themselves to have special authority that is used to quell dissenting thought and process. Enforcing the rules of the community is fine, but what happened in this circumstance is someone taking administrative action against something that was not wrong, per the community rules. I think you can agree that should not take place. Having the authority does not mean it should be weilded unabashedly.

I actually think dwelling on this issue will eventual do some good. I can't imagine that out of several hundred Admins there is not one who can understand these very simple issues of those with authority needing to follow the rules of the community. I am patient, so I can afford to spend time looking for them. Hopefully, you will turn out to be the one who will understand this issue. BeautifulBarge 03:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that there are problems with the direction that some of the admin community have taken (what I might describe as expediency over even-handedness) I don't think your approach is at all likely to change that. Rather the opposite. Above you have recast several things 'I asked' very differently than I stated them and in past discussions I have read seem to go to extreme lengths in trying to claim some policy or guideline sanctions your actions... while ignoring others which do not. You are restricted to one account by the ArbCom. You have been changing your account and editing under other names in violation of that stricture. You can't (convincingly) claim protection of policy while simultaneously breaking it... especially when you are performing acts which are at the least questionable/disputed. What do you want to do on Wikipedia? Is there some topic / task you want to contribute to? And if so... why not do that instead of arguing whether or not there were sufficient grounds to perform a check-user request on you? It is entirely possible to contribute in ways that don't make people suspicious of you. --CBD 12:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

CBD - Standard procedure is to remove the edits of the PoolGuy Socks on sight. He has spammed his manifesto on nearly every admin, and to ANI numerous times. Arbcom has limited him to one account no sockpuppets, and there is a well established precedent for removing the disruptive edits of his socks. If you wish to reply fine, but it will get you nowhere. pschemp | talk 14:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admin votes for State Route Naming Conventions poll

Your vote is requested at the Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll. As one of the admins, you have until 23:59 UTC on September 4, 2006 to cast your vote for one of the naming conventions for state highways. Thank you for your participation. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 02:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Highways

I have responded at Wikipedia talk:State route naming conventions poll. --SPUI (T - C) 10:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I've replied again with an example. --SPUI (T - C) 12:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cats for deletion

need your help at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_26#Category:Writing_systems_categories

pschemp just set up something for deletion without talking. Category:User Cyrl-N is heavily populated. But proably all the people in this cat are not aware of the deletion. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 01:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poll

I am extremely disappointed that you have decided to accuse me of biasing the poll, whereas my goal from Day One was to make it as unbiased as possible. You can read my defense on WP:ANI. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 17:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] State highways

I've made Wikipedia:Guide to writing about U.S. state highways as you suggested. --SPUI (T - C) 05:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ipa-0

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Userboxes/Writing_systems&diff=73575325&oldid=71947496 Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kayah Li

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kayah_Li&oldid=73584457 Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kayah_Li&diff=73598076&oldid=73597685 Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kayah Li Part deux

Chairboy, your repeated statements that the article was 'too short' to pass A1 are incorrect. There is no 'size limit'. To actually quote CSD A1 "Limited content is not in itself a reason to delete if there is enough context to allow expansion." The simple statement that 'Kayah Li is a writing system used by the Kayah' people defines the context of what it is completely and should not have been deleted. That all by itself is a reasonable stub not unlike thousands of others which are now articles several pages long. Look at the first edits of various articles and you will see that this is common practice... and thus people are generally discouraged from deleting articles immediately after their creation. While I'd call this a 'misunderstanding of the criteria' rather than "admin right abuse" I do have to wonder why you couldn't have just re-created it and seen what happened. --CBD 16:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi CBDunkerson! Actually, I understand CSD A1 very well, and my decision to delete it was based on the judgement call that the content lacked sufficient context. I have consensus with the other admins with whom I consulted on this, so I'm not coming in from left field on this. Second, I _did_ restore the content almost immediately to his userspace with the encouragement that he expand it appropriately. The user chose not to. Please familiarize yourself with the case before passing judgement, we're (Wikipedia) all in this together. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like a list of the admins Chairboy claims to have consensus with in this case. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Tobias, I understand that you feel wronged and I feel your frustration. You have made some good contributions in the past, I hope that you will choose to use this experience as an opportunity to improve your future edits. I also hope that you will not succumb to the temptation to wikistalk me with the hope of getting some "revenge", that's not in the spirit of the project. If you would like to constructively criticize my actions, I encourage you to make use of the existing RfC processes. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

what is your stalking blabla about? The only stalkers I am aware of are Pschemp and to some extend Lar. Your statements about the minor quality of my edits does not belong to the discussion of your policy violation. The existing RfC process could not be started until a second person tried to resolve the dispute with you. Furthermore the process looked very complicated too me. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain what you mean about "minor quality" of edits? I don't think I've disparaged your edit history, but if I'm mistaken, please provide a diff. The RfC process _is_ complicated, but I'd be happy to assist you in putting something together if you feel it would improve the quality of the project. As an admin, I rely on proper interpretation of the project policies and community consensus to do my job, and as such am more than willing to put myself in the spotlight if that's what is needed. You immediately assumed that my deletion was 'admin abuse'. While I respect your right to that opinion, I disagree, but if you would like the community to pass judgement, then we should go through proper channels. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pschemp

you see this? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Nyanga-li_language

I assume Pschemp just went through my hist to speedy delete all small stubs I created. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes of course you would since you mostly assume bad faith even when people try to help you. Dragonfly67 unblocked you and you still responded by calling his comments personal attacks. pschemp | talk 18:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

His comments were personal attacks or, since people define that vastly differently, at the least quite uncivil... as I think would be obvious to anyone. --19:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User ipa-0

User:Pschemp has deleted it again. I'll notify him/her.--Runcorn 20:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The lack of a tag was an oversight as i was listing lots of things. IF you think the deletion debate was invalid, you should post this to DRV, not just undelete. pschemp | talk 21:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

What if? No tag = not process = not valid. There is no need to DRV obvious mistakes, but since you object I'll do so rather than continuing the wheel war. --CBD 21:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for trying to remind everyone that admins need to be civil and reasonable. You're exactly right- just because the target of admin abuse is an unpopular user doesn't justify the misuse of admin tools. I doubt there's anything to be done that could actually change the culture here, but I'm glad somebody's at least trying. I'm frequently astounded at the inappropriate behavior many editors seem willing to tolerate from admins. Friday (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but these confrontations always seem to have as much downside as benefit. I think that eventually there will have to be some sort of 'admin accountability to the community'. The conflict until then is sadly inevitable, but sometimes the reminder helps despite all the anger it generates. I suppose I just don't like pileons or subjective determinations of when behavioural standards do and do not apply. --CBD 19:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to add my thanks, too. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Accountability? you mean like Category:Administrators open to recall? I think we may have to agree to disagree about this user, I think they have not been civil at all, regardless of admin actions. That said, I think there is merit in my letting some other admin deal with it next time. The problem is that every admin that this user interacts with eventually makes this user's animus list. (and thus is disqualified?) Fortunately we have a lot of admins but it seems a bad practice. ++Lar: t/c 20:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I mean like that. So long as administrators can mistreat the community with relative impunity... they inevitably will. No, Tobias has not been civil, but he isn't alone in that and it isn't the only problem. As to "every admin"... I've dealt with Tobias off and on for months and don't seem to be on his 'animus list'. When he complained about changes I made (at user request) to one template which caused another I didn't know about to stop working... I apologized and fixed the other template. Being helpful and all that. I just don't see where it is at all necessary to delete stubs which give a very clear explanation of the topic. It seems needlessly and obviously inflammatory. What good purpose is being served by deleting perfectly valid stubs on encyclopedic topics right after they are created? It's a ridiculous stretch of the speedy deletion criteria which serves to annoy people rather than actually benefiting the encyclopedia in any way.

Though... all that being said, I believe the other two comments above are in regards to a completely different incident/user. :] --CBD 21:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a note I've responded to the concerns on ANI. And I hope I have been civil. Feel free to discuss 1-1 if you so wish. Thanks, Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 21:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If you think I'm so awful because I blocked a troll, please, go ahead and just say I shouldn't be an admin. I'm in the category for a reason. --W.marsh 22:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

"Admin abuse?" What a load of rubbish. It's a sad state of affairs when a person who has been trolling for months ups the ante with his most ambitious bit of trolling yet, and rather than being blocked for it, he actually suckers administrators into sticking up for him. Since when was it okay to take the side of a troll over a valuable admin? I'd really like to know. And I'm sick of seeing the exact same people doing it over and over, all the while we're losing good editors who don't enjoy working in an environment where trolls are given more respect than they are. --Cyde Weys 00:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Calm down Cyde. If W.marsh decides to leave, then this is up to him. No need to get heated here. Your representation of what happened is clearly wrong. --Ligulem 00:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Cyde is right, more later, but I am concerned about the notion that contributions give you a free pass, or that if an admin is a little bit uncivil it gives the other party a free pass in some people's eyes. That's just wrong. It's not about wmarsh leaving, it's about this culture that seems to value disruptive editors more than hard working admins. ++Lar: t/c 00:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. It is about admin culture. Lar, your representation is wrong as well. If you can't stand some discussion about blocking Wikipedians, then don't block. Don't make this a thing about whether someone is more valuable than another. We have standards here that apply to all. --Ligulem 00:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"If you think I'm so awful"... which would be apparent from when I said, "It is not at all my intent to say that you are a 'bad user'." ??

"...please, go ahead and just say I shouldn't be an admin"... over one action which I disagree with? Why? Cyde does five things I disagree with a week and I supported his RfA. :]

W.marsh you seem to be viewing this disagreement in ways wholly different than I intend. I don't think you should be de-sysoped or RfC'd or... anything. I disagree with you. That doesn't mean I 'value him more than you' or 'like trolls' as you have been saying. It means I don't think a one week block was warranted and I oppose personal attacks as a matter of course. If Jimbo were to go after someone and call them a troll and block them for something I thought unjustified I would disagree with him the same way... indeed, I actually did in the 'pedophile userbox' incident. Before I became an admin. He reversed the block too. No doubt it's my winning personality, right? --CBD 01:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, "Since when was it okay to take the side of a troll over a valuable admin?". The question embodies everything I think wrong with Wikipedia admin culture. You, like W.marsh, are viewing it as a judgement of the two individuals... which is wholly alien to my way of thinking. Your assumption that the side of the "valuable admin" must always be taken over the "troll" is abhorrent to me. I look at the situation... not the people involved in it. In this situation I see a bunch of people violating WP:NPA by calling someone a "troll" over and over again... that they happen to all be admins doesn't make that problem go away. They shouldn't be doing it and I say so. This also doesn't mean that I 'hate them' or want them desysoped or any such thing. It means I want them to behave in accordance with Wikipedia standards... not name-calling which would get a regular user blocked. --CBD 01:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

For the record, CBD, I completely agree with you. There will always be administrators who think a "valuable admin"'s judgement is correct because he is a valuable admin, and the other user is "just a troll". Personal attacks, like calling someone a troll, are always against Wikipedia policy. When you tell this "valuable admin" he is a good administrator, but in your opinion, he made a wrong call, suddenly it gets twisted into "you're a bad admin, and I don't value your work", which doesn't address any of the concerns we originally raised, and directs the attention away from the original question: did posting that silly RFA cause a disturbance big enough to warrant an over-one-week long block, without the warning we normally even give to IP vandals? On a first offense? When WP:BLOCK policy states blocks for disruption start at 24 hours? I don't believe it did. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 05:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wheel Warring

I'm glad you think that wheel warring is wrong, and I look forward to seeing you reduce the number of administrative actions that you reverse. As for the instant situation, I think that W.Marsh's reversing himself was a bit of a tantrum. He was right the first time, as was Binguyen, and I don't really consider undoing the results of his hasty decision to be wheel warring. Nandesuka 13:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Reversing administrator actions is not wheel-warring. We do it all the time and should. Taking administrator actions you know are disputed (whether reversing or initiating) is wheel-warring. Regardless of whether W.marsh's removal of his block was a "tantrum" as you say or not... his initial block was itself wheel-warring... and even had it not been, your re-instatement of a block you knew to be disputed would still be wheel-warring. The point is to not use your admin buttons to enforce your viewpoint when you know there are going to be admin objections / no consensus has been established. --CBD 14:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please help

Dear Mr. Dunkerson, Please help me to move Sukhumi to Sokhumi.[[28]], [[29]], [[30]], [[31]], [[32]]. CIA, National Geographics and all these sources call it Sokhumi and also other well known encyclopedias such as Brittanica and Encarta. Administrator Khoikhoi is biased. You can see my discussion on his talk page. Please help me out. Sosomk 16:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible need for adjudication in roadnames

Hi. This note is a heads up that you might be called to help adjudicate/decide how to apply PI to part 1 of the Highways naming poll. As you know all of us judging admins selected P1, but it turns out that there is a question of applicability. You should read the threads yourself, but my summarization is as follows. Some states are not currently in conformance with P1, and do not want to change if they don't have to. They are saying that P1 only applies in cases where there was controversy, and if the state's road project/key users are with staying put, and if they set up redirects for all the articles so that P1 style searches find the articles, that ought to be enough. (in some cases maybe they'll switch later if they want to)

There seems to be agreement that if a state is in contention about conventions, P1 will be imposed, but disagreement about what "in contention" is. In particular, NJ participants are split about whether they are or are not in contention. I gave them all (arbitrarily, unfairly, etc, etc, because I'm being a bit of a hardass to keep things moving) until about an hour from now to come to consensus voluntarily or else... the or else is that we would canvass, decide, and impose our choice. Right now my read is that it may be less contentious overall to allow modified P1, that is, allow states that don't want to switch, the option not to do so (as long as redirects exist) either "right away" or "ever"... So please get ready to participate, I think we do it as another poll perhaps. I'll seek those of you on IRC out later, but probably we need to do the actual voting on wiki.

As a reminder here's the poll for part 1: Wikipedia:State_route_naming_conventions_poll/Part1 and sure enough it says nothing about what states it applies to (only that two states get an exemption) ++Lar: t/c 20:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Your input is requested here. I had hoped the participants might arrive at a consensus but they have not yet. They still could do so before we finish! Please comment or reshape the process if it's not to your liking, as well as refine my statement of the questions, and then comment as you see fit. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 18:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hauke

Was determined to be a meatpuppet at the very least. His first ever edit was to request Tobias being unblocked. It is extrememly suspicisous that he came to life exactly one hour after Tobias was blocked this week the first time and requested an unblock after months of inactivity, then went dormant again until Lar's latest block. This is not a good faith account. BTW, Tobias is still calling me a liar for trying to be nice to him. I haven't edited his page in days, but this refusal to assume good faith about anyone and insist that I was trying to mislead people no matter what anyone says is really tiresome. Since you're his friend why don't you try to get him to move on to something more productive. pschemp | talk 21:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that Tobias's talk page has now been protected... ++Lar: t/c 16:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks?

Hi CBD, In your recent edit to Tobias's talk, you stated that admins were making personal attacks on him. Can you please provide examples? This is an extraordinary claim that requires some diffs. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

"ridiculous petulant child"

"bad editor"

'vandal'

"almost pathological victim complex"

Take your pick. --CBD 17:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Three of your four examples are definately not NPA, the closest is the first but even that describes him as acting "like" a petulant child. I think it would be appropriate for you to immediately review WP:NPA as you have demonstrated a marked misunderstanding of what constitutes a personal attack and what doesn't. This, coupled with your aggressive defense of bad faith editors is very concerning. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I would make the same suggestion in regards to reading WP:NPA to you. Those aren't "accusatory comments" or "negative personal comments"? They are at least as bad as comments of Tobias's which have been called personal attacks by the very people making them. And BTW... "bad faith editors"... also a personal attack. Not to mention completely untrue in this case. Tobias is clearly a good faith editor. Show me one instance where he vandalized an article or otherwise edited in 'bad faith'. He does engage in incivility and personal attacks when he gets angry, but he is hardly alone in that. --CBD 18:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

With respect, your interpretation of the applicable guidelines does not appear to match the community consensus. Tobias has repeatedly accused people of abuse, lying, and more. If you feel that is not bad faith, then I question your definition of the term. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

My definition of acting in 'bad faith', which I believe is quite standard, is ' deliberately false or with the intention to harm or disrupt'. There is no question whatsoever in my mind that Tobias believes that those people have committed "abuse, lying, and more". His accusations are thus incivil, but not bad faith. Nor did you accuse him of bad faith in discussions... but in being a "bad faith editor". Which is totally unwarranted as even his most dedicated detractors have never alleged that his encyclopedia contributions are anything but well-intentioned. As to 'community consensus'... I hope very much that you are mistaken, but enough admins do advocate this 'it is not incivil if WE say it' (admittedly, my characterization of the viewpoint) that I think it is time we put it to the test so as to avoid disagreements like this in the future. --CBD 20:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion on ANI

Hi, I've been following your recent discussion on the administrators noticeboard and I have agreed with you throughout. Admin incivility is far worse than incivility by normal editors, because it brings with is the tacit support of the community. That is, editors who encounter an uncivil admin may feel as if the entire community is persecuting them, since "if this person is an admin he must speak for the community". Another dangerous trend that Cyde, albeit inadvertantly, pointed out is admin-banding behavior, the idea that admins should support other admins generally or automatically. This is not a good idea and divisive in the truest sense of the word. For these reasons I commend you on your (apparently thankless) efforts. I also thought you might be interested in a clarification of the blocking policy I have proposed. I personally think it would go a long way towards preventing a lot of the editor-admin drama around here, but I would love to hear your thoughts. So, just voicing my support, don't lose it yet CBD! —Nate Scheffey 01:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi and thanks. Yes, I've had several conversations about the whole 'why would you support that bad nasty user over the valued admin?' mindset lately. It isn't about supporting people... or shouldn't be. I look at the actions and don't care who made them. The added perceived impact of admin actions which you bring up is a good point. I commented on the BP talk page though I fear it was a bit rambling. Tired and off to sleep now. See you around. --CBD 02:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Seconded, by the way. If I could track down a "Keep on keepin' on" barnstar, I'd likely do it. You're, of course, 110% right, and I'm not shocked that you're being raked over the coals for it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hauke

Hi, Conrad! Regarding this, could you, please, refer me to the appropriate page? I am having trouble locating the RFCU you mentioned. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

That RFCU, eh? I was under impression there was another one. Since there isn't, and the results of this one are pretty clear, I'll be unblocking both accounts—there is no good reason to permablock two innocent individuals, although I very much doubt they are going to return to editing after such a nice welcome we gave them. Thanks, Conrad.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that as I understand policy,if users are acting like sock or meatpuppets (or acting like the same user) it doesn't matter *what( the CU results are, if the action is circumventing a block, the other users are blockable as well. I think this unblock was incorrect. Please bring this to AN/I so consensus can be sought. ++Lar: t/c 14:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Will do.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Conrad, in case you would like to participate, my analysis is available for review at WP:AN/I#Indef blocking of meatpuppets. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion about accountability of admin behaviour

Re [33]: I would say an RfC would be best to proceed. I will countersign it if you decide to go for it. --Ligulem 09:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Just to note that I believe your view of the matter is correct. I don't buy that "don't criticise an admin's action". If I see how cases are handled by the ArbCom some admins would possibly be surprised how their behaviour would be taxed by the ArbCom. But I have no intention to blow this thing up either. I just don't like double standards. Anyway, time will tell. --Ligulem 16:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Just for your information. Pschemp simply deleted my notice on her talk (prerequisite for an RfC). Just in case you reconsider the RfC later. I made my opinion. --Ligulem 16:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "block people for things they are doing themselves"

See, quotes like that are really not good. They really do equate long-time administrators with simple troublemakers and trolls. I know you don't have much gratitudude for what we've done, but it still hurts the project to try to drive away the people who actually contribute to it. --W.marsh 14:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Might I suggest that your time could be better spent on something other than tracking my contributions in search of things to complain about? Various admins involved in this dispute blocked for incivility and personal attacks while themselves engaging in incivility and personal attacks. It is thus unfortunately not I who equate them with "simple troublemakers and trolls" as you put it, but rather their own actions. You are entirely mistaken in your accusation that I here "try to drive away" people. I don't want anyone to leave. I just want them to understand that their actions are also going to "drive away the people who actually contribute". You know. People like Tobias Conradi? Or Masssiveego? Shouldn't we be trying to encourage them to positive action rather than deteriorating the situation further by insulting them? I have criticized you, made you angry, and crossed the line of civility as this argument has gone on and for that I do apologize. But I sincerely believe that it would be better for all involved if my 'fellow admins' would examine just how 'beneficial' to the encyclopedia their actions in these instances have really been. --CBD 15:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Meh. I do hope that some day you can see all admins, even yourself, are guilty of "abuse" and personal attacks by your standards, and that chastising them over a single incident while defending troublemakers and turning a blind eye to trolling really, really makes productive users feel bad. But I guess we're really never going to agree on this. See you around. --W.marsh 15:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

For the record, CBD, I totally agree with your point on AN/I that admins just shouldn't get by with making personal attacks because they are admins. It doesn't matter if they "contribute heavily" to the encyclopedia: rules are rules, and should be upheld no matter what status the user has. I'm saddened that the post was removed from AN/I because I think the message was a good one: no one should make personal attacks. These standards aren't particularly high, so I'm not sure why the message was so poorly received by some users. The bottom line is that calling someone a troll repeatedly is a personal attack, and personal attacks never make the encyclopedia better. I wish you much luck in your campaign to get users to just be more civil to one another. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Trolling is an action, not a personal characteristic. That's what seems to be totally missed here... if I say someone is trolling, I think their actions are hurting the project in some way. I don't really care about who the person is or what kind of person they are, I just want them to stop trolling. I don't mean it as a personal attack, and never have. I didn't even take it as a personally attack when CBD called me a troll, it was just a criticism of my actions. --W.marsh 23:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it is edifying to note your reversal of the facts here. I said "trolling"... you said "troll". Yet here you present it as if the opposite had taken place. We all view events through our own perspective and take them in ways that might not have been intended. I would never call any user who attempts to contribute in good faith a troll, because it implies that they are always so. Even saying 'trolling' in regards to specific actions is incivil (and thus I apologized for that) though not technically, as you note, a 'personal attack'. --CBD 23:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

So as always (or so it seems), a massive blow-up can be traced to a semantic misunderstanding. Figures. :-) --W.marsh 23:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The note you left on my talk page regarding User talk:J.R. Hercules

I would be very interested if you would find at least one diff where I have ever reverted J.R. Hercules or re-inserted old comments on his talk page.--Konstable 12:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I was actually not even asking him to "keep the warnings". I was asking participate in discussion or at least reply to my comments rather than tag the article with {{NPOV}} without explanation other than throwing insults at everyone who has ever edited the page.--Konstable 13:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. Now you are harassing me. Stop accusing me of thinks I have never even considered doing. Provide quotes of my words with your accusations and I think you will find that none of them are true. WP:AGF.--Konstable 20:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: User:Pewlosels

I wasn't making a pre-emptive block; I honestly have neither the time nor the inclination to pre-emptively block anyone on Wikipedia. My argument was that this user was another incarnation of the AN/I troll. It appears no one else believes that, though, & another Admin has already reversed my block. -- llywrch 16:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You could be right. The possibility occured to me when they first showed up... but barring absolute checkuser proof, self-declaration, or some form of actually disruptive behaviour by this account I just can't see blocking. Even if we 'guess right'... I'd still rather 'assume good faith' and let some random troll get in their five minutes of disruption then adopt the practice of blocking people because we think they might be trolls. --CBD 16:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AN/I archive

where is the discussion? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=74713746#CBDunkerson_loses_it Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It got archived here. --CBD 20:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

thx Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invalid Warnings

Thanks for the heads up. I think I might leave the warnings for a few days now, I feel kind of bad at how I flew off the handle at Swatjester like that. I probably just made things worse; I didn't realize how suspicious he was of everybody who was an anon. I mean I know most users on wikipedia are suspicious of anons immediately, but Swatjester takes it to a level I haven't seen before. No offense to him, that's just how he views the wikipedia, and if I was aware of that previously I probably would have been more understanding. I don't hold anything against him anymore. Anyways, thanks again for the notice. 69.124.143.230 00:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] one more abusive deletion?

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Agdam

Can you check by which policy this was covered/ where my dab was moved ...? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Your disambiguation page info was in the 'deleted revisions' list at Agdam. I'm not sure how it could be separated out, possibly by moving 'Agdam' somewhere else first but I'm not sure if that would move the deleted history also. For now I'm going to restore the history and then add that info into the district article to indicate that there are other places with the same name. That's an important fact to make note of and normally we would do it with a disambiguation page as you did, but until articles on the other locations are created the argument will be that we 'only disambiguate articles which exist'... which doesn't work so well when it is important to note different uses on things that don't have articles yet. I'd suggest creating stubs for the new articles first and then restoring the disambig page... I don't think any of the 'Agdams' are likely to be much more likely to be searched for than the others and thus you are likely correct that disambiguation makes sense. --CBD 14:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• thx for undeleting. I could then use this to redo the old dab.
• same here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Kangarli
• the admin who deleted, said that red links would be ok for him. So IMO he himself could have made internal redlinks next to the external links. If you undelete Kangarli I can make there redlinks too. And I also can create one more stub to be sure there is no policy conflict at all. I will also re-read WP:CSD to see whether he violated policies once again. He is very well aware that I am absolutly against use of admin privileges in editorial conflicts which are not covered by policies. He also wants to delete documention on former abuses Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tobias Conradi/admin right abuse. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Replied here. --CBD 11:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• if you like, your vote? Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tobias Conradi/admin right abuse Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

I eagerly anticipate your reply to [34] and [35]. I will be terribly disapointed if you once again excuse Tobias's incivility while leveling continued criticism like this at other admins. Please step up to the plate, Tobias listens to you and would benefit from your insight as a calming influence. Anything that can be done to bring him back from the edge of the precipice would be beneficial. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

When have I ever excused Tobias's incivility? Or were you just trotting that falsity out again in hopes of getting a rise? Of course Tobias should have chosen different comparisons. Even if he 'did not intend to equate' there are plenty of less potentially inflammatory comparisons... or no comparison at all. It would have been fine to say, 'Calling admin rights abuse, 'admin rights abuse', may be upsetting for the admins, but that does not mean we should not do it and thereby encourage further abuses'. Makes the point clearly without potentially mucking it up with comparisons to other things that people might take as including closer parallels than were intended. As to 'bringing him back from the edge of the precipice'... I think not harassing him would be really beneficial in that regards. --CBD 13:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

So... that's a "no"? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

If you have reached the point where you would claim that "Of course" is synonymous with "no"... well then there doesn't seem to be much point to further communication. --CBD 21:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I apologize, then, because I missed the edit you made telling Tobias that his behavior in those diffs I provided was not appropriate. If you could provide those, I would really appreciate it. If you spoke with him off-project, then let me know too. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you well know that I have stated both publically and privately that Tobias should not respond to conflict with incivility and have cautioned him on this more than once... including in relation to the specific instance you are harping on (most recently when I said so again above). It's over. The discussion was closed. I warned him about those comments, others warned him about those comments.... now you are bringing it up again after the fact... why exactly? Because the three or four warnings on those specific lines he received at the time weren't enough? It needs to be repeated again? --CBD 12:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PLEASE PLEASE HELP!

CBDunkerson, I am having a problem with a very aggressive editor. It is wikipediatrix. I am a new editor and have created several articles in which she has either put up for deletion or has raised issue with repeatedly. She has her own favorite Administrator and editors that will agree with everything she says even while admitting that she is very aggressive. I created an article for Christian Recording star David L Cook. It has been hell from day one. Now here is the issue we are having now. I use AOL and some of the other edits are coming from an IP address that is used by AOL. So therefore the IP address seems to be the same. [36] She is now alledging that I am making all of these edits when I simply am not! I cannot control AOL or how they use their IP addresses. This has been an issue for Wikipedia for some time and I am very aware of it. However, for her to go onto various editors and Administrators talk pages and say that Junebug52 and the IP address user are one in the same is simply absurd. That is her personal POV and should not be allowed. When I first stareted editing I did create a user name that was part of the compnay that I work for. I found out that I could not do that and so I changed to a private name of which I am the only one to use my account. She claims that I work for David L Cook. I do not! I work for a company that handles various artists and Mr. Cook happens to be one of them. The fact that he is handled by the company I work for has no bearing on the fact that I do not use my companies resources or time to edit or contribute. I do not use their data base to contribute. These are my own projects outside of whatever company I work for and I do not work for Mr. Cook. She has littered the talk page with nothing but negative statements and I am just at my witts end. It has been explained to her that before she makes edits to the page that she should introduce her thoughts onto the talk page and then allow me or another editor to make suggestions. Oh no, she has not done that one time. She goes in and makes aggressive edits and then will not tell anyone why she does them. If you review her talk pages you will see that I am not the only one that she does this to. When you question her, then she gets even more aggressive and comes back with this thing about me being uncivil to her or throwing a tantrum? Today I requested another editor look at a discography page on CD Baby and tell me what he thought of it since she removed David's discography. She immediately came back and said "It's so amazing that it just showed up on CD Baby when it was not there 48 hours ago" She said she cached the information and it was not there. Well I wrote her back and gave her this cache cite [37] She had nothing to say about that except that it ws not the one she was refering to. Note: I did not add it to the page, but just asked another editor to look at it and give his opinion. After he gave his opinion I was fine with it and it them became a moot point. But not with her. She had to keep on and now she has me listed for blocking and saying I am editing under an IP address and all kinds of crap. That is not Wikipedia, that is her own point of view. I can take her editing, what I cannot take is her disregard for me as an editor or making false accusations. I am humbly asking for your help in this matter. I am at the point of removing myself from Wikipedia all together because this has really hurt my feelings. She has even went as far as to say that David L Cook and Junebug52 are one in the same? How can she say that without proof? It would not surprise me if she finds this request as I feel she is watching everything I am doing and making remarks to whomever I reach out to. PLEASE HELP! Junebug52 13:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Ed Poor is placed on Probation. He may be banned from any article or set of articles by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive editing, such as edit warring, original research, and POV forking. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 13:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment out of context

You make a comment about "some incivil comments (e.g. 'monster') around" the WP:RFAR Brya case. This is my original comment:

"However, because Brya was given an infinite number of chances without ever being blocked, imo, the community created the monster that Bray became. By monster, I mean not the person, but the large and unwieldy resulting behavior exhibited that has wasted so much time in botany pages, continuing to do so now by having to discuss it here, on WP:TOL, and all over the place, and caused so much damage, the ferocious edit wars and rampant speculation and Brya's POV all over the place, and endless discussions about what to do about Brya."

This has been going on for months and, indeed, has become a "huge thing: something extraordinarily or unusually large," or a monster. Please don't accuse me of making uncivil comments when I've carefully said exactly what I mean: the situation is huge and out of control and disproportionate to what is going on.

And MrDarwin saw it accurately for what it is: an accusation that the community shares some responsibility with Brya for what is going on, because they failed to give sufficient, gentle warnings, that they really meant early on.

You're essentially making a misplaced personal attack on me, about my lack of civility with this comment, and removing the careful and civil context I placed the word in--and no other word in English means precisely what I meant as this one does. You also singled me out with your comment, that I was uncivil, when the person who has requested arbitration has been posting threats and making personal attacks on me and others on my talk page, their talk pages, anywhere they have access.

I wondered when I first came to Wikipedia to start cleaning up the botany pages, why so many were so poorly done, a disproportionate number, compared to many other categories. It's because every newcomer runs the danger of running afoul of Brya's POV and carefully guarded pages and getting squashed in the process. Most simply won't bother once they see the records of the dozens of edit wars, and all the other evidence of disruption. However, I think Wikipedia owes a responsibility to the community to not spread false information. And I am simply perplexed as to why it has been allowed to go on for so long. From a newcomer's perspective and still relative outsider, it is incomprehensible.

My point about the monster is the behavior that resulted from plant editors not dealing with the problem earlier. It is, in fact, a civil comment, in a stream of people putting the blame on Brya, when Brya doesn't have a voice, to point out that Brya isn't the only one at fault.

KP Botany 01:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Since I apparently don't use your English language dictionary and that's the only one allowed on Wikipedia, I'll leave you all to your own devices. You should, however, put notice as to what dictionary is the only one allowed on Wikipedia. KP Botany 17:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mr Conradi

I hate to complain, but please see the Talk pages at ISO 15924 and N'Ko language. -- Evertype·✆ 10:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CBD I need help on merging a page

I want to thank you for all the help you gave me on the David L Cook page. Since your intervention I have had no further issues with Wikipediatrix. I have went in and edited the Country Gospel music page, it was a mess. There is another page called Christian country music that is the same genre and content. I feel it would be better if these two articles were merged into one. We can change the name of the article I edited to "Christian Country Music" as that is generally what it is called anyway. The content from the article Christian country music will not be needed as both articles would contain the same data. I feel my edited article is far more superior. Any help you could give me would be greatly appreciated because I have not become savy enough to merge pages without causing some serious havok LOL. Junebug52 10:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I put merge notices on the two pages to see if anyone else wants to contribute comments. There may not be any if these pages weren't very active. In any case, the actual 'merge' should be easy, but let's give people a few days to respond. It'll probably be easiest to just move 'Country gospel' to 'Christian country music' if everyone agrees that is the preferred name - though then the intro and infobox should probably be renamed as well. --CBD 17:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate it. I did a lot of work on that Country Gospel article. Hope it looks ok to you. Junebug52 1:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey CB, I have done some more work on the Country Gospel page and we have had people weighing in on merging the two articles. Everyone seems to agree that we shoud merge. If you could help me I would certainly appreciate it. We need to loose the Christian country music content and use the Country gospel content. We need to use the title Christian Country Music only. I did go into the article and rewrite the header paragraph and other data included into the article to show Christian country music. I think that will solve the redirect concerns for article content. I appreciate all your help. Also, I nominated an article for deletion TJ Smith. The article subject has no notability nor can I find source material for the subject. I am not sure if I nominated it correctly. Could you check it and tell me if I have not, which template I would need to use in the future if I come across something that needs to be nominated for deletion? Thanks man! Junebug52 7:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

CB, I am having another problem with Wikipediatrix. I went onto the David L Cook article and I put all of the proper names of albums in bold text. She reverted everyone of those edits. I have found no rules about bold text except that it should be used for proper names, titles or priorities. If I am wrong I will accept that, but I do not see where this should be an issue since it has no bearing on the articles integrity. Someone needs to tell this woman that she cannot go around tearing peoples work apart. That is what the talk page is supposed to be for. If someone did that to one of her articles, she would have a cow. Could you please advise? Junebug52 10:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, you forgot to tell him how amazingly condescending and rude you were about it on my talk page. You also forgot - or maybe you never knew - that MOS:BOLD is very clear about how to use and how NOT to use bold face. Spare me the power trips and get your facts straight before you insult editors. wikipediatrix 03:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

As you can see from her last entry here, there is no talking to this woman. Even if I was wrong, she could have gone onto the talk page and said that we needed to fix it. Instead as always, she is rude about not talking things out and discounting the work of other editors. Only her feelings are supposed to count and if you mess with those you are rude and uncivil. But one must understand that she can do it to you and you are supposed to just lay down and take it. Look at the history page on the David L Cook [38] site and look at what she put into her description of edits. Is that needed? "Junebug52 is on his little power trip again?" I am just asking a simple thing of her. Put it on a talk page. That is why I get upset with her. She never seems to get it. Junebug52 11:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipediatrix, citing WP:BOLD in your edit summary would have been considerably more informative than "Junebug52's on his little power trip again". Junebug52, phrasing your message on her talk page more like, "Hi, I saw you made some changes to bolding on the David L. Cook article, but I don't know why. Can you explain please?" would have been less confrontational and likely gotten to the answer more quickly and with less annoyance all around. See assume good faith and civility. If either one of you had followed Wikipedia's suggested practices, to politely explain or ask about the situation, the argument could have been avoided entirely... instead you kept escalating it back and forth. Assuming "there is no talking to this woman" and "Junebug52's on his little power trip again" are entirely the wrong attitude... assumptions of bad faith. When in fact both of you were doing what you thought was right and should have been able to sort it out peacefully if you hadn't assumed the worst of each other. --CBD 11:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If you look again, you will notice that my "power trip" edit summary comment was made AFTER Junebug52 left the obnoxious and insulting WP:CIVIL-violating message on my talk page, hence my lack of feeling I owed him any assumption of good faith. It's easy for someone else to call it "escalating" when you're not the one who's been unjustly and personally attacked, and in an unforgivably sexist manner. wikipediatrix 14:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• LOL, CBD I tried to tell you that dealing with her is impossible! That is why I came to you to start with. She ended up on your talk page because she follows me through Wikipedia. Every article I am involved with it seems or everyone I talk to she always chimes in. She does not realize that not putting that on the talk page is rude and discounting to the editors involved in the article. But, any time you say something to her about it, it is always rude or uncivil. She likes to cite that WP:CIVIL- rule but for some reason it never really applies to her? I have had other editors look at my entry on her talk page and they have all three said that they did not see anything rude about what I wrote. They did say that they looked at her talk pages and saw that she has a problem with other editors in general. You know I am a fairly new editor to Wikipedia and from day one she has been very aggressive towards me as I was learning. I have learned a lot and I have to thank her for that. Because out of her attacking articles I have been the editor on I have learned rules and applications. But, from this point on I would ask that maybe she be banned or asked not to be involved in editing articles that I am involved with and I too will stay away from her. Just like the bold thing. If she would have just gone to the talk page to start with and said lets discuss this or go here and read the rule, After review, I would have gladly made the changes back as I have done. However, she goes to the point of doing stuff and not letting other editors know that it needs to be fixed and they feel she is overstepping her bounds and attacking their work. I just do not want to continue in that fashion. As far as a sexist manner, I have no idea at all where that came from. I guess it's one of those personal attacks I supposedly made on her again? Oh well. Junebug52 11:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Given that, from the above responses, 'assume good faith' doesn't seem particularly likely to be embraced here any time soon... yes, mutual avoidance might be a good idea. --CBD 17:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I repeat, all I originally did was correct Junebug52's improper bolding and left a perfectly civil edit summary in doing so. It's all there in the history and the diffs if you just go look at them. I will continue to correct articles when they violate Wikipedia policy and will continue to respond less than enthusiastically when personally attacked for doing so. wikipediatrix 17:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you CBD for trying to help. I am just going to avoid this editor at all costs. If I cannot seem to get anywhere with her I will bring the issue back to you for your help. It might be noted that even in our responses to you, you might want to look at which editor is using more aggression. Junebug52 1:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ISO 15924

Clearly it was not time to unlock the ISO 15924 page. I was requested by Ikiroid and Mr Conradi if the text was OK. It was not. I edited it. Mr Conradi simply reverts everything I do, and calls me "suppressor". Please revert to my edit (where I said it was OK) and lock the page. That, anyway, is my request. -- Evertype·✆ 20:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Persistent and unending dispute with Mr Conradi

I am, apparently, a newbie at this kind of dispute resolution. I have no idea what to do, but ask you, since you have dealt with Mr Conradi before, to please see [39] and advise me what the correct procedure is. I have endeavoured to correct material errors in his edits, as well as to remove inappropriate references to myself, and he simply reverts every time. He is well over the three-reverts rule. I am probably also over the rule, but my reverts have in every case attempted to correct and improve the article, while his have simply been gainsaying. Please help. Thank you. -- Evertype·✆ 13:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Diffamations, diffamations. False claims, false claims. Evertype I don't think this is the right approach. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject_AdminRightAbuse

I started Wikipedia:WikiProject_AdminRightAbuse which was immediatly deleted. The second time, after using the recreation function and putting hangon, it was deleted without respecting hangon-tag and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_AdminRightAbuse. Can you recreate it? These deletions itself are abuses. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tobias and probation

Would you be willing to mentor Mr. Conrad during a probation period? See the relevant thread on AN/I for discussion. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't defend disruption

Please don't go around defending disruption...its not like you haven't had your arguments with others, so linking me to a page I am well aware of is both insulting and unnecessary and you know that.[40]--MONGO 15:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Gently reminding you of the need for civility does not 'defend disruption'. It seeks to end the disruption you are currently causing with your antagonistic responses. If you wish to disagree with people that is your right, but to be disagreeable when doing so is not. --CBD 13:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] my talk page

Would you help my talk page, please. SosoMK 17:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Sir SosoMK 02:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please help

Dear Mr. Duckerson, I don't think I have thanked you enough, but I just want to let you know that User:WGee guy is back to harass Georgia (country) article and I would really appreiate if could keep an eye on him and rv his edits, because otherwise I might just lose my patience and get blocked for another month or so. SosoMK 03:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been watching this, but it looks like your explanation (of the 'observer' status) in the most recent edit summary resolved it. Try to keep cool... people make mistakes and polite explanations / discussion can usually settle things. --CBD 13:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking users for removing warnings

Hi, I don't think we've run into each other directly, but I've noticed your comments on the issue of harassing users who remove warnings from their talk pages, and I fully agree with you and think you express it very well. (I might also add that I've disagreed with you on other issues!) I recall that you posted somewhere (I can't remember where) about an ordinary user who removed something from his talk page and then got warnings and then removed them and got more warnings and ended up getting furious. If you have time, could you take a look at the case of User:Certified.Gangsta. Centrx sent him a warning at 22:53 (UCT) on 3 December and then removed the silly "you have new messages" practical joke banner on his talk page at 22:59. Certified.Gangsta removed the warning and restored the joke banner at 23:03[41], and then for the next 45 minutes a very ugly edit war followed with Centrx and two other users descending on his page to revert him repeatedly. In the middle of this, Centrx blocked him for one second,[42] so that there would be a record of his behaviour in the block log that administrators could see, since he was refusing to leave the warnings openly displayed on his talk page. See also here.

That block is currently being discussed here, and I'd appreciate if you could add a comment. I admit unashamedly that I came to you because I felt you'd be likely to agree with me. But actually, I feel this is something that most admins agree on, and I have felt in the past that you expressed yourself very well when you were posting about the very limited benefit weighed against the huge disadvantage of forcing people to display on their talk pages notices that they find harassing or annoying or embarrassing. I'd like to ensure that this practice of giving one-second blocks to users who remove warnings does not become standard. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 12:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ann. I have also seen you around, almost always agree with and appreciate your comments, and have noted with sadness a few things on which we do disagree. I will of course put in a comment on this issue, and as it is on the noticeboard would have done so anyway as that was my next stop to catch up on. Thanks for the heads up. --CBD 13:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That was very helpful. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 19:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your evidence section

In all fairness I am going to revise my section a bit taking into account what you stated, however I am not sure how far you digged. If you view pokipsy76's edit history with Morton, Mongo, Tom Harrison etc. you would see many many reverts without explanation, just "revert" or "revert (name)" type of situations across a few different 9/11 related articles. I hope you will examine [43] particularly events around the beginning of May->June 18 (date of block) to see the full picture. Thank you. --NuclearZer0 13:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Certainly... and if you look at the edit histories of Morton, MONGO, Tom, et cetera for those same articles/time periods you will see exactly the same sort of edits/summaries on their part. It is called a 'content dispute' / edit warring. Some especially strict admin might have warned all of them against performing more than 1RR per day and then blocked them all for violating it... but no such restriction was ever imposed and the block came from an involved party who was every bit as guilty of the 'infraction' as their target. If that block was 'justified' then weekly blocks on MONGO and numerous other people would be equally 'valid'. --CBD 14:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I wasnt attempting to justify, however pokipsy76 cant be a victim if he too was wrong is what I am pointing out. Also pshemp who was not involved specifically rejected the idea that Mongo as being involved in the dispute couldnt block pokipsy76, this was recently further supported when Mongo went to AN/I recently over cplot who he blocked and was in a content dispute. Just to reiterate, I am not attempting to provide evidence for anyone, just provide greater context to the evidence that has been given, and as such expanded my section with a response to what you state, further expanding the context of the issue further back in time to the beginning of May. Do not take my section to be rebuttals, just expansions on what I feel is limited context in the evidence being given. For example the context you frame the situation in seems like a limited example to me because you only examine edits on that page, negating a pattern of editing or history between the users, it seems from a little scope that they just bumped into eachother once on one article and Mongo went out of his way to block pokipsy76 over it. --NuclearZer0 14:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it was not my intent to create an impression of the 'block coming out of the blue'... note that I stated the block was due to conflict between them (meaning the longer term issues) and several of the links I provided make reference to the earlier history of conflict. I thought that was self-evident. Also, I disagree that Pokipsy76 'was not a victim'. He absolutely was. Yes, he was guilty of 'low level edit warring'... but we seldom block for that in and of itself. If we did then MONGO deserved to be blocked just as much as Pokipsy76 did... and the disparity of MONGO placing the block, without prior warning, but not himself being blocked was clearly unjustified. --CBD 14:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Since I doubt you expect Mongo to block himself, Mongo not getting a block is really the fault of other admins who are suppose to provide oversight, however Pshemp and Tom felt it was ok, pshemp being an outside 3rd party admin, tom being invovled so less of a meaningful person in that respect. I posted all the reverts and who they were in my "response to you section". My issue was your difs show a string of edits in that one article, however the issue to me branched further back and on multiple articles. Anyway as always CBD I respect your opinion greatly, since I do not want to be seen as endorsing anyone, I am attempting to stay neutral, I will not add something stating I feel Mongo was also wrong, even though in this respect I feel everyone was wrong in revert warring. As I said, just trying to show greater context, not support or condemn anyone. Thanks for the quick replies. --NuclearZer0 14:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, just to share.., in my experience when mongo's vigor fails, Tom is always around, silently running, doing his binding, keeping things tidy… well, don't mind me… later.;) Lovelight 16:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You really should avoid instigating trouble and making accusations. --NuclearZer0 16:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Lovelight, Tom and MONGO seem to have several similar views and interests. I do agree that they should not act as 'impartial reviewers' for conflicts they were both involved in, but otherwise the overlap is largely harmless. --CBD 16:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

NuclearUmpf, no problems. We disagree on some matters of application, and I very much am 'taking sides' in the Pokipsy76 situation, but nothing to worry about. My feeling is just that most admins would never block for '1RR violation' unless there was an ArbCom finding/instruction in place to do so. Thus it is not 'the fault of other admins' in not blocking MONGO for his various 1RR violations... that just isn't really a blockable offense under normal circumstances. For instance, I didn't block MONGO for it and will not now even though he continues to do this... because it just isn't a blockable offense. Even a 'completely uninvolved' admin issuing a 1RR block without warning would have been draconian at best... doing so on one involved party and not the other certainly biased... and an involved party issuing the block themself completely unjustifiable. Finally, even if pschemp was a totally uninvolved admin (I don't really know if she took part in any of the associated conflicts)... her conclusion/action in protecting the talk page was still clearly wrong. Or at least so this totally uninvolved admin found it. --CBD 16:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

After being told 3 times that his unblock request was denied I would have though it was warranted. However I guess you would have just let them keep adding the request to the page and clogging up the unblock system? --NuclearZer0 17:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it was denied twice... once by Tom Harrison (who was NOT impartial) and then once by pschemp (who was at best simply wrong). Absolutely, I would allow them to keep requesting unblock. I don't care if the unblock request is denied by one admin or thirty... the block WAS wrong. Clearly. Blatantly. Absolutely wrong. Even if the block weren't such a travesty I see little harm in allowing the unblock request to stay up... some minor delay to possibly one or two other admins before the block expires versus the clear negative of admins preventing a user from challenging a potentially unjust action. Maybe on a month long or indefinite block it might eventually be proper to protect the page, but doing so because three admins agreed is unjustified because, as this case shows, three admins can be wrong/biased. --CBD 17:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Timeline: Initial Request: [44] Toms doesnt remove unblock request, just comments: [45] Pshemp agrees with block: Unblock denied 1x: [46] Second request: [47] Pshemp denys 2nd with warning: [48] 3rd request [49] page locked: [50] So 3 requests all together the 2nd denial of unblock carried a warning and on the 3rd the page was locked. Tom did not ever deny the block by removing the unblock request. --NuclearZer0 19:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

So... you are saying that only removals of the unblock template 'count' and thus ONE admin (pschemp) denied the request three times? Who could possibly have a problem with the impartiality of THAT? :] I, of course, was counting the number of admins who wrote that they were denying the request... regardless of how many times they did so or whether they removed the template. --CBD 11:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

That is actually quite normal that the same admin would reply if you put the unblock template back up right after it being taken down. the use of {{unblock}} is not to play a game of chance hoping you eventually get an admin that is willing to unblock you. So yes the point is your first sentence is wrong, and most admins would not let someone constantly keep putting up the unblock template, as I stated its for review not a game of chance. You state the block was wrong, 2 other admins, 1 involved, do not agree with you. For you to keep stating "the block WAS wrong" is certaintly your opinion in which you are entitled, however not the concensus at that moment, or apparently even now. Even your sentence "the clear negative of admins preventing a user from challenging a potentially unjust action" is also on faulty ground now that its apparent the user was spamming the request. --NuclearZer0 13:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Obviously I strongly disagree. I consider the block to have been an obvious and fundamental violation of bedrock Wiki-policy (not to mention basic fairness) and thus place little weight on the 'number of admins supporting it'. If a hundred admins said it is ok to vandalize articles I would still disagree. No less so in this instance. If that block were 'proper' then it would be equally proper for me to have blocked MONGO, for exactly the same 'infraction', virtually every week since. Which is, of course, absurd... as was the original block. On unblock requests you may be right that it is 'quite normal' for some admins to prevent users from repeating the request, but you asked MY opinion and I personally disagree with the practice. I see little harm in allowing users to speak their peace/request further review and great harm in preventing them from doing so. --CBD 13:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for advice

Hi there, I am a recent contributer to Wikipedia. Within one week an administrator, user:jayjg blocked me for 3RR. Being new to wikipedia, and obviously having made an innocent mistake, I erased his "notice of blocking" from my talkpage. I quoted wikipedia policy that says "Deleting the comments of other users from Talk pages other than your own.. is considered vandalism." He continues to revert my erasure, citing a rule from wikipedia policy that was erased six months ago. More problematic is that this user also erases my own comments from my talkpage without any explanation which is definitely vandalism (see [[51]]). Please see my talkpage here User talk:68.198.236.57 and the history there. I only ask that you monitor the situation in case it escalates and to give me an opinion. In no way do I want to contribute to any escalation myself. Thank you for your help (I also asked some other users to watch the situation, it seems that numbers carry weight on wikipedia) 68.198.236.57 18:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the opinion. As a new editor it is gratifying to know that if I am bullied, there are administrators who care enough to give their time and respond. Thanks again. 68.198.236.57 00:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding chilling out

Moved from (your comments still appear on the arbcom page):

• Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan/Proposed_decision#desysopped_vs_suspended

People need to seriously 'chill out' and discuss these issues calmly. Intemperate comments like the above aren't helping anyone. Presumably there is some uncertainty as to definition of terms here which the ArbCom is working out. In most cases a 'desysoped' admin has generally been presumed to remain that way unless re-instated by a community approved RFA (with the ArbCom sometimes even putting limits on when the community could do that). A 'suspension' which is instead appealed to the ArbCom itself might thus be meant as a less severe penalty... needing only to demonstrate to ArbCom that there haven't been subsequent problems rather than requiring ~80% community approval. However, since there is also now some precedent for ArbCom getting involved in 're-sysoping' issues directly there is talk of appeal to ArbCom being a valid route for 'desysoped' admins as well. Semantic distinctions which need to be sorted out. Not cause for continued incivility and attacks. Finally, before invoking 'the will of the community' you might want to consider how that was expressed here. --CBD 11:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I think you are right CBDunkerson, it appears like it is a lesser action.

Side note.

In regards to: "People need to seriously 'chill out' and discuss these issues calmly."

CBDunkerson, I don't know if you ever saw the rather forgetable movie Red Eye (film) but at the very beginning of the movie, the ditsy new red headed hotel clerk, Cynthia, is simultaneously on a cell phone with the star, Lisa Reisert, while talking to the uptight, irriated hotel guests (Bob and Marianne Taylor) trying to book the Taylor's room, and Cynthia says:

"I know, Mrs. Taylor, calm down."

Lisa on the cell phone worryingly cautions: "Don't say that. No..."

The Taylors then rant: "Calm down? She told me to calm down. Don't tell us to calm down. We've been very calm right up until now."[52]

I think Lisa has a point. Have you ever actually had anyone calm down when you tell them to calm down?

Here on wikipedia, for some really silly reason, whenever I get uptight, everyone seems to tell me to drink hot tea. If I had a nickel for everytime I read this on Wikipedia, I could become the Juan Valdez of Tea.

Anyway, have a great night. I have been waiting for months to say this to someone, thanks for giving me the opportunity CBDunkerson. Travb (talk) 11:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello CBD

I wanted to stop by and say hello to you. I also wanted to tell you that the editor Wikipediatrix has found herself to be in some serious trouble. If you go to her talk page you will see the drama as it is unfolding. I had always suspected that she was using sockpuppets to make her random edits and arguements, but I guess it has finally caught up with her in a big way. She has been blocked from Wikipedia for her blatant violation. This does sadden me because although we did not get along and I felt she was just stalking me through Wikipedia, I also felt she added a flavor to Wikipedia that lent to good editing. I have to follow that up by saying that with all of the wrongful things she accused me of doing, it is funny that she should be found out doing the very things she was accusing me of. I am saddened by this. I hope you and your family have a wonderful holiday season and thanks for all of your support. Junebug52 04:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

CBD - just wanted to say thank you for taking Hipocrite to task for his incivility and bullying attitude. I have come across his interventions on the Reference Desks and associated talk pages. I feel his approach is appallingly combative, unpleasant and offensive, even in situations where I might have agreed with his underlying intentions. One of his tactics when challenged is to assert that you are the only person who has any problems with his behaviour. Just wanted to let you know that this isn't true ! Gandalf61 12:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. FYI, if you have alot of problems with someone the best course is to stay polite and then take it to WP:PAIN if they don't stop. Hopefully Hipocrite will stop and various people can get back about their business. --CBD 17:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

One wonders why you don't warn the user thanking you for his incivility - I, of course, am well aware of the reason. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You mean other than the bit where I encourage him to stay polite? Because his incivility was (comparatively) minor and I felt it might be more effective to point him towards useful avenues for dispute resolution. --CBD 09:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] For what it's worth...

...there is no better summary of the situation than this. You really hit the nail on the head. I wonder if things might have been different with MONGO, if someone like Durova had stepped in and taken a stand with him. But nobody ever has the guts to do what Durova did - and after seeing how much flak she took I can understand why. I hope, when all is said and done, Durova will be known as someone who perhaps prevented another ugly MONGO-like arbitration - and despite what everyone thinks about me and JzG, that's not what I want. Honestly. ATren 13:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. That is my hope as well. I like JzG and don't want to see these kinds of conflicts continue to simmer and grow. He has handled it pretty well... it's everyone else who needs to calm down. :] --CBD 17:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CBD I need your help

CB, Happy New Year!! I wanted to ask you if you could help me. I have a feeling that we have a vandal on our hands. Saidtruth created an account and then moments later went onto the David L Cook page and wrote some very defaming things that were not true. I reverted the edit and went to look at the individuals log and contribution only to find nothing. I find it strange that this article was the only one they chose to attack. Maybe we can watch this user and their contributions. I will wait to see if they attack this article again. Can you advise of what we should do? Junebug52 22:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Junebug. The relevant policy is WP:BLP. Basically, any potentially defamatory information must cite a reliable source or it can be removed on sight. Repeated addition of such things without references will lead to a block. I'll try to keep an eye out, but hopefully it was a one time thing, but don't worry about serious problems over this... there are very firm policies against it. --CBD 22:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks CB for your attention. I hope this is a one time thing. I would hate that someone would try to hurt a public figure in such a way. Junebug52 22:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey CB, thanks for your help. I have not had anymore instances of vanadlism from Saidtruth, however I was wondering if we can go onto the history page for the David L Cook article and remove that entry from the history. I have received about 5 e mails from people, one of which was very very upset about that entry. I feel this could continue to cause problems and may even cause a problem for this artist. David is a very popular Christian recording star and that entry has offended a great many it seems. Taking the rumor off the page is one thing, but people are still going to the history and seeing that entry. Can you please advise? Thanks again.. Junebug52 17:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for oversight for information on the procedures to request removal of an edit from the history. --CBD 18:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

CB, thank you for your help. I did report it and they removed it from the history. I am glad you are watching out for me LOL Thanx again. Junebug52 20:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

When behaving like an arse, one should not consider it uncivil to be asked to desist; which is to say, where I come from, that is regarded as civil. And effective. --Tagishsimon (talk)

[edit] Atlanta Braves

Your friends have struck again, making the same changes in the exact same way as each time before, this time from yet another IP address (User:75.7.14.157). Good luck. - BillCJ 08:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Whether the anon IP user making disruptive edits on the article is a vandal is a difference of opinion. It's hardly an insult, and I consider its use in this case an insult. You well know that I have tried to communicate with this user via the edit summaries and article talk page. Given the fact that this user has a different IP address every time they log on after several days, I don't not understand how you feel I should have attempted direct communication. You even posted on the talk pagge, but haven't tried to contact the user either. Hmmm. - BillCJ 04:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

1. "Whether the anon IP user making disruptive edits on the article is a vandal is a difference of opinion." - No, it isn't. Wikipedia's vandalism policy lays out things which are and are not vandalism, and this very clearly falls into the are not group.
2. "It's hardly an insult, and I consider its use in this case an insult." - You consider its use, by you, in this case to be an insult? Excellent! We are agreed... calling people 'vandals' is an insult, especially when it is untrue. Please stop insulting people.
3. "You even posted on the talk pagge, but haven't tried to contact the user either." - False.

The other user's failure to communicate (beyond edit summaries) or seek compromise is no excuse for your own incivility and failure to compromise. It is possible the user is just not familiar with talk page usage, but in any case simply reverting over and over again is not the way to handle disputes. Nor are false claims of vandalism. Try including a link to the talk page in your edit summary if someone isn't responding to comments there. Try understanding the reasonable basis for their objection and trying to devise wording that you can both compromise on. And don't go around being hostile and insulting to others. --CBD 12:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

YOu are being far more hostile and insulting to me than I have been to anon IP. I HAVE tried to devise wording that might be acceptable to him, but he still takes those lines out. He has reverted your attempts to compromise also, taking out the references to the strike that your put in. Does this sound like someone who wants to compromise? - BillCJ 18:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I have attempted to contact the user via e-mail and reverted with a link to the talk page in the edit summary. If that doesn't get a response then we should ask some uninvolved admin to semi-protect the page. No need for accusations, hostility, annoyance, whatever. The anon user has been uncommunicative and stubborn about his edits... neither is a big deal (and both are specifically not vandalism). Hopefully they'll start talking, but if not the problem can be dealt with sans the drama. --CBD 22:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making the changes. I do hope the user will respond to your outreach, but my gut tells me this won't work either. I do hope I'm wrong about that. My goal is to have the best page possible, not to have my view enforced. I think the changes you have made are fairly neutral, and are acceptable to me. That was my goal, but it's hard for me to "write" neutral when I have a definite non-neutral POV on the issue. It's just hard for me to think of alternative ways to present something contrary to my viewpoint without any outside input. So far, you've been the only one trying to do that, and for that I am sincerely grateful. It may have seemed like I was not trying to compromise on this, but I genuinely was. Had I not been, I would never have tried posting on the article talk page at all.

The majority of my experince dealing with IP users on Wiki has been with genuine vandals (the kind who put "poop" in the text, or blanks sections or pages, etc.), and this definitely colors my attitude on IP users. I know they aren't all bad, and most are just newbies or casual editors. You are looking out for their interests, and that's good. Happy editing. - BillCJ 23:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Worldtraveller AN:I thread

Hello. As a commenter in this thread, I thought you may be interested in replying to the most recent addtion to it: [53] . Thank you in advance for your time. --InShaneee 16:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Worldtraveller blocked? Can't believe it.

In what sense does (this this [54] or this) constitute harassment? Bloody hell. edward (buckner) 12:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Amazing. Why is an editor with hundreds of fine articles behind him, a fine stylist and clear thinker to boot, being blocked for some harmless (and apparently well deserved) comments about someone who spends most of his time writing trivial crap like this. There really is something very wrong here. edward (buckner) 12:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Rather than respond to this same text in the three (or more?) places you have posted it, please see my responses on the AN/I thread. --CBD 15:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Please reconsider, per my response at the AN/I thread. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The WT situation

Hi - You're in the middle of this. You feel attacked. You are continuing to try to defend yourself despite what you consider to be unjust attacks.

Sound familiar?

Now imagine I threaten to block you if you continue with these actions. Would you back off because "the community has asked you to"?

Sound familiar yet?

Your tagline at WP:LA says Talk to me if you feel you aren't getting a fair shake.

Let's define "fair". WT is a former admin ([55]), successfully nominated 24 articles for featured status (including such basic astronomy related articles as Venus, Mercury (planet), sun), and has been a contributor since August of 2004. He is (was) arguably one of the best contributors Wikipedia has ever seen. Would you block Raul, or ALoan, or Angela, or Redux, or Jimbo if they were somewhat quarrelsome with an admin who had blocked them (and had refused to engage them in a civil conversation about said block)?

You're wrong here. Stop. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

First, I already hadn't responded to the situation at all for a day despite the continuing attacks.

Second, this makes you only the second person to claim that >I< am dragging this out. I think the fact that it goes on apace without me disproves that, but in any case prior to this only a single clearly partisan person had suggested I stop responding. That is obviously not "the community". Now that a second person has suggested it I might consider the matter. If they said that a block was imminent I would certainly discuss that with them to see how they thought it was justified.

Third, Worldtraveller had received comments telling him to stop from half a dozen people that I can recall off-hand... and I'm certain there were several more if I go back and review. Notably, there were no objections to my statement that he would be blocked if he continued or the various statements that he was harassing InShaneee until after the block was placed.

Fourth, rather than discussing these concerns Worldtraveller's response was to declare, 'I will keep on harassing'.

Finally, yes... I would block almost anyone ('almost' only because blocking Jimbo would be pointless) who declared their intent to continually harass another user after numerous members of the community have asked them to stop. It's what our policies dictate. It's what basic 'fairness' requires. It's wonderful that Worldtraveller was such a good contributor in the past, but no way no how does that give him the right to deliberately and openly do everything in his power to make another user miserable over a long period of time. Allowing that kind of behaviour because of his past contributions would have been 'unfair'. I, and others, gave Worldtraveller every opportunity and urging to resolve the matter through appropriate means. He openly refused. I find it unfathomable that people are actually arguing that we should allow anyone to openly harass another user indefinitely. Until someone addresses that point (no one has even tried thus far), no... I do not accept that I was 'wrong' here. --CBD 10:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Half a dozen people? I don't think so. On the contrary, I can think of a large number of people who have said this block was wrong. Bishonen, Geogre, ALoan, Giano, Dbuckner, Rick Block, Aude, Raul654 are ones that come to mind straight away.

And I wonder whether you're being stupid or just disingenuous with your comment about mine where I said I would keep on harassing. You must know how dishonest it is to quote things so far out of context, and how important it is in this case that I preceded that statement with "if holding an administrator to account for their actions is harassment, then...". Do you think administrators should be held accountable for their actions?

And finally, do try to understand that my questioning of InShaneee was following the defined channels for dispute resolution. If he didn't want me to question him, he might have tried saying that to me directly. Have you noticed how many people have said there was no harassment involved at all? As far as I can see, more or less the only person who agrees with your interpretation of events is User:HighInBC, and he's a self confessed stoner who often completely fails to understand quite basic concepts in the discussions I've seen him take part in. I'll provide diffs for that statement if you would like. 81.179.115.188 00:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfAB

Hi. Thanks for your support on AN:I and now. This seems to me to be such a simple situation, and I'm really not sure what the need for such a 'circus' is. As for your offer, I'm really not sure what's best; this really is a bewildering situation to me. I don't even know what to say in my own defense on RfA; this is so minor of an incident, I'm not sure what diffs I could cite to help myself. If this gets accepted, I would definatly appreciate your view on the situation, but whether or not you should before then I will leave up to you. However, since at the time of me writing this two out of three arbitrators have voted 'accept' with no further explination, that seems inevitable at this point. --InShaneee 01:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFAr/InShaneee

Hi. I have written a reply to a comment of yours on the workshop page. I would appreciate a response, if you have time. Bishonen | talk 18:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

I had replied before seeing this request, but the whole section has now been removed and I'm not sure what it was I said which prompted you to start cursing at me in the first place. Suffice it to say that I apologize for whatever mis-impression I gave you. I was just trying to tell Tony that when something unusual happens AGF should naturally lead us to 'oh look, an odd coincidence' and not 'it is all a heinous plot by the evil ones' as he was trending. --CBD 00:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It's in the History, or more conveniently in your own contribs. Thank you for the explanation, but that wasn't a big deal. I was more upset by your second post—waving me off with a sneer about growing a thicker skin and a finger-waggle about "profanity"—treating me as an insensate piece of internet polemic rather than a fellow human attempting to give an honest account of herself. An account which Mackensen promptly removed, as you say. Well, I understand that trying to contribute to the workshop was a bad idea in the first place—running full tilt into Tony Sidaway, after managing to avoid him on IRC for a whole month, to the immeasureable improvement of my quality of life. Anyway. I've always seen you as somebody who stands up for the underdog — I remember praising your addition of this edit to the Harassment guideline—and I was sad to see there was no mutuality of respect. Bishonen | talk 02:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Bishonen, I'm sorry that you were offended by my suggestion about 'growing a thicker skin', but... you were being extremely hostile. In the message above you are still being hostile. What exactly did I do to provoke this? I defended you against a charge that seemed to me to make absurdly negative assumptions. Your 'side' in this, those supporting Worldtraveller, have called me "fuckwit", "ignoramus", "twit", and the like... sworn at me, accused me of all manner of improprieties, et cetera. Despite this, I defend you against an unjust accusation and get more attacks? I'm sorry, but a suggestion to grow a thicker skin was justified by the situation and incredibly mild in comparison to the outpourings of 'respect' which I have been on the receiving end of. I'm sorry you think that admonishment somehow means I don't respect you... it doesn't. I respect Worldtraveller, and he's the one who called me stupid and fuckwit. It is possible to both respect someone and disagree with their behaviour. --CBD 13:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Worldtraveller/InShaneee

One of the reasons that this was brought to the RfAr is because the Worldtraveller incident is considered a pattern of an earlier action that is considered to be a bad action. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Disagreed with you"

FM wasn't the only one who found that FNMF was editing in a manner that was covered by the arbcomm ruling...several people commented on his behaviour, including Arthur Rubin and me. Accusing FM of blocking him "because he disagreed with him" not only fails to assume good faith, it's also not in keeping with the facts of the matter. Guettarda 18:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that you or Arthur Rubin can lay claim to anything like neutrality in this matter either. FNMF did nothing which constituted a blockable offense. Nothing even close. --CBD 19:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so you have chosen to extend your assumption of bad faith to me and Arthur. That's still a failure to assume good faith. And Guy? Why do you assume bad faith on his part? You still haven't explained how this fits with your claims of unilateralism. Guettarda 02:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not 'assuming bad faith'. I'm observing plainly extant partisanship. You, Arthur Rubin, and FeloniousMonk were very obviously on one side of a content dispute and FNMF was very obviously on the other. You now bring up Guy and accuse me of assuming bad faith on his part as well... though I haven't said anything about him at all. As I recall, he said that the implicit claims of sock-puppetry should be checked prior to removal of a block... apparently unaware that a sock check had already been performed and shown no relation. --CBD 09:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The arbcomm ruling applied to a pattern of editing, not to a specific editor, so the sock check is irrelevant. You said you reviewed the matter, so obviously you are aware of this. You have chosen to assume bad faith and say that, because there is a content dispute, we are acting in bad faith. It's ridiculous to say "I'm not 'assuming bad faith'. I'm observing plainly extant partisanship". To put your own negative interpretation on actions, to jump to conclusions based on the state of mind of the people involved, is to assume bad faith.

"You now bring up Guy ... though I haven't said anything about him at all". Guy reviewed the block and found it appropriate. So yes, you have lumped Guy into the group of people you consider "blinded by partisanship".

"FNMF did nothing which constituted a blockable offense. Nothing even close" - he violated an arbcomm ruling despite being warned, ad engaged in personal attacks. How is that "not even close"? Guettarda 15:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Just in case you missed it, see the reply by Jimbo Wales to the comment by Asmodeus. Mr Wales makes clear he believes the block of FNMF was unwarranted. FNMF 23:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline of events leading to block of FNMF by FeloniousMonk

For further reference, and in case it ever becomes necessary, here is the sequence of events leading to my purported “personal attack” on the IP user.

As you know, after the intervention of Mr Wales, a reaction occurred, leading to the discussion of the question of whether to include certain references. This discussion seemed (to me at least) to have been, or to very nearly have been, resolved.

The following sequence then occurred:

• 21 March, 15:20. User Tim Smith deletes quote from footnote, arguing in the edit summary that the quote is unnecessary, and noting that it has been corrupted.
• 21 March, 16:45. User 151.151.21.101 restores corrupted quote for the first time.
• 22 March, 06:01. User Tim Smith makes note on talk page about the use of a corrupted quote, and argues it does not serve its purported purpose and should be removed.
• 22 March, 06:51. I respond by saying that the quote in its corrupt form is obviously unacceptable, but I do not argue for its removal rather than correction. I explain at length why I believe the quote has been misunderstood. I argue that if no legitimate secondary sources can be found for the contention that Langan is a proponent of intelligent design, then for the entry to assert this would constitute a violation of the policy against original research.
• 22 March, 07:38. User Tim Smith removes the corrupted quote.
• 22 March, 07:50. I open a new section, called “Langan, intelligent design, and Wikipedia policy,” in order to make even clearer my argument that, without secondary sources, the entry should not assert that Langan is a proponent of intelligent design.
• 22 March, 08:04. User WAS 4.250 asks if I agree with the statement from the entry that Langan and his wife are members of an intelligent design society.
• 22 March, 08:19. I affirm that I agree with the statement, and that I do not have great problems with the section as written. I indicate that my motive is to show why a campaign to prove Mr Langan is an advocate of ID is unnecessary and can be ended.
• 22 March, 12:39. User NightSky indicates agreement with my presentation, and makes two proposals: 1), that the section title be altered; 2) that the word “fellow” be deleted from the phrase “a collection of essays by fellow intelligent design proponents.”
• 22 March, 15:02. User Arthur Rubin makes several points, arguing in a qualified way that Langan has explicitly supported ID, but also noting the lack of secondary sources for the contention he is an advocate of ID, and making a suggestion to rephrase the above to “a collection of essays pubished by intelligent design proponents.”
• 22 March, 15:34. User Tim Smith argues against the characterisation of the ISCID as an intelligent design society. He suggests another way of characterising the association.
• 22 March, 16:09. User NightSky argues that the entry should state that neither Langan nor his wife have declared themselves proponents of ID.
• 22 March, 16:14. User NightSky agrees to Arthur Rubin’s suggested rephrasing.
• 22 March, 16:58. I indicate support for: 1) the deletion of the word “fellow” from the above-mentioned phrase about the book-collection; 2) Arthur Rubin’s suggested rephrasing; 3) Tim Smith’s suggested rephrasing about the ISCID; 4) NightSky’s suggestion about a statement that Langan has not declared himself an ID proponent. I also argue that Langan’s wife’s fellowship in the organisation is not notable or important, and probably should not be mentioned in the entry.
• 22 March, 17:47. User NightSky indicates agreement with my position.
• 22 March, 17:49. User 151.151.21.101 restores the corrupted quote for the second time.
• 22 March, 17:55. User 151.151.21.101 states that ISCID is in fact an ID society.
• 22 March, 17:55. User NightSky removes the corrupted quote, asking in edit summary that it not be restored without further talk page discussion.
• 22 March, 17:58. User 151.151.21.101 claims that the suggestions supported by myself and NightSky in fact “promote a partisan POV” and improperly rely on a primary source.
• 22 March, 18:01. User NightSky starts a new section, “Quotes,” and asks editors to make sure quotes are accurate, and to discuss controversial edits on the talk page.
• 22 March, 18:44. User Jim62sch asks what is wrong with the quote, and states that if he is not happy with the answer, he will restore the quote.
• 22 March, 19:10. User Tim Smith directs Jim62sch to the arguments given against the quote.
• 22 March, 19:29. User Jim62sch restores corrupted quote for the third time.
• 22 March, 20:44. User 151.151.21.101 declares that “there’s no shortage of Langan meat puppets at this article.”
• 22 March, 20:57. User Arthur Rubin removes the corrupt phrases from the quote.
• 22 March, 20:58. User Tim Smith reiterates to Jim62sch the problems with the quote, and complains that Jim62sch has simply restored with quote without discussion.
• 22 March, 21:08. User Arthur Rubin argues for the inclusion of the quote, so long as it is corrected, because it “supports the claim (not presently made in the article) that CML (falsely) believes ID to be a ‘scientific theory’.”
• 22 March, 21:59 I again try to explain my arguments that Langan is not claiming that ID is a true theory, simply that it presents itself as science and claims to be scientifically verifiable. I admonish Jim62sch for his refusal to examine or discuss counter-arguments while editing the entry. And I reject his accusation that I am connected with Langan.
• 22 March, 22:10. I re-paste my arguments in another section about why the quote has been misinterpreted, in case it was missed due to its placement high up on the page.
• 22 March, 22:16 User Arthur Rubin agrees that the entry should not state Langan is a proponent of ID without either a secondary source or clear declaration by Langan, but neither should it state the contrary. He agrees with 151.151.21.101 that ISCID is an ID organisation. He argues that Langan’s wife is “marginally relevant.” And he finally argues for the deletion of all references to megafoundation.org and ctmu.org throughout the entry.
• 22 March, 22:19. I open a new section about user 151.151.21.101, giving five different reasons why I believe this user’s editing is poor, indicating my belief that this user’s behaviour means they can presently be ignored, and hoping that their behaviour improves in the future.
• 22 March, 22:22. User Arthur Rubin responds by stating that I am approaching a violation of the ArbCom ruling about Asmodeus and DrL, and to “consider myself warned.”
• 22 March, 22:22. User Arthur Rubin argues that ID theory, as scientific is nevertheless “not self-consistent.”
• 22 March, 22:35. I respond to Arthur Rubin’s statement that I should consider myself warned, stating that I have done nothing other than argue my case, arguments which have been supported by several editors, but which have been totally ignored by those who keep restoring the quote.
• 22 March, 22:39. I respond to Arthur Rubin’s argument that ID is not self-consistent, indicating why I do not believe his point is important to interpreting the quote in question.
• 22 March, 22:47. I try to elaborate the above point in another way.
• 22 March, 22:54. User Arthur Rubin states that I have added material favourable to Langan and removed material unfavourable to Langan, “against clear consensus.”
• 22 March, 23:31. User 151.151.21.104 argues that the only source of disruption are “Langan’s cronies,” and argues that my creation of a section devoted to a “personal attack” is evidence of this disruption.
• 22 March, 23:34. I respond to Arthur Rubin’s comments at 22:16, agreeing with him that it is not important to state that Langan is not a proponent of ID, and suggesting a weaker phrasing. I also state that I do not understand what he thinks is wrong about Tim Smith’s suggestion about how to describe the ISCID. I also argue further against the mention of Langan’s wife in relation to ISCID.
• 22 March, 23:55. I respond to Arthur Rubin’s comments by noting that I have neither added nor removed material, and am happy to have my contributions scrutinised.
• 22 March, 23:55. I respond to 151.151.21.104 by denying that I engaged in a personal attack, by reminding him of the five reasons I gave that this user was disruptive, and indicating that I hope his edits will be constructive in the future.
• 23 March, 03:52. FeloniousMonk blocks me for 48 hours for “walking in the footsteps of Asmodeus and DrL,” and for “personal attacks and disruption.” He claimed to be happy to explain this further, but never did.

Note that in the above sequence I did not make any edits whatsoever to the entry on Langan.

I apologise for not providing links to all the diffs, but unfortunately I do not have the time to do the cut-and-paste at the moment. I believe that this exhaustive timeline makes the situation at this entry, and the events leading to my block, very clear. The difference between the amount and quality of argument offered by one “side,” and the lack of argument from the other “side,” is stark. This is, to me, evidence of a systematic problem with the editing of this entry. I thank you again for the unblock and for taking the time to review the situation. FNMF 00:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lessons from the Langan entry

For an account of what I believe are important policy issues arising from the problems with the Christopher Michael Langan entry, see here. It does not concern the matters covered in the timeline above, as much as it does more important questions arising from an issue which was finally (hopefully) dealt with a few days ago. Thought you might be interested. FNMF 03:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latest developments at the Langan entry

Hi, I wanted to fill you in on the latest developments at the entry for Christopher Michael Langan. An ongoing and productive discussion had been taking place in the section of the talk page entitled "Langan, intelligent design, and Wikipedia policy," involving myself, NightSky, Tim Smith, and even FeloniousMonk. I urge you to peruse this discussion, which was about how to phrase the paragraph introducing Langan's involvement with ID. The discussion lasted several days and was making progress. If you read through the exchanges you will see that I was arguing for a compromise position, on the grounds that it was more neutral and more likely to be accepted by all parties.

Eventually, after several days, I made the change here.

I explained the change on the talk page, making clear that it was not necessarily definitive, but given that consensus was being approached, and no objections were being raised to the thrust of the discussion, it might be time to go ahead and make the change.

One hour later, user 151.151.21.99 altered my change, stating that he was removing "ambiguous" language. He did not leave a comment on the talk page. He is the editor that I was blocked for suggesting he was disruptive.

A few hours later, when it was obvious he was not intending on explaining his change further, I reverted his change.

I then explained my reasons for this reversion.

Since it is possible this will lead to further problems, I thought I would give you advance notice, in case you wished to intervene at any stage. FNMF 03:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This was followed by this reversion by none other than FeloniousMonk, which he justified with this explanation. It is, in my opinion, interesting that FeloniousMonk stepped in after my reversion of 151.151.21.99, just as he stepped in to block me after my comment about 151.151.21.101. Not only does user FeloniousMonk jump in to support this anonymous user, but in both cases seems annoyed at the "attacks" on user 151.151.21.etc., as though he felt personally slighted. A question would appear to be begged here, a question with some significance, given that FeloniousMonk is an administrator, and one prepared to wield his powers on a whim. FNMF 04:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm keeping an eye on the page. If a compromise breaks down try again. You accusing them of sock-puppetry... them accusing you of sock-puppetry... arguments over who was 'more incivil' or 'incivil first'. It is all self-defeating. Reduce the amount of time you spend trying to get the other side 'in trouble' to zero and just stick to attempting to work out compromises. If they refuse and keep at the incivility they will eventually get themselves 'in trouble' and you can proceed with clean hands. --CBD 11:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I do feel I have been keeping fairly cool. Even though I raised the sock-puppet issue here with you, I haven't done so on the talk page (unlike the numerous times I was accused of being one). Nor have I ever even mentioned on the talk page the fact that I was improperly blocked. And I was very surprised by Guettarda's remark that every sentence I write is an insult: I just don't see the evidence. In fact, I had praised him in an earlier comment, saying I thought an action of his showed good faith. And I even agreed with FeloniousMonk in another comment. I felt as though I had been working to achieve a compromise from all sides, in the interests of the entry. The reactions from Guettarda et al make me feel that whenever they start to feel defensive about not knowing how to argue the case, they decide to accuse me of being disruptive, etc etc etc. Not that any of this undermines the truth of your remarks. I'm just expressing all the frustrations that I have declined to express elsewhere. But as I said on the talk page, this particular issue isn't one I feel strongly about the microscopic details of, so I don't mind letting it just play out. But somehow I still think I'll get the blame. Thanks again. FNMF 11:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need your help

Hey Buddy how have you been? We need your help here. [56] This guy just will not learn. We have warned him on several occassions about vandalism and he continues to come on here and tear articles to pieces. I think we need to block him as it is evident that his only contribution is to vandalize! [57] Can you please help? Junebug52 12:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP address temporarily. We'll see if that deters them. --CBD 17:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks CB! I cannot understand what joy people get out of damaging these articles and vandalizing other peoples hard work? Thanks again for your attention. Junebug52 17:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tobias Conradi & WP:AN

Hello, Tobias has come up in conversation on WP:AN. I know you've worked closely with him before and may wish to participate in the conversation, just an FYI in case you're interested. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need your help again

Hey CB. I have a guy who continually has been vandalizing the Gary S. Paxton page. 68.119.115.102 has been continually warned about this and he just continues to vadalize the page. [58] I think we need to block this user. They have also been encouraged to create an account, but have not to date. I feel this is really someone with an axe to grind with GAry Paxton. Junebug52 23:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying. Been a bit busy with work and other things. Looks like the page has been ok for the past week. If it starts up again we can semi-protect the page and/or block the IP address. --CBD 11:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

CB, this user has now created another account and is continuing to vadalize the Gary S. Paxton article. [59]. I think we may need to partially protect this page. Please advise Junebug52 23:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I temporarily protected the page so that only users who have an established account can edit it. That said, the anon seems to be adding biased / unsourced info rather than 'vandalism'. Such info should be removed under the WP:BLP policy and the user directed to find reliable sources to verify the info if they want it included. --CBD 11:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MfD result - do not understand

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tobias Conradi (2nd nomination) - why is this "blank"? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

thanks for standing up against totalitarian tendencies. Your unblanking was reverted. The second persons says it should go to DRV. What messy thing is this? With one click admin can violate rules, and everybody sees this, but still claim one has to go through DRV, which is much longer than only one click. That is also one of the problems with the out of policy deletions, deleted very fast, but restored only through long processes. Can you talk about this with an ArbCom person? These "policeman admins" run around in midwest villages, beat people, disrupt and then say: oh if you wanna complain, please fill out form ABCD, travel to Washington, DC, then wait there five weeks and maybe, but only maybe, people will review you case. You are probably better in talking with ArbCom than me. Or start a page "admin reform"? less controverse than "admin right abuse watch"? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 12:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] two people vote something for delete

and whoops it is gone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_2#Category:Former_subdivisions_of_countries

Is there anyway to undo this nonsense, because logic is not subject to vote, it still holds that Subdiv of former countries != Former country subdiv. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tobias. I get what you are saying about 'former subdivisions' rather than 'former countries', but based on a quick review of the pages in the merged category I didn't see any pages which seemed to be referring to 'former countries'... just former subdivisions of existing countries. If we do have articles on subdivisions in countries which no longer exist you might want to just make a new 'Category:Subdivisions of former countries' or somesuch. --CBD 17:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• update: made a mistake. old cats
  • Category:Former country subdivisions
  • Category:Subdivisions of former countries
• then someone creates Category:Former subdivisions of countries
• someone else later suggest to merge the newly created into Category:Former country subdivisions
• one persons sconds that.
• one persons suggest reverse merge.
• original merge suggester agrees.

And whoops the long established system is gone. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

at least, the two cats are not mixed. only one renamed to a confusing name. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

not sure anymore which name is the best.

• Category:Former country subdivisions Former xyz - could also include Subdivisons of former countries
• Category:Former country subdivisions by country Former xyz by country - like the thousands of by country categories.
  • Category:Former subdivisions by country - shorthand for the former
• Category:Former subdivisions of countries - seems not to fit, since "subdivisions of countries" is not the term, but "country subdivision" is.

Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey bud can you look at this for me?

I was contacted by an editor to look at a couple of articles they felt should be nominated for deletion. Nate Christianson and Will Clark I looked them over and they do look to me to be more personal advertisements rather than Bio's of living persons. I do not feel they fall within notablitity, nor do they showcase the subjects history but rather the subjects likes and dislikes as well as services they offer as escorts etc.. There is an editor I put a prod tag on both articles and I have an editor that keeps removing it instead of fixing the problems. In many posted conflicts this editor has had with others for removing things, it seems that the editor is actually the subject of the article. Could you please look at it and let me know what you think. I think the articles should be deleted. Thanks bud and I hope you are having a great holiday. Junebug52 21:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I have informed editor Junebug52 that each of the articles into which he has inserted prod tags has a subject notable under WP:PORNBIO or WP:BIO. I have removed her/his prod tags with the explanation that the subject is notable under one of the guidelines listed above. Perhaps you can inform her/him that other tags can be placed to address the concerns s/he has listed. 71.127.234.96 21:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

CBD if you look at the history of these articles you will find that serious concerns have been made that this editor is actually the subject of the article. These articles are full of tags that have requested these articles be brought up to standards. There are no cites or sources. I did a Google search and most hits go to the subjects personal web pages. The editor that contacted me to look at them said that they have watched as tags have been placed and removed without editing being done to fix the problems. I still move for deletion. If you say they are ok, then I will drop the issue, but I feel they are articles for deletion. Junebug52 21:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello folks. Ok, WP:PROD is a method of clearing out uncontested articles with a minimum of hassle. Once someone contests it, by removing the prod tag or saying that they think it should be kept, the issue really has to go to articles for deletion for community discussion. I'm not familiar with Wikipedia's notability standards for gay porn actors - so I couldn't say whether these individuals meet them or not, but that's a community decision in any case.

On the issue of authorship; per the conflict of interest guidelines, Wikipedia really prefers that people not add or edit pages about themselves or which they have a vested interest in (either for or against the subject). However, there is no way to police that in all cases and no absolute rule against it (even Jimbo Wales has edited the article on himself). That said, Wikipedia's policies on neutral point of view are always in effect... if someone puts up an 'advertisement' praising a person rather than an encyclopedic description of them it really doesn't matter whether it was written by the person themself, a fan, their mom, or whatever. In all cases it needs to be edited to present a neutral description of the person backed up by sources.

I removed some information about a supposed pseudonym from one of the articles under the biographies of living persons policy because there were no sources listed for it, and suggesting that the chef in question was actually a gay porn actor could certainly be something he might object to - either if it were untrue or if it were not widely known. Belief that the two people are the same, because their pictures look alike or something, isn't enough for Wikipedia. Nor is direct personal knowledge. We collect information only on things which are already public knowledge and reported in reliable media. Maybe this connection between the chef and actor has been reported in such fashion, but if so the sources for that need to be cited. --CBD 00:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I am the anon who wrote to you above, 1 September, and I have been in communication with Junebug52 re the matter of porn bio's (see his talk page). You've written that you have no problem deleting spam articles, articles that meet the WP:CSD#G11 criterion. I'd like you to take a look at Tory Mason -- there you'll find an article of a non-notable actor, imo, consisting mostly of spam and fluff. I recently edited out the spam, and very soon my edits were reversed and the article placed under 1 month protect, 1 month! Also, please take a look at a recent addition to "Valid Criteria" under WP:PORNBIO: #6, "Performer meets other notability grounds not connected to being involved in porn." As I wrote to Junebug52, not only is this poorly worded and vague, but it seems to mean that if a porn actor is not notable under any of the other pornbio criteria, s/he is considered notable if notable in activity other than porn. What is that? So if a otherwise non-notable porn actor has done something notable outside of porn, then s/he warrants an article as a porn actor? You and the group forming to address the issue of porn bio's certainly have your work cut out for you. I wish you all well, and I'll write with any observations or supporting info I come across, if that's OK with you.--72.76.87.199 11:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sockery

Hi, please see User_talk:Concerniokw, and this AN/I post. I'd ask you to strongly consider removing your comment. This is, in my considered judgement, and per checkuser investigation, a garden variety disruptive sock, part of a huge nest of basically vandalism only socks, not an aggrieved good faith contributor who needs an alternate ID to make important points anonymously. Thanks for your consideration. ++Lar: t/c 04:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(blame IE for use of this alternate ID) When you say things like "I consider this block highly improper" or "(I certainly would if I were a neutral party here)", I think it's not helpful. This particular quite large nest of socks is very disruptive, and it's been established by CU investigation (by me and others) that this user is one of them. You're not always going to find every sock of every user tagged the same way, nor will you find a record of the findings of every CU investigation on WP:RFCU. Most of mine don't end up there, I asked for, and received, CU in order to address crosswiki vandalism. Giving the appearance of casting aspersions on fellow admins instead of trusting them by default may not be the best approach, as I have pointed out to you before. Your original posting to that sock's page really ought not to remain part of the record, it ought to be removed, as it sends totally the wrong message. You can do it or you can abide while it is done by someone else (the entire conversation needs to go, not just your own posting, actually, and be replaced with a simple socktag), as you like, but personally I think it would be good if you did it. ++Larbot - run by User:Lar - t/c 16:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I do trust JzG by default. This has nothing to do with lack of trust or assumption of bad faith. I disagree with what JzG did. Specifically, he saw two users that he suspected of being sockpuppets and he blocked them. I believe that is an extremely bad idea. If you suspect sockpuppetry get a checkuser to confirm it and then block. JzG's suspicion about Concerniokw was correct... but IMO he was still absolutely wrong to place that block prior to confirmation of it. This isn't some radical or unreasonable position after all. If we allow blocks based on suspicions and assumptions then there will be blocks on completely innocent users.

That said, replacing talk pages of permanently blocked users with template notices is fairly common practice. I have no objection to such and have done so.

Finally, I assume you did not see my question on AN/I about whether you had also found check-user evidence of disruptive sockpuppetry by User:Hexadecimale? That issue really ought to be confirmed one way or the other as the user is claiming innocence. --CBD 18:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

A few points, it is not necessary to always run a CU to confirm sockpuppetry. I (and other way more experienced CU's) habitually decline CU requests when it's obvious from contribution patterns that someone is a sock. In this case, the contribution pattern was pretty small, but I'm not sure you have the Concerniokw event order right. I'm also not sure you have it wrong though, so I'll look into it. Second I'm not sure who did the Hexadecimale check, I'll look into it too, when I can run my real ID tonite, and if needed, place appropriate templates. (although I can't "clear" that user, I can only report negative findings, if that is what is found) A problem with big nests or fast moving incidents like this is that it can be hard to make sure that multiple CUs working together haven't left any loose ends. Third, WP is not perfect, and WP admins and CUs are not perfect either. The CU process is not an exact science, it's a matter of interpretation of the information made available. It's also not magic pixie dust, a finding of {{unrelated}} just means that it didn't look like there was a technical connection, it isn't a proof of innocence. That's why we habitually decline both {{fishing}} requests and requests to "clear my name" by some user or another. Not the right tool for the job. Will admins block people by mistake? Sure, sometimes. Will admins not block people by mistake? Sure, sometimes. Will articles get deleted by mistake? Sure, sometimes. Will articles get kept by mistake? Sure, sometimes. When that happens we should fix things. But while some admins make these sorts of mistakes a lot, some admins are pretty good at consistently spotting things. You're faulting JzG for possibly blocking first and asking questions later. (if that's what he did, I'm, as I say, not sure of the sequence there). But sometimes, that's actually the right thing to do... I've worked with JzG for a long long time and I've forgotten the last time I saw an action of his that (shoot from the hip or not) I thought was wrong. His judgement is superb, IMHO. Usually someone crying "involved" is doing that as a divirsionary tactic rather than because JzG is actually biased. With sockery, as with BLP, as with copyright violations, sometimes it's better to take the preventative action, the "better safe than sorry" action, let the dust settle and if it was the wrong thing to do, say you're sorry. Because WP is not perfect, nor are we. Hope that helps. And thanks for the fix on the userpage... much appreciated. ++Larbot - run by User:Lar - t/c 20:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your message

...and many others in your recent contributions are completely unacceptable...and further actions of this kind will be stopped.

Given that, as far as I'm concerned, you're perhaps Wikipedia's biggest defender of the indefensible, who "assumes good faith" in the hopeless and unredeemable long past the point of reasonableness in case after case (starting from User:Pigsonthewing's first ArbCom case and pretty steadily onward, including, it seems, in the message just above this), you can imagine how much weight I assign to your opinion or your not-so-veiled threat. And yes, it's a threat, don't pretend otherwise, please.

If you have a problem, might I suggest an RFC instead of attempting to single-handedly play John Law? Given that you normally jump all over such unilateral actions, I can't imagine why you feel it's proper that you give yourself carte blanche. --Calton | Talk 13:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with 'unilateral' action - I'm just as critical of improper actions taken by several people as I am of one doing so. Nor is there anything unilateral about this; the foundation, ArbCom, and community as a whole have laid down very clear standards of behaviour which you have unmistakably been violating. As to the 'threat'... if you ignore my warning that you need to start abiding by the civility policies then you absolutely will be blocked. That's a 'threat' if you like, but the power to nullify it rests entirely in your own hands. --CBD 21:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Calton's inappropriate comments

Hi CBDunkerson. I noticed you have cautioned User:Calton on his personal attacks. He recently went to my user page and removed the fake "You have a new message" interface from my user page. Now I'm not here to debate on whether or not this fake interface is inappropriate (I know it is frowned upon by some people and laughed at by others), but I am here to inform you that the edit summary he used was inappropriate: "remove "joke" banner: grow up". I have warned him that his comments were inappropriate, but I thought it best to also inform an administrator who has had recent dealings with him. Thank you.--Just James ^T/C 23:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Please also see his response on my talk page: [60].--Just James ^T/C 03:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inquiry about Wikipedia Policy regarding Commentary of Banned Users

Could you could possibly clarify something for me? There is an editor who has repeatedly removed all comments made by another editor, who is now banned, from a couple of Talk Pages (specifically, Talk:Pro-pedophile activism and Talk:Anti-pedophile activism). He insists that there is a Wikipedia policy that states all comments by a banned user can and should be removed from Talk Pages, and that restoring such commentary constitutes meat puppetry. Could you please inform me if this is indeed true? The reason I'm asking is that, to the best of my knowledge, usually, only disruptive commentary by banned users is removed from Talk Pages. Your input on this situation would be very appreciated. Thank you in advance, ~ Homologeo 22:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

See WP:BAN. Any and all edits made by banned editors may be reverted (though there is no requirement that they must be). A user CAN restore them if they choose, but in so doing they essentially take 'responsibility' for the edits. That said, another view holds that this is 'editing on behalf of a banned user' or 'acting as a meat-puppet'... while those charges could be true in some cases, applying them to ALL cases is IMO unwarranted assumption of bad faith and disruptive. However, there should seldom be any reason to fight over it. If a banned user has said something on a talk page which is worth considering and another user has blanked it then my suggestion would be to yourself make the same point for discussion. Some might call even that 'acting as a meat-puppet', essentially attempting to ban everyone who disagrees with them on the issue, but if there is valid reason to consider the point raised then I think most people would object to such repressions. --CBD 22:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

What can one do when an editor insists on removing commentary by a banned user, despite a number of other editors involved in editing the article in question disagreeing with this course of action? The comments being deleted are constructive, definitely not disruptive, and located at the center of key discussions on the Talk Pages. In fact, in numerous instances, their removal makes it almost impossible to make sense of the surrounding text. The deletion of these comments basically disrupts the flow of thought and discussion. The editor who has repeatedly removed the said commentary refuses to justify his actions beyond proclaiming that a "scorched earth policy" is in order, wherein all comments made by the now banned user should be deleted without question. This editor has held fast to this behavior pattern, even after another editor has personally vouched for the appropriateness of comments that were being removed. Could you possibly tell me what can be done in this situation? Thanks, ~ Homologeo 21:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That is simply not so, Homologeo, ie the comments and all the edits made by this proven sock of a banned user were incredibly disruptive and give a false inmpression of consensus at the PPA and APA talk pages. Scorched earth policy was a description of our attitude to pro-pedophile activists editing to promote a pro-pedophilia POV (as the puppeteer who controlled Mike was banned for) given to me by a respected member of the arbcom committee. How can the comments of a sock of a previously banned user (with both sock and puppeteer also being banned for promoting a pro-pedophilia agenda on wikipedia) be considered other than disruptive is simply beyond me, and it seems to me clear that the only thing to be done in such a situation is to remove all the disruptive copmments made by an editor who knew he had no right to edit but did so anyway. Such comments are removed from wikipedia every day, SqueakBox 22:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox, unfortunately, I cannot take your word for what the true reasoning behind the ban was, since it was never made public. If there is to be any credibility to your assertions, such information should revealed to all involved parties. Until that happens, all this is hearsay, and cannot be used as legitimate support for your actions. As you already know, I have attempted to inquire into the justification of the ban in question, and am still awaiting further clarification of the issue. In the meantime, policy is pretty clear that comments by banned users can be restored if they're legitimate and non-disruptive. You have yet to provide evidence on how the commentary in question is disruptive, beyond your claim that anything said by the supposedly previously banned editor should be removed from these Talk Pages. Likewise, if other editors disagree with the removal of said comments, and if someone has actually vouched for the appropriateness of this information, in what sense do you feel justified in unilaterally removing this commentary? Also, how do you address the fact that, in multiple instances, the removal of these comments has resulted in the disruption of the flow of text and thought on the Talk Pages? Lastly, these is no such "scorched earth" policy you are referring to. This may be a practice adopted by some editors, but that doesn't make it an official policy. Yes, disruptive commentary is sometimes removed in order to facilitate healthy discussion, and this holds true for comments made by any editor who intentionally pushes a POV and intends to unduly skew the discussion and editing process in his or her favor. However, there is no policy that mandates an editor to unilaterally delete constructive commentary by another user, even if the latter is banned, especially when other involved editors oppose such course of action. ~ Homologeo 22:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It clearly was made public, ie banned user editing from proxies to push a pro-pedophilia POV[61], that is 3 reasons given in a crystal clear manner and tells us he was a previously banned user and editing from open proxies and pushing a pro-pedophile POV, very clear and public indeed. Thus how can you possibly claim the reason for his block was not made public. I have no more information on this than you do and I haven't seen more public reasons given ever. And his comments were neither legitimate (how could they be, he was a sock and we don't allow the socks of banned users to edit the articles they got banned for editing) and clearly also disruptive, again the block reason makes that clear in that he was promotijg n a pro-pedophile POV. I feel justified in removing the comments because they should never have been added in the first place, it is cheating in order to promote a personal agenda on wikipedia, unfortunately this kind of thing happens far too often because there are editors who come to wikipedia to promote a personal agenda rather than top create a good encyclopedia. How you can claim that Mike, a proven sockpupet pushing an agenda was making any constructive comments is beyond, I simply do not understand your line of thinking, SqueakBox

There was a discussion going on on Mike D78's Talk Page in regards to the block, until it was abruptly interrupted and everything discussed blanked from the page. While it may say that this was a legitimate ban of a previously "banned user editing from proxies to push a pro-pedophilia POV," there was not enough sufficient evidence provided for this claim. The concerns over the open proxies were duly addressed by Mike D78 and his explanation for using open proxies seemed quite legitimate. His IP address was established, and his observation that he usually edited straight from it was never refuted by the admin imposing the block. When pressed for further clarification of the reasoning behind the block, the admin stated that he would say nothing further, and any future inquiries should be directed to the ArbCom. This is why another editor and I pursued the issue further. Likewise, if this is "obviously" a previously banned editor, why wasn't the general practice of announcing who was the puppeteer followed? This is part of the reason why this block is suspect, and why further evidence needs to be brought forth before your assertions in regards to the appropriateness of Mike D78's commentary possibly gains any weight. ~ Homologeo 22:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oh for heaven's sake you two. Stop bickering about the past. Homologeo, if some of the deleted material is worth discussing then discuss it. You don't need to restore old edits for that. If it is hard to follow some of the commentary with the pieces missing then just summarize and start again. Edit warring over the old stuff does nothing to move forward towards any sort of resolution. Take whatever you think is worthwhile and start talking about that yourself rather than fighting a pointless war over whether old comments should be included or not. SqueakBox, edits like this seriously undermine your claims that others are not editing in a NPOV manner. Right now neither of you seems to be putting the goal of improving the encyclopedia ahead of personal feelings/argumentation. If you can't work on the issue dispassionately then you probably ought not to be doing so at all... which, for instance, is why I stay away from articles on US politics. --CBD 23:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well put. I will try to follow some of your advice. ~ Homologeo 00:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Calton

User Calton has again left a personal attack on my talk page. [62] I reverted the page due to the nature of his post, but you can see it easily. He was already warned about 2 days ago for another attack in an edit summary but he seems to have brushed that aside. It looks like he is being trolled by an ED editor or something and for whatever reason he has, he is blaming me for this. He claims I emailed him or something, but for whatever reason he hasn't provided proof. All i want is to be left alone and for my talk page to NOT be vandalized as such. Thank you. TruthCrusader 17:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Before you make one of your knee-jerk defenses of this particular troll -- and his misuse of common terms like "vandalism" -- you'd best be advised to do a little research so you don't wrongfoot yourself. In particular, I refer you to this exchange, to this "attack" (which you'll note contains part of the evidence linking TruthCrusader's latest outburst), and comments by a couple of non-involved parties at the bottom of my talk page. Note one of the latter is an admin, one whom I had previously e-mailed a much more complete and unredacted batch of evidence of TruthCrusader's actions. And I certainly wonder why TruthCrusader knows that ED has anything to do with this, since I haven't breathed a word of that on Wikipedia -- though there probably IS an ED connection, one which I drew with yet another admin I privately e-mailed with the evidence. How did TruthCrusader know this? Psychic powers, perhaps?

This is someone you DON'T want to carry water for, and not just on morality grounds. --Calton | Talk 17:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what's going on here, but I've asked the parties to comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Calton and TruthCrusader dispute. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, FYI on this. Yikes! // FrankB 18:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you very much

I sincerely appreciate your actions - it feels horrible to be gagged while people say nasty, unsubstantiated things about you. Many thanks, Privatemusings 12:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

CBDunkerson...I recommend you reblock Privatemusings.--MONGO 12:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)