User talk:FeloniousMonk/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] while I'm gone

If anyone tries to put a Disputed or NPOV tag on the ID page, please feel free to give them the following response from me:

Don't be dense. The content is not disputed - the subject is, and that is covered extremely well in this article. This is one of the least POV articles on WP. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Pick whichever second sentence applies. If Wade says the content is disputed, tell him he is disputing minor details, which are well documented, and repeat the "Don't be dense." thanks!!! KillerChihuahua?!? 12:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm back, looks like I'll have to read for a couple of hours to catch up - did you use this at all? KillerChihuahua?!? 14:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Good distinctions

1. Thanks for this correction. I had construed the extant text as asserting that Americans in general widely accept evolution - whereas it's now clear that the text refers to wide acceptance within the scientific community.

Polls show that only 5% of scientists in general (i.e., all fields - not just biology) challenge the "unplanned, unguided" theory of evolution. And less than 0.2% of biologists, of course.

I was thinking about claims sometimes made that most Americans "support evolution" vs. the contrary claim that 85% of Americans "reject unguided evolution"; i.e., believe (1) that "evolution" (in some sense) occurred but that it was guided by God or (2) that no evolution of any kind has occurred (mainstream Creationism).

Note that both of these are religious - not scientific - views. They are religious views of evolution. Uncle Ed 15:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

2. "Concept" is good. Uncle Ed 17:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)






[edit] How many forks?

You were wondering.. I took a casual glance through a couple weeks of time and have found 9 "spin-off articles" so far, all being overwhelmingly labelled "POV forks" on Afd. I'm pretty sure I recall some from weeks past, too, although I haven't put them on my list yet. I've brought this up to Ed on his talk page now a few times and tried to get him to stop, but he doesn't seem responsive to reasoning. Friday (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jayjg and Marsden

Needless to say I appreciate your principled stand. I also appreciate your reverting Marsden's revert of my edit. But just so you know, to follow through I did restore Marsden's comment on the talk page. I am deeply upset by some of the things he wrote, but it was not my intention to censor him. In any event, thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 05:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

"Deeply upset?" By what, SLR? I don't think anything I wrote was even interesting enough to be upset over. Marsden 14:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I noticed this too, but I feel that it's up to Marsden to readd his comments to TALK, since he removed them from there himself. His so-called "question" was properly removed from the project page as disruption. That he chose to remove it from TALK is his problem, SLR, not yours. Tomertalk 07:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Could you please tell me why on earth you think that the question I reversed constitutes a "personal attack"? I must confess I thought Marsden was, well, a bit <deleted...> going on and on and on about whether Jay was payed or not for his WP-work; but now I honestly don´t know. The way this question is beeing censored (and Jay not answering.....) makes me really wonder if perhaps it´s actually me who has been naive? And so many people have seen the question by now: I´m not the only person waiting for Jay´s answer. (And if he doesn´t answer: well, people will ofcourse draw their own conclusions.) Regards, Huldra 08:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
PS, I note a great difference between "personal attack" and "personal attack" on WP: in this case: [1] (which IMO is far worse than any personal attack Marsed got blocked for) the user got a "friendly reminder regarding civility". Sigh.
Well, I'd start here: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2005/Candidate_statements/Jayjg but you probably want to go to sleep at some point tonight... What constiutes a legitimate personal attack is pretty well defined at WP:NPA though I will admit that there are looser definitions that convention recognizes beyond policy, none of which were relied upon in Marsden's case. He was sufficiently aware and warned that a large segment of the community did not approve of his actions. FeloniousMonk 09:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Huldra, if you're sincerely asking about this, and not just trolling, I have to assume you're unfamiliar with Marsden's activities. Please review this article, and, unless you're prejudiced regarding Marsden's activities, you'll recognize that the questions you're characterizing as legitimate are, in fact, a directed attack against the candidate rather than a legitimate question. The question is meant to instill doubt in potential voters' minds, rather than to legitimately illicit a response. Jayjg's refusal to respond is not evidence of "guilt" vis-à-vis the purported "good-faith" question, but rather evidence of his abiding by the advice he so often gives to people being attacked by trolls: namely, that the best response to a troll is to not feed them. When it comes to internet trolls, the conventional wisdom is that it is pointless to respond to them, especially when you're the party being attacked. Jayjg has ample grounds to regard Marsden's comments and questions regarding/questioning him as indubitably trollish, and so, he'd be verging on hypocritical to respond to the accusations themselves. That said, there is pretty much no merit whatsoever in the question Marsden insists on asking. Not only are the statistics inaccurate (intentionally), but the question is worded as an insinuation of guilt of a violation of a non-existent policy. That you regard Marsden's persistence in this thinly-veiled personal attack (insinuating some kind of Zionist-cabal running WP), does not speak well for you either, Huldra, not, I'm sure, that you're particularly bothered by that fact, but there it is... Tomertalk 09:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Uh, Tomer, we could review the underlying facts for my statistics, and see exactly how accurate they are. And "insinuating some kind of Zionist-cabal running WP?" I don't even think that's true (the ArbCom's recent homage to facts not in evidence notwithstanding). Just a group of dedicate editors coordinating their POV-pushing. Marsden 14:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Huldra, I think Tomer and FeloniousMonk have provided you with a thorough and more than edequate explanation of why Marsden's comment is a personal attack. Most lon-time editors here have no question about this, so I ask a favor of you: if you think the Wikipedia:No personal attacks does not cover the points Tomer and Felonious Monk have made, explain to us in what way that policy page is unclear, so we canmake it clearer. As a matter of fact, I would ask Felonious Monk and Tomer to look at the NPA page and see if, based on this specific example, there are elements of that page that could be clarified or elaborated. That said, Huldra, if you are stillnot convinced contact me and I will give you more reasons. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm ... "if you think the Wikipedia:No personal attacks does not cover the points Tomer and Felonious Monk have made, explain to us in what way that policy page is unclear, so we canmake it clearer." In other words, if you think no rule has been broken, no worries: we'll make another rule. Are you related to the Slrubinstein who used the word "principled" in a comment above? Marsden 14:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yay! I passed! And you helped! :-D

Hey FeloniousMonk/Archive 3! Thanks for your support on my RfA. The final outcome was (57/4/3), so I am now an administrator. If you need help, have a question, or just want to chat (or if I get out of line!), please don't hesitate to let me know! Again, thanks! :D

Tomertalk

[edit] Benapgar

I don't know enough about Benapgar's editing history or temperment to really know, but — this is really just from looking at his talk page after his block — I think for now it would be better to let him say what he wants on his talk page (within limits, of course - but continuing to call people liars and trolls is probably not doing anybody but himself more harm). I don't think increasing his block does anything but escalate the situation right now. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, Ryan Delaney extended it to a week in any case. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligent design movement

Hi David. Seeing your edits at Intelligent design movement and remembering our debate on the issue at Talk:Intelligent design, I think we settled on intelligent design not being capitalized, as it's not a proper noun. That's why I standardized to the lowercase usage in the Intelligent design movement article. Agree? FeloniousMonk 19:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello. I'm not sure if a consensus to use lowercase was (or has) been reached, but I don't mind. Looking at the past hour's history, I apologise in case my most recent edit appears to revert yours; I was called away, returned much later than expected and forget to check if anyone else had contributed in the meantime before submitting my revision. Oops.

Thank you for mentioning your approval of my other contributions; I hope a few extra wikilinks and the like might make the article more straightforward for less US-savvy (pardon, U.S.-savvy!) readers. At some point I intend to return to review the other sections in similar vein – and also the main Intelligent design article.

Thanks and best wishes, David Kernow 20:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] pre-stub sections

You might want to consider commenting them out, so that someone who chose to edit the page might see them, but not readers. This way, if someone chooses to re-add them without looking at edit summaries or the talk page, they'll be able to see that they are there, just awaiting content (if someone chooses to revert the page, then they'd see your edit summary). Just thinking this might be a way to head off potential conflict. Guettarda 17:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marshill

why did you remove my throrough list of objections from the ID talk page? Who is going to read my objections when there is no link to it? Why do you want to silence me? Marshill 20:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that User:Markepp, who just voted in the straw poll on User:Marshill's ID subpage might be a Wikipedia:Sock puppet. Since you are an admin frequenting the ID pages, I was wondering if you would look into it for me? I have no knowledge about this sort of thing, but some clues are there (I think). -Parallel or Together? 07:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd be very disappointed if that turns out to be the case. I'll look into it. FeloniousMonk 07:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Haws and the ID thingie

FM, somebody invited me to have a look at the ID poll underway. How scary! It's rather tough to walk up to a something like that and make sense of it all, though as you saw I took a look at the article itself a while back and tried to make a sensible comment on it all. The article fails to be a high-quality explanation of what ID is all about, and I personally think it fails from the first sentence to capture the essence of ID, at least from what I know. But I don't know that it violates NPOV. What's a guy to do? Tom Haws 19:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Tom, good to hear from you. I think your frustration accurately reflects the issue here; since ID is such a contentious topic, the article relies almost exclusively on attributions to significant statements rather than descriptive text.
So, what's a guy to do? I'd say make your case for specific changes one at a time on the talk page.Locate and provide support for your changes with credible and significant attributions per the guidelines. Knowing you, I know that you can do a good job of presenting the ID perspective in a factual, dispassionate way. Stick around. FeloniousMonk 19:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Archive No overhead needed.

Thanks, I was using the move function and was working it out. :) --DocJohnny 20:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Reading the "Portraying intelligent design as science" section, I see it lacks the ID viewpoint on specific points as to why ID qualifies as science. Here are the points. We need one or two sentences on each, with a link to a cite:
  1. intelligent design is externally consistent
  2. intelligent design is parsimonious
  3. intelligent design is falsifiable
  4. intelligent design is empirically testable
  5. intelligent design is correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive
Who wants to write these and has citable support with links handy? FeloniousMonk 22:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Ouch! Lol. As Mister Burns would say, "Exssssscellent!" --DocJohnny 01:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "claims"

Thanks for converting the "claims" in the ID article. I was going to do that myself, and just saw that you already did it. IMO, it makes the article sound much better. Kindly, David Bergan 05:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Anonymous Vandalism Notice

Please look into anonymous vandalism by IP 134.117.196.101: [2] Larvatus 21:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus

[edit] Bill Gothard

First, I noticed you know how to archive your talk page. It's odd that you would write on CDThieme's talk page that he should just blank it whenever he wants, ignoring and deleting other people's messages.

How can you say that I'm bowdlerizing Bill Gothard? I haven't deleted the information. All I did was scale it back. Everything can be summed up quite nicely and with nPOV in mind by the way I wrote it. --Jason Gastrich 07:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Heya

I've done another change to Intelligent design, and moved general criticism to be under ID debate. What do you think? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... possibly. Right now I'm just looking at stuff that should go together. Right now the structure seems to me to be all over the place... - Ta bu shi da yu 02:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Ya. I've just been reverted. Any chance of assistance here? Just a comment on the talk page would be OK. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] footnotes

Thanks for cleaning up after me when I moved things around. I remembered to fix the notes the first time I messed with them, but not the second. I'll try to do better.

Thanks for all your hard work, Dave (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia takes way too much time for my fall schedule. I may stay depending on how heavy my workload is next semester. Dave (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merry Christmas

I just wanted to wish you a Merry Christmas, all the best for the holidays. It's been fun working with you thelast couple of months, and I look forward to facing new trolls in the New Year. Guettarda 14:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mediator response: Faith and rationality

I have to admit that I endorse Sarek's view. There is nothing objectionable in there. Like other user said it seems a pretty balanced statement of the subject.

Don't put the neutrality dispute tag on the page, you may have your discussion about the things that are POV also on talk page. Bonaparte talk 15:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] My god you stopped the maddness

This is my sockpuppet, my real name is travb. The reverts and vandlism got so bad I decided to log off and use an anon, otherwise I could not make a plea for help.

Here is a list of what petral did, toward the end he was deleting everything I wrote, including stuff on my own talk page.Travb

Here is the list, it gets worse as you go down:

[edit] Summary deletion alert

Please take a look at a summary deletion executed by your fellow admin: [15]. It appears to run contrary to stated Wikipedia policy. Larvatus 17:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus


[edit] Notice of Abuse of Deletion Protocol

Thank you for attending to the previous notice of irregularity. Please take a look at the extraordilarily prolonged poll on deleting the articles for Larvatus. While the results registered within the standard five day period tally up in favor of keeping this article, a more recent flurry of votes for deleting it appears to have been coordinated with a personal vendetta conducted by your fellow admin, singling out nearly all aspects of my editorial contribution to, and commemoration by, Wikipedia. Larvatus 22:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus

  • As a followup on the above, please advise on the procedure for contesting apparent abuse of Wikipedia protocol involved in the deletion of Larvatus article. Larvatus 08:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus
    • To add more information, herewith a tabulation of time/date stamps on the votes presently accounted for:
    • Keep
    • 1. FeloniousMonk 08:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • 2. Jim62sch 10:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • 3. Autarch 17 December 2005 (UTC)
    • 4. Guettarda 16:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • 5. JJay 18:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • 6. Cberlet 23:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • 7. Plumbago (with qualifiers) 18:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • 8. RoyBoy 04:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete
    • 1. Jeffrey O. Gustafson 08:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • 2. jni 09:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • 3. Reyk 09:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • 4. Proto 15:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • 5. Twp Tim Pierce 19:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • 6. rodii 22:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • 7. Dschor (userfy) 22:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • 8. Eusebeus 10:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • 9. Daycd (David D.) 19 December 2005 (UTC)
    • 10. Karmafist 07:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
    • 11. Locke Cole 10:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
    • 12. Pierremenard (not signed in) 10:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
    • 13. Squibix 14:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
    • 14. Agnte 21:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
    • 15. Just zis Guy, you know? 22:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
    • 16. Gamaliel 02:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
    • 17. Zoe 03:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Please note that all but the first nine "Delete" votes were logged in outside of the five day discussion period mandated by the Wikipedia protocol. Whereas all eight votes counted as "Keep" fit within this period. Accordingly, the existing tabulation falls short of establishing the Wikipedia-mandated 2:1 consensus in favor of deletion. Larvatus 20:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus
      • As another data point, the vote tally arbitrarily disregarded a timely "Keep" vote properly logged in by user Tristes tigres at 22:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC). Since the user in question is a Wikipedian in good standing, the correct vote tally should count 9 Keeps against 9 Deletes. Larvatus 15:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus

[edit] Your accusations

There is nothing abusive about making a (disputable) call in discounting obvious and blatant meatpuppets or filing a good-faith RFC or making good-faith AFD nominations (all three nominations, I note, are being supported by a clear consensus.) If you have an issue with my conduct, I invite you to follow procedures and open an RFC. FCYTravis 03:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Opening an RFC would be something for User:Larvatus to do in this case, being the sole target of your recent actions for a number of days now. Were Larvatus to feel bullied enough by your multiple dubious AFDs and RFC against him and decide to invite community comment on your activities as they relate to him, I'd certainly voice my concerns there. FeloniousMonk 03:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
You have absolutely no standing to arbitrarily delist the valid and good-faith AFDs I opened on Erin Zhu, Scott Sandell and Subrah Iyar. That is a clear abuse of the deletion process and you will have an RFC filed against you if you do so. FCYTravis 03:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
It wasn't arbitrary. I not only have a right, but a responsibility to delist AFDs that I feel are relisted in bad faith solely to harass a single editor. Each of those articles is a product of User:Larvatus, who has expressed concern to me that you have singled him out and are bullying him by abusing Wikipedia processes like AFD and RFC. Looking over your recent history, I have to agree. I suggest you lay off AFDing Larvatus-related articles until this is settled. You'll find I don't respond well to threats, particularly ones coming from someone accused of bullying others. FeloniousMonk 03:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Accused of bullying by... you, and a user who I believe to be pushing a POV. I hardly consider those accusation founded in any sort of facts. You have yet to express any motive for this alleged "bullying" - Why would I care, except that I believe his insertions are damaging the encyclopedia? Your suggestions of "abuse" are ludicrous. It is hardly an abuse of Wikipedia processes to open an RFC on an issue that deserves notice, and if necessary I will file an RFAr on the issue to get a final determination. That is the very purpose of those processes, and it is out of order for you to suggest that engaging in the proper Wikipedia dispute resolution processes is in any way abusive. FCYTravis 03:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Larvatus' concerns seem to be justified by your history of AFD'ing each of his articles. If are not abusing process to harass that particular editor then you have nothing to worry about. But it, on the other hand, you are overly focusing on Larvatus and using process to exclude his participation at the project and to remove content you personally find distasteful, then that will become more apparent moving forward. Either way it will all come out in the end. FeloniousMonk 05:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
His articles were AfDed after I began looking into what I believe is a campaign of POV-pushing, and are part of my response to that campaign. All three are currently receiving a consensus to delete as unencyclopedic. You've yet to explain why I would possibly find anything "personally distasteful," or, if I wanted to "exclude his participation from the project," why I haven't so much as looked at his contributions to philosophy, etc. related articles. I'm sure he has the ability to contribute usefully on many subjects but I am strongly questioning his ability to objectively consider his own involvement in this apparent legal case and its treatment on Wikipedia. FCYTravis 05:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I see a pattern in the participation on those AFDs and your RFC. If true, that goes straight to the basis of the claim of harassment by you that was made. This situation bears watching. FeloniousMonk 06:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
A pattern of... what, finding, reverting and nominating unencyclopedic material for deletion? That's not harassment, that's good editing. Harassment would be following him around, reverting every single thing he's doing, attacking him on his talk page, blocking him, etc. I have done none of that. All I have done is work within channels to solve what I see as a problem. He has some good contributions (Mathematician manqué, for one), and unfortunately ones that I (and others) think are not so good. FCYTravis 06:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Harassment comprises a broad spectrum of activities, some more subtle than others. Harassment can and does often take the form of abuse of process and vexatious litigation. I genuinely hope that is not the case here. FeloniousMonk 06:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Seems to me that you're failing to assume good faith, in that you've yet to come up with a single plausible reason that I would be interested in spending hours upon hours to unjustly harass this person. You could assume that I'm just here to piss someone off - an assumption not supported by anything I've ever done on Wikipedia... or you could assume that I'm here to correct what I see - rightly or wrongly - as an issue with a user's ability to objectively edit articles on persons he has been involved in legal action and romantic difficulties with. Up to you to decide. FCYTravis 06:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Kindly apply your reasoning at home as regards assuming good faith. Assuming that you are not paid to assume the contrary. As you say, up to us to decide. Larvatus 06:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus
I assumed good faith until I discovered your personal involvement in the matter. "Paid to assume the contrary?" Now *I'm* part of some vast WebEx conspiracy? Oh, that's priceless. Pray tell, what evidence do you have to support your allegation? FCYTravis 06:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
How long did it take you to discover personal involvement that I openly declared and advertised from the start? By what reasoning did you connect personal involvement with bad faith? Who are you who are so wise in the ways of science? No, I am not attempting to tell you your duties. "But I'm having a lot of fun trying to guess what they are." Larvatus 07:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus
Yes, keep guessing what my "duties" are, given that my biography and employment information is available on my user page. FCYTravis 07:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I note your failure to reference sworn testimony and other verifiable evidence concerning your biography and employment relations. Larvatus 07:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus
My biography and employment relations are not the subject of a Wikipedia article, so you'll just have to take my word for it. Should I (God forbid) ever become encyclopedically notable, there are plenty of published references available. A Grand-Am Media Guide would be a good place to start if you were so inclined. FCYTravis 07:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


Does that primary source verify all employment relationships that you do not have? Larvatus 08:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus

[edit] Questions

I have some questions relating to the Larvatus RfC, you may be able to answer them. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Larvatus#Cross-claim. --bainer (talk) 04:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Done. Please see my response.Larvatus 06:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus

[edit] Kitzmiller v. Dover

It's taking me a while to get fully into Kitzmiller v. Dover, but the more I read the more it looks like a complete vindication of all the work you've put into the intelligent design articles. Thanks, and enjoy the festivities. ....dave souza 10:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar Cluster

Great research
JM cleaning up with style!
Hard work
FeloniousMonk

06:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

We award a Barnstar and the Barnstar of diligence to FeloniousMonk for his great work on Intelligent design related articles. We recognise his seemingly inexhaustive efforts[1] in keeping the articles free from vandalism[2][3] and overzealousness[4] and applaud his efforts to provide detailed sources.[5] As anything worth doing can be difficult, FeloniousMonk if you need further help you can count on us to assist you.
– RoyBoy, KillerChihuahua, Parallel or Together?, Ec5618, dave souza, Dunc, Bill Jefferys, Guettarda, Jim62sch, WAS 4.250, Plumbago, Samsara

References:

[edit] Users who endorse this award

Users who endorse this award (sign with # ~~~~):

  1. User:A ghost 14:21, 27 December 2005

[edit] Request for arbitration

I have filed a Request for arbitration in the matter of the Min Zhu allegations, to determine a final outcome in this dispute, as I believe the edit-warring has gone on long enough. I bear no ill will, I simply believe this is the only way to come to a conclusion either way. FCYTravis 05:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nice one

Nice barnstar, and well-deserved. ;-D Congratulations. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Artwork

The artwork, which is indeed outstanding, was done by dave souza. As one would expect from a WP effort, the concept was a collaborative effort. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

<blush> Click on the image and all is revealed! Ideas from all, special thanks to KC for suggesting the monk and mop concept. ..dave souza 17:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I wonder if we could get Dave to do a Scots version of the award?  :) Jim62sch 12:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Congrats

A well deserved award that I was honored to participate in the bestowment of. FM, you've been a great help to me just by your example of calm, cool-headed behaviour when confronted with countless slings and arrows of outrageouness! Happy Holidays, and I hope the coming year finds all of us collaborating on other worthwhile projects. Take care! Jim62sch 11:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Naturalism

Just to draw your attention to developments at naturalism (philosophy) where Daelin is making a worthy attempt to clarify usage of materialism in reference to science, and has written a draft which could help, but which may run the danger of becoming a POV fork. ...dave souza 19:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Please see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 12 2005 Second Law of Thermodynamics. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mediator response

The edits on Creationism should be put in other places. Mainly this is on physics topics and there are a lot of other possibilities to create new articles on Creationism and relationship with/or/and second law of thermodynamics. I am waiting your response.

  • I suggest you create new articles for Creationism and relationship with/or/and second law of thermodynamics and let the article of second law of thermodynamics free of ambiguous links. -- Bonaparte talk 13:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WebEx and Min Zhu has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WebEx and Min Zhu/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WebEx and Min Zhu/Workshop. Fred Bauder 01:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marsden indef. block

Hi FeloniousMonk, Wikipedia's blocking policy states that permanent blocks for troublesome users should have community support. As you can see by the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Marsden, there isn't complete support for a permanent block. Therefore, I suggest you file an request for arbitration about this issue. I've undone your permanent block and changed it to 16 January 2005. Cheers, Talrias (t | e | c) 03:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you've misjudged. There's very strong and broad support for an indefinite block of Marsden, and from far more senior, responsible and dependable contributors than those who oppose it. RFAr is not an option here. Marsden views RFAr as a platform for personal attacks, not dispute resolution, thus the only thing to be gained in going through that process is further disruption. He has also initiated conflicts with enough of the arbcomm which require their recusal that RFAr is problematic. Those conflicts have extended off the site and into personal lives, which is far beyond anything excusable. He is such a chronic malcontent that you have one arbcomm member and one very senior sysop saying the outcome of an RFAr would be no different than an indefinite block. FeloniousMonk 05:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
And today the arbcom turned down a request for them to review. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
That people support a permanent block is fine, of course, but I prefer to see some kind of due process being followed to ensure that only people who really deserve to be blocked permanently are blocked permanently. I prefer that people deserving of permanent blocks are reviewed by the Arbitration Committee to make a fair decision. I hope you understand my position. Cheers, Talrias (t | e | c) 11:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly lost in the shuffle

The bit of the ID article about "neocreationist pseudoscience" had a small flurry of edits, resulting in this. I just wanted to make sure that's what your intention was. Dave (talk) 22:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

As my edit summary said, it is not necessary in the intro. The passage was an editorial aside. Not only did it incorrectly qualify all objections of ID being pseudoscience as "neocreationist," it introduces a factoid covered in the following paragraph, the court ruling. The into as it stood for months now is tight, accurate, neatly phrased and symetrical. Any edits should improve on that, not detract. FeloniousMonk 23:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Just checking. I wasn't sure what your take was on the word "neocreationist." I thought your edit summary was referring to the trial. Dave (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
The problem was the hysterical response to anything tainted by Marshill, not the suggestions themselves. As I have asked repeatedly, if you have an objection to anything on the list, I encourage you to tell me about it on the talk page. Dave (talk) 23:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
No, the complete absence of reason and understanding from Marshill's objections was the reason. Resurrecting them was clearly a bad idea. FeloniousMonk 23:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Attacks

Thanks for your note. Please note that it's not a personal attack when it's true and fair comment on a person's conduct. Unbehagen 15:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is still a personal attack. Claims of "but it true!!!" are no defence. Jayjg (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SS's complaints re: Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006

Hello FeloniousMonk: I am not quite sure what to make of Sam Spade's arguments at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006, perhaps you could look into it. Thanks. IZAK 08:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My actions over Marsden's block duration

Hi, FeloniousMonk, I have created an RFC on myself so you can express any comments you have about my actions regarding the block duration of Marsden. I've attempted to fairly summarise the events and I've justified my actions. Based on the outcome of the comments given on the RFC, I'll take appropriate action afterwards. Thanks in advance for any comments you make. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A ghost's confusion...

I seem to be working at cross purposes to you on the intro and Disambig to ID. How can I better work with you? I'm convinced that the intro is confusing to many readers. Recent posts on the Talk bear this out. I'm further convinced that a clear, concise intro will reduce vandalism and increase stability. But you and I seem to not be meshing on how best to do this. Please drop me a line.--ghost 23:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the intro to the article is factual, well-crafted, and well-supported, despite whatever you or anyone else may think of it. The article defines the topic using the every words of not just the leading ID authorities, but the group from which ID originated and is still driven by.
To say that ID is anything other than that it's the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from an intelligent cause or agent, as opposed to an unguided process such as natural selection." [1] is an excerise in denying the obvious. You'd going to have to explain away mountains of evidence, not least of which is the endorsement of that definition by every leading ID proponent (by the simple fact of their status as fellows of the Discovery Institue).
ID is what it's leading proponents say it is; if you have a problem with that, take it up with the Discovery Institute, not me. I only insist that we report what they say. FeloniousMonk 05:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:A_ghost"
I agree that the into is factual and well-supported. Many Users and Anons are concerned that the way it's crafted is unclear. Philosophically, I disagree with the idea of allowing a political group to define the topic. This allows them to frame the debate. The equivalent (forgive my choice of analogy, but it leaps to mind) would be to open the Abortion article with a quote that was not clearly marked as such from either Operation Rescue or NOW. And if we do choose to open with a quote, we must at least put it in quotation marks to identify it as such.
I'm not interested in explaining away mountains of anything. But I also do not care to shut the door on other opinions of ID. That's the DI's goal, and I don't care to help them achieve it. I absolutely agree that we must report what they say. But, like you, I don't want the intro or the article to be regurgitated DI propaganda. We owe the readers a clear explaination.
You're the best editor I know on this subject. Please show me how to address the concerns of others and myself.--ghost 14:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, before the Discovery Institute and its political footing and clout, Stephen C. Meyer, Phillip E. Johnson and others formulated a plan for broad social reform that centered on ID, and created the Center for Science and Culture at Meyer's Discovery Institute to implement it [16].
The fact remains that all leading ID proponents are Discovery Institute staff or fellows, making the institute the center of all things "intelligent design." You can no more separate ID from its proponents than you can separate the catechism from the Vatican. The sooner you and readers understand that, the sooner you will begin to understand ID. FeloniousMonk 16:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Then why is there a distinction between Intelligent Design and Intelligent design movement? If we're going to bow to the whims of a PAC, we should give credit where it's due. The fact that "...all leading ID proponents are Discovery Institute staff or fellows." is moot. It existed in whatever usage before the DI, it was hijacked by them, it'll be around in some shape or another 100 years from now. I'm sorry that my frustration is showing, but this wasn't and isn't allowed with your example of Catechism. Similarly with fringe movements like the John Birch Society, or Scientology. You seem to advocate special treatment for the Discovery Institute. What am I missing?--ghost 16:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Re: Your recent similar post on the ID:Talk page. I am disturbed by the use of recent Google and media references to back up a position about ID. If one digs deeply enough into them, it's revealed that many of those "sources" list this article as a source (including both sides in the Dover case). Thus, we create an echo chamber using such references. This is why I think it's so key to segregate the DI's spin on ID from more open interpretations.--ghost 17:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
"It existed in whatever usage before the DI, it was hijacked by them" So it's a conspiracy theory now, I see. Right.
To make your reasoning stick, you'd have to prove that "intelligent design" indeed did exist before the Discovery Institute and the Foundation for Thought and Ethics published Of Pandas and People, which it didn't (the teleological argument did, but not "intelligent design"). Or, you'd have to prove that the Discovery Institute is not behind intelligent design both as a concept (remember, every single leading ID proponent is institute staff or a fellow) as well as a movement. And just proclaiming that fact "moot" is not going to cut it. You'd need to overcome a lot of evidence that nearly all advocacy for the intelligent design concept springs forth from the institute.
To start with, you should explain how Judge Jones gets it all wrong in his Memorandum Opinion to the Kitzmiller ruling . It seems to me that you really need to do a lot more reading of objective sources on the topic before trying to dictate what is and isn't ID and who is and isn't relevant and raising a fuss in so doing. Creationism's Trojan Horse would be a good place to at least start, or The Wedge at Work and Intelligent Design Theory and Biola University if you want a free source. Either way, your confusion arises out of your lack of knowledge about the ID concept's origin and the fact that ID proponents skilfully seek to promote and exploit that ambiguity.
The reason why there's a separate Intelligent design movement article is because the movement content was too long to accommodate at the ID article, but you already knew this as you were around at that time the daughter movement article was created.
So, until which time you can prove that the concept known as "intelligent design" did not come to it's current position largely by the efforts of the Discovery Institute, there's little reason to continue discussing this issue, both here and at Talk:Intelligent design. FeloniousMonk 17:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
<"This is why I think it's so key to segregate the DI's spin on ID from more open interpretations."> These "more open interpretations" you speak of are not significant viewpoints within ID, and often are part of ID proponents exploiting the ambiguity they've cultivated around the topic to dodge criticisms. All leading ID proponents accept the institutes's definition and role: Prove that they don't. NPOV policy explicitly calls for viewpoints to be represented in proportion to their significance, and this is exactly what the article does. Again, unless it's proved conclusively that the Discovery Institute is not the leading ID think tank (which is a fact since ID both the concept and subsequent movement sprung forth from the institute and all leading lights of ID "theory" are institute members), then they get to define what ID both and in the real world and here. And also again, unless you are willing to acknowledge what is widely accepted as fact as being so, or least even read as extensively on the topic as have other long term contributors, then this discussion serves little purpose and is wasting good time. FeloniousMonk 18:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

(reduce) It's fascinating and unfortunate that two people who agree on so much can disagaree on so much. You're a good editor, and not a waste of time. And I flatter myself to think the same of me. Although I've read the links you've provide in the past and recently, I agree that arguing the minutia is silly. By way of establishing other opinions of the term "Intelligent Design", let me give you a few links in return, and then we'll agree to disagree on the minutia.

You were frank about your feelings, so I'll return the favor. You support this POV about the definition of ID (and other things) in the article and on the Talk page with strength and laser beam focus. That's admirable. However, it could be viewed as POV pushing and Owning an article. I don't think that's your intent. But that's clearly the way other Users feel. I'm trying to better understand things so that I can attempt to help them reach consensus with you. It's occurred to me that you may not welcome this informal mediation. But if we're no longer interested in working with other editors, something is badly wrong.--ghost 18:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I've long given up on reaching consensus with those who've shown themselves to be chronic malcontents. Particularly those who are here with an ideological ax to grind and view wikipedia and the ID article in particular as a vehicle for advocacy and dissembling. The long-term, responsible editors who respect the project's goals have been burned by them each and every time, either in the form of hurtful personal attacks or massive amounts of time wasted in responding to objections made in bad faith. WP:FAITH can only cover so much disruption, and as the saying goes the assume good policy is not a suicide pact.
I'm here to write accurate, factual, and complete articles. To that end I've always insisted on reporting facts regardless of wherever they take us; nothing more, nothing less. As for any editor's personal opinion that I've taken ownership of the article, their opinion will need to align with the facts found in the article's edit history [17] or it's just another unfounded opinion which I (and any other objective editor) will reject. A wiser man once told me that it's easy to make accusations, but it's far more difficult to make them credibly. FeloniousMonk 19:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
That is good advice. I may disagree with you from time to time, but it's good to know we share the same goals. I'll looks deeper into your hypothesis of the DI's right to define ID. I disagree with it on principle, but I respect that it may be a windmill instead of a giant. Thank for for taking the time to hash this out with me.--ghost 20:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
You may find this light reading a good start: [18] [19]. And something a little more weighty: [20]FeloniousMonk 21:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Not to interrupt, gentlemen, but let's try this. Look up the word "theory", the word "entropy" and the word "evolution." Note the number of definitions for each. Note that only one is the "scientific" definition for each word. Same would be true of ID, which happens to be what the article discusses (not that I think ID is science, but I think you both know that), the "science" (psedoscience) of ID. Whether or not it shows up in an ad for a product, noting how intelligently designed the product is, is something of no relevance to the article. Jim62sch 21:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The point of the first two meaningful links were regarding the usage of Intelligent Design to refer to a school of product and software design. (Something I'm dealing with everyday.) The Mac, iMac and later the iPod are considered crowning achievements of that school of thought. There are/were several other usages as well, but as FM points out, they're quickly become buried in the debate over the politics of ID. *sigh* I told you I was a hopeless idealist, Jim... ;-) --ghost 21:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the link. Please, forgive my lack of skills. ;-) --ghost 19:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] de naturum

check out my link if you can. If I use the pipe the proper way, it won'ty coinnect. If I move it over a space it works by leaves the pipe on the page, Jim62sch 21:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It's an external link, that's why. Also, we're using footnotes for external links in that article. I'll fix it for you. FeloniousMonk 21:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Odd thing is, that method worked fine in the articles I wrote on the Great Railroad Strike of 1877 and Kazimierz Zorawski. (unless I was leaving an extra bracket in there on the ID page)

[edit] ID Mediation request

Hi Marshill, Jim62sch and FeloniousMonk,

I notice that no mediator has yet responded to the request at WP:RFM/ID. Is there still a desire from the relevant parties to hold a mediation? If so, let me know, if not, I'll delete the request. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 22:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries

Hi FM, I noticed this edit summary in passing "rv. Stop trolling Ben" [21]. While I agree with your revert, I don't believe he's trolling so much as making a genuine, if misguided, attempt to add value. You're free to disagree with me, and who knows, you may be right. But what would it cost to be neutral in your edit summary anyway? Regards, Ben Aveling 07:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

First time he did it one could assume good faith, but by the FM used that edit summary Ben's changes had been reverted by two other people and Ben had been warned that he was being disruptive. By the time FM used that edit summary Ben was obviously trolling. Guettarda 07:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
It's trolling if the main reason he's doing it is to get a reaction. As far as I can tell, what he most wants to do is make some changes to the article. He's frustrated and doesn't know what to do because he doesn't understand why you keep rejecting his changes, and he's become convinced that you're collectively out to get him. Maybe he is trolling. But only he knows that for sure. I don't. You don't. Neither does FM. If he is trolling, 'warning' him isn't going to make him stop. And if he isn't trolling, then accusing him of trolling isn't likely to get the reaction you want either, unless the desired reaction is an explosion. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
It's nice of you to make excuses for such a foul-mouthed person (it's really fun to work with someone who calls you a "shit" and a liar, and lots that's much worse), but if Ben were actually doing what you claim he was doing, why would be use dishonest edit summaries and revert war? As far as desired reactions go - I would much rather never have to edit the same page as someone who acts as disgustingly as Ben does - I feel soiled just editing the same page as him. He's there to make trouble, to launch personal attacks, to insult me and Slim and Jim and everyone else who doesn't share his narrow religious beliefs. It doesn't take a mind-reader to see through that sort of behaviour and call it what it is. Trolling is too kind a term - most trolls don't behave as badly as Ben does. Guettarda 08:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] teleological argument in ID

FM, I've argued in the middle of "Distingushing Philosophical ID (TE) from the DI's Pseudo-Scientific ID" in the ID talk page that ID proponents DO agree that it is a form of teleological argument. Since no one contested that for several days, I added the phrase about teleological argument that you immediately deleted. The TA is not necessarily an argument for God (despite what teleological argument says or used to say); it's usually seen as starting with Plato, and essentially argues for a creator. Please reply to my ID talk comment or start a new section, and we'll go from there.--ragesoss 18:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ID re-write

The ID article was put up for FA status in October and failed. This at ;least suggests that it's not quite pefect yet. Hence my proposal for a re-write.

I do sympathise with your feeling that a re-write would merely open up a whole can of worms. I certainly don't want to see that. What I do want to see is an article whcih could become a featured article.

You make the point that I'm new to the topic and have no background in it. True. But I also have no ax to grind. If you want to see me waxing indignant, see what I wrote recently on the Ark article. But here, I'm not indignant. I am (I hope) cool and detached. And detachment is, I think, what's needed.

What I have to offer to the ID article is not expertise, but a specific skill: the skill of a professional writer. I make my meagre living as a freelance writer. Mostly of anodyne articles for magazines and the features pages of the Saturday papers, though I've also done books. But the real point is, I know how to shape material for an audience.

Let's wait and see what the community says.

PiCo 04:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Will email you

Hello, I rv for a good reason. Sorry about not letting you know why? I will email you to discuss it.--FloNight 18:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Larvatus

You say the court depositions support Larvatus' statements. Would you please do me the favour of letting me know which of them supports the allegation of rape. Thus far I am about a quarter of the way through and have found only one document directly relating to allegations of rape - in that document, Erin Zhu states on oath that she lied to Zeleny when she told him her father had raped her, and that no rape took place. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ID

You've quickly reverted some anon edits just as I was about to restore overwhelming and leave the rest which looked reasonable to my admittedly limited awareness of the subject - perhaps worth reconsidering? Also, earlier an attempt was made to remove the pseudoscience category, which was reverted with a reference to archived discussions. Talk:Intelligent design/Archive24#I've been bold and (hopefully) defused the situation: ended with my comment that "if the ID category stays under pseudoscience there seems to be no reason for it to be separately categorised as such here" - that seems to have been achieved, and the Creationism category has just today ceased to be a subcategory of pseudoscience after exhaustive talk. IMHO removing the separate pseudoscience cat from ID pages is now reasonable given ID as a subcat of pseudoscience. ...dave souza 08:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attack page

Do you think it warrants mention at AN/I? Guettarda 16:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. And any futher instances of trolling the ID-related articles should be removed and notice given there as well. FeloniousMonk 16:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Did you see Rousseau is actually on the list? Rousseau has posted what, half a dozen times, and been unfailingly polite to her. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
She's clearly just trolling us again. Report it and ignore. FeloniousMonk 19:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Report it to whom? Seriously. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
WP:AN/I. FeloniousMonk 19:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I am tempted to fix her list... Do you think someone should tell her ghost is before Guettarda when alphabetizing? KillerChihuahua?!? 19:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'd like to fix her list too. FeloniousMonk 19:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, you do realize she moved the list to her user page, she did not delete it - although she has currently merged her POV and NPOV into one Contributors, and the commentary stands. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
No, I didn't see that. That changes things. FeloniousMonk 02:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I think she's being ridiculous. In the first place, I haven't done a single edit on the ID page. Others added/edited the distinction between ID and TE while I was waiting for input about my suggestion-request in the ID and TE talk pages. And my other suggestion-requests were deemed unnecessary (which I didn't take personally). I really never edited the ID article so I am not an ID contributor.
Why am I listed as an ID contributor and why in the world am I labeled as "the brains of the outfit"? I even still forget to log in, not to mention forget to sign my posts and it took me several hours before I realized what KC was talking about. Plus, I haven't even figured out how to add a paragraph to my userpage without making the userboxes go screwy.Lovecoconuts 09:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I think, to be honest, that she (Endomion) is just being mean. You've been honest about having trouble figuring some things out, and she's being sarcastic. Well, we've all had trouble figuring one thing or another out, anyone who claims otherwise is not being honest, but she's using it as a sarcastic put-down. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Already posted at your talkpage, KC. Have to admit that communicating this way is confusing. Again - yeah - now the brains bit makes A LOT more sense if we take it in a sarcastic way. Seriously, the literal idea of me being the brains of the outfit is just nuts, coconuts even. In fact, I'd say she was the one who started that mess. I don't know - maybe she's one of those people who secretly likes it when everyone is against her. A martyrdom complex.

Self-victimization

In another usage, martyr complex is the tendency to feel that one is being singled out for persecution. It is often characterized by the belief that one's persecution is the result of exceptional integrity. - Lovecoconuts 10:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Thanks for supporting my Rfa, Felonious! I figured out what the "thing or two" that I taught you are: mouseover suspiciously wikilinked words, and how to determine from gender-specific pronoun what an editor's likely gender might be - Am I right? The puppy is now an Admin (final tally 58/7/2) Please let me know if there is anything I can ever do to assist you. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Various

Actually Radiant! deleted the RFC (see my and his talk page) - I meant to re-instate it, but was didnt get around to it. On another matter - if ant is so happy with the ID article,and inasmuch as there have been a good few changes, I was wondering if you were considering re-listing it as a FAC. Guettarda 20:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC on Theodore7

Thank you for endorsing Bishonen's outside view in this RfC. Is there any reason why you did not endore the statement of the dispute as well? Cheers, —Ruud 20:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anittas

Hi! I just want to let you know that I'm thinking of starting an RfArb regarding Anittas' actions, since he made a number of personal attacks not only to Node but also to me, User:Orioane and a number of others, even after his second RfC. The evidence for a potential RfArb is here. Hopefully this issue will be resolved. I personally have tried talking to Anittas countless times, in good faith, but he doesn't seem to understand. Numerous other users have done the same thing. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 07:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The rollback button

You wrote at Wikipedia:Admin_accountability_poll in the discussion about the rollback button that

There's no difference between three or four clicks and one. Net effect is always the same.

I perfectly agree that there is no difference for the admin involved. There is a big difference however for the person being reverted. The rollback is associated too much with vandalism fighting that nonadmins will feel very offended if their edits are reverted as if they were vandal, and without explanation. That is to say, an admin should be sensible enough to not use the rollback button against edits which are not plain vandalism. That's just a perspective, because I feel very strongly about the issue. :) You can reply here if you have any comments. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but like I said, the net effect is always the same. My experience has been that in the end, whether it took me four clicks or one to remove an edit, whether I leave a thorough edit summary or not, it doesn't just make much of a difference either way to the person being reverted. We seem to get the same indignant response regardless. In my experience, the only people who actually care much are a few fellow admins. I appreciate your concern, but there's little consensus on the value of limiting the use of the rollback button to simple vandalism, as we're seeing at the poll. FeloniousMonk 03:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I would aruge that your methodoligy is flawed. :) Yeah, nothing will satisfy POV pushers and loud users. However, you may never hear from good quiet editors who made a good faith edit and who got reverted by an admin too lazy to explain himself/herself.
And if anything, the consensus on that poll leans towards using common sense in case-by-case situations, rather than towards unlimited use of the rollback button. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Gastrich

Hey Felonious, Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs) has a troublesome and disruptive history, from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Gastrich on up. The latest bit of vote-stacking on his articles puffing the diploma mill he is associated with (Louisiana Baptist University) is bad IMO because people I normally find reasonably reliable (e.g. User:Hall Monitor) seem to have been sucked into helping him.

This is the latest lot: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27] and so on. Also this [28] appears to violate WP:CIVIL

I don't quite know what to do about it, though. Any ideas? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 11:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I am concerned by Gastrich's use of external means to further his agenda on Wikipedia. See here and feel free to expand or advise. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 00:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Note, also, that Gastrich posted a couple of comments, then disappeared, and an AOL IP reverted FM's citation of Inerrancy Exposed, calling it a "personal web page." It's clearly Gastrich. - WarriorScribe 06:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
New probable sockpuppet Wiggins2 (talk · contribs) - Felonious, you've been around a while, do you think we can justify a Checkuser on this? I've flagged it as a suspected sock anyway (see the contribs) - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 09:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
See also [29] - if the sock and the IP are indeed Gastrich then that's a 3RR violation. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 09:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I absolutely think checkuser is justified. Especially when we have a proven pattern of vote stacking and various puppetry already. FeloniousMonk 16:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Is there nothing that can be done to stop Jason Gastrich's vote recruiting? This sort of thing is almost beyond belief. He claims he hasn't violated any policies, and as far as I can see he's right, but the man's a biblical inerrancist (or whatever the noun is); knowing the letter of the law back to front and knowing nothing of the spirit is his job. If I was an admin of good standing I'd be half inclined to say 'I ignore all (lack of) rules, go away', but I'm not. It isn't that the articles up for deletion might be kept that annoys me, because most of these people probably do write enough stuff to get past the guidelines. I'm of the opinion that no-one pays much attention to the vast majority of academics except themselves, whether they're English professors from Oxford or Bible Studies professors from LBU. But the possibility that other people might start imitating Gastrich worries me. I don't want to start getting messages saying "Hey! I saw you're a cat lover! Please vote on my article about my pet Mittens!" --Malthusian (talk) 01:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Hysterical! In retaliation, Gastrich just ran through Wiki to find as many atheists as he could to try to delete! Amazing! - WarriorScribe 04:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, enough is enough. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Now moving to RFAr. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BP

Hi. I made this revision to your edit. Can you comment? [[Sam Korn]] 19:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with those comments. The trouble is finding wording that accurately represents what everyone feels. I don't think the wording of this policy actually is going to make a big difference. I can agree to your suggestion, but I think that the point you're making is actually not particularly important. If the user is exercising caution, they don't need to be blocked. If the user is exercising caution, they won't be profligate with unsourced or copyright violation images. However, I am quite happy to live with your version. [[Sam Korn]] 20:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Cool. I'm glad we've come to a workable solution! [[Sam Korn]] 20:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] vandaalism

Hey man can you help me? User:zanimum and his sockpuppet have added fair use images to their user page but vandalised my user page for doimg so. This is the message they leave. Please block them Ferall 05:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Block for fairuse? I'll look into it, but warnings are usually the first step. If you just want a summary block, you might find someone will here here. FeloniousMonk 06:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
It's a little more complicated than Ferall makes it out to be. He, along with Zanimum2 and Booren, are sockpuppets of Batzarro. I deleted fair use images from both users' pages, and explained fair use policy points 2, 7, 8, 9 to them. They continued, and continued, and continued. Anyway, the situation seems to be turning out fine in the end. -- user:zanimum
Also forgot the sockpuppet Kooorooo. -- user:zanimum

[edit] Heya

Interested in using a new footnoting system? It's a thousand times easier to use. It's <ref> and if you look at Windows 2000 it's got a good example of it in use. I ws thinking we need to convert Intelligent Design to the new system. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check it out. We need something better than what we've been using; at 70+ footnotes, it's getting unwieldy. FeloniousMonk 07:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your bad faith nomination

Hello,, sir.

When you nominated American_College_of_Medical_Technology for deletion[30], you said the following, "Minor diploma mill. Notable only for being a "problem school", and even then, just barely. Another non-notable from our most prolific creator of articles on non-notables. FeloniousMonk 22:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)"

Where do you get off saying this college is a diploma mill? Is this just a bald-faced lie or do you have some proof? The entry plainly says it's accredited by a legitimate accrediting agency and it's easily verifiable.

You should recant this bull-puckey or you're going to look even sillier than you've been looking, lately.. From what I've seen, you've been guilty of admin abuse. Turkmen 05:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

See American_College_of_Medical_Technology#Controversy. Is the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce not a good enough source for you? Guettarda 06:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
It should be noted that FeloniousMonk's solution to his gaffe was to warn me on my talk page.
Nothing in that section says anything about a diploma mill. Is FM able to defend his own comments or are you a sockpuppet/meatpuppet of his? --Turkmen 18:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Coming here with your tone and allegations was a gaffe alright. FeloniousMonk 18:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Are you trying to be witty or truthful? --Turkmen 02:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I just want to know which admin FM's been abusing! Do we need to start a shelter for abused admins???? Mark K. Bilbo 22:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
We could call it the Wolseley Centre, after the socks. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 22:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Wolseley on WHEELS! or is that too redundant? KillerChihuahua?!? 22:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article question

I look in on Intelligent design once in a while. I just took the time to read Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Intelligent design but I still do not understand why Intelligent design is not a featured article. The "reasons" given for the objections baffle me. Do you feel like any of the objections raised were valid reasons for not allowing featured status? --JWSchmidt 23:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your analysis of the situation with me. I must confess that I have never paid any attention to the featured article criteria, which I just read for the first time. It seems that some of the objections raised can be matched to criteria that are used for deciding on featured articles, such as:

(e) "stable" means that an article does not change significantly from day to day (apart from improvements in response to reviewers' comments) and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars

and this comment from the featured article discussion,

"Any such article, such as this one or Creation science, will involve too much hostility and uncivil editing, and so is not likely to get to Featured Article status"

Unfortunately, I do not pay enough attention to the Intelligent design page to know to what extent it is "the subject of ongoing edit wars" nor do I know if articles about controversial topics are automatically denied featured article status. It seems like the real goal is to identify "particularly well-written and complete Wikipedia articles", and I think Intelligent design is such an article.

Maybe what needs to be done is to create a new category of articles called "particularly well-written, complete and controversial Wikipedia articles". --JWSchmidt 01:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been looking through the list of featured articles. If Space opera in Scientology doctrine can be featured article, then it seems like Intelligent design can be too. --JWSchmidt 04:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah, but surely many people would object to describing such a controversial article as 'complete'. This is a major annoyance, in my book, especially since most people shy away from such controversial articles, leaving a dedicated few editors, of which several will always be too dedicated. The ID article may never be recognised officially.
Did you hear though? Jimbo Wales called the article well written, and a good example of the Wikipedia spirit (I'm paraphrasing) on a radio programme. And we can all agree privately that it's a shame this article isn't Featured. -- Ec5618 01:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WebEx and Min Zhu/Proposed decision

There is some thought that in addition to remedies regarding Larvatus in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WebEx and Min Zhu/Proposed decision there is a need to make remedies with regard to you. My reaction was that you can be expected to respect the decision (should it come out as proposed). Any comments? Fred Bauder 21:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ive tbeen triing to get ahold of you

to ask why it was that you barred me. I havent recieved any reply. I would like to ask again, but I should remind you that barring somebody is meant as a preventative measure not a punitive one. you seemed to be doing it for no othe reason than to teach me a lesson...if this is not the case please let me know, but I will submit that after confronting user:Pamento several times I have not been able to keep him from proudly announcing that I am not an ass-hole on his discussion page, and nothing has been done to stop it, but when I confrount a editor promoting child endangerment/ possible molestation it would seem that you went bezerk. Again I should state that Im sure you are not triing to present yourself as a enourmous jack-ass but some reader may be be given that oppinion of you if you present yourself with such a hypocritical authoritative voice...again Im sure it was an over-sight on your part, but I thought it best to let you know. Please respond on my discussion page as going from editor to editor has become quite a burden on me. Thanks for your commentspickelbarrel the giant ASSHOLE 19:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)19:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

1) I'm not likely to respond to rude e-mails, 2) my notice of you being temporarily blocked already explained that you were blocked for violating WP:NPA. Not that your time out has come and gone, you may want to consider moderating your language and tone if you want to continue participating. FeloniousMonk 19:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zhu Forbes article

Hello FM, : - ) As things stand now, I'm going to continue editing these articles after arb comm. For Zhu, I suppose the Forbes article is a good place to start. Should I put it on talk page of Zhu or in the article? --FloNight 19:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

As an aside, I think the articles are both looking good right now. The astute reader can see the tightrope which is being walked - a good job of consensus editing :-) Removal of tags is fine by me. Just zis Guy you know? 00:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] although you stated I made a personal attack you FAILED to mention where

If there is someplace where I attacked someone personally then I will appologize, but I cant seem to figure out what in the name of Jesus H Christ your referring to. It would be better if you explained yourself in abit more detail...Also I noticed that when you barred me you didn't seem to give a [rats-ass]] about the person who posted I was a DICKHEAD right above your post. It would seem that blatantly calling somebody a dickhead would be somehow in violation of your said rules...I suppose you just didnt notice that, but I must tell you that some people might regard the fact that you selectively bar people for thier voice as if you were behaving like a hypocritical shit-head and while Im sure this is not the case I do feel you should ask yourself if you have done your best to listen to both sides of the story. I think perhaps you were a bit quick to jump into the fray without finding out what was really going on. I forgive you for that, it has happened to me as well, only I was doing it to protect a child. Anyway, I suppose you must have missed the part where I politely asked you to respond on my page(or not at all if you feel we have nothing to say to one another) but I will ask again for you to please respond in this manner so I dont have to go traipsin all over hells half acre to respond to every single person. Also If you felt my emails were in someway rude I appologize(I dont even reemeber what I sent) but you have to realize that asfter being repeatedly attacked without given the reasons for the attack I was feeling a bit hostile. Anyway I will say I am sorry, as Im sure you are for any hostile feelings that occured as a result of our interactionpickelbarrel the giant ASSHOLE 22:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If you cannot respond without threatening me..

I think that it is best to just not respond at all... I see no reason to harbor ill feelings, and I think that you will find that when Im left to my own devices, without being accousted I am most agreeable, with the one noteable acception of when I thought a childs safety was concerned...if however you choose to respond in a nonthreatening way I will read your comments without prejudice. Again I thank you for your timepickelbarrel the giant ASSHOLE 23:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You should bar the self proclamed asshole forever!--Pamento 00:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus version?

re: Jonathan Sarfati. Concensus, in Talk, is being reached for the version you just reverted from. Please re-rv after checking talk. Thanks agapetos_angel 06:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, see m:Wrong version. According to Guettarda's edit summaries, the version of I reverted to is the one that the majority supports. Talk page seems to bear that out. FeloniousMonk 07:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry FM, but you're incorrect. See the discussion between myself and Alai. Guettarda whitewashed the consensus with the removal of 220's addition. I have made the changes that Alai and I are agreeing on (and apologize that my note to you to come to talk because the version you changed to is not CON; an inadvertent rv)agapetos_angel 07:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC) NB the link, is this where I "insist they immediately revert to the right version" (laugh). "You have "protected The Wrong Version". The "dreadful consequences of the page remaining on The Wrong Version" (laugh again) is that it is moving it away from the compromises and concessions to an old version. Thanks 07:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding your comments about POV pushing

You said:

It's becoming increasing apparent that a particular editor here is not interested in following WP:NPOV and is pushing the usual creationist pov, inflating credentials and obscuring/removing criticisms, etc. For example, arguing and revert warring to insert a factually inaccurate intro implying that Sarfati's notability is as a chemist and chess master, two things for which Sarfati is completely unnotable. Google proves that Sarfati is known for being a creationist, nothing else. [31] Conducting a pov campaign disrespects the project's aims and wastes the time of good faith contributors; it is disruptive and is highly frowned upon by the community. The relevant party needs to step back and consider their actions and goals at this article in light of WP:NPOV and adjust their behavior accordingly. FeloniousMonk 17:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

FM, I can only think that you must be addressing me as a particular editor here by the accusations you present (and would have appreciated that courtesy on my talk page). Would you please address, then, why the verifiability section above [32] (easier to read in the recapped version [33], but I would ask that replies are made in the first to keep the second clear as to the nature of the dispute; thanks) is an invalid complaint? Do you think it is POV-pushing for a particular editor here to point out policy isn't being followed? Why do you think that it is the usual creationist POV (and isn't that complaint, in itself, a POV?)? Have you looked at the (nearly resolved) dispute I had on the Ham and AiG USA articles where, although it was still regarding the following of proper sourcing, it would probably be considered anti-creationist POV pushing to the average (creationist) reader? Perhaps you should step back for a moment and see the big picture, rather than assuming malice where none exists? Or do you automatically assume 'evil creationist conspiracy' (tm)? Why is it important to 'beat up on the editor' (see the section on bullying, the section on affiliated parties, and this section) in a personal manner, rather than addressing the actual point(s) that policy isn't being adhered to? agapetos_angel 23:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I read that and thought of the sockmeister himself :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 19:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] help wanted

Can I get you to help me with a mediation I'm conducting at Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming? I stepped in with an outside view and was immediately personally attacked. I need some administrator firepower watching my back while I do this. Also, since I'm planning on becoming an administrator once I have more experience on wikipedia, having one watch my first mediation attempt would be helpful knowledge for me. Swatjester 15:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to but in, but... holy crap! What a mess! Rather you than me. Feel free to send me email if you need urgent help, I'm sure Felonious will help too, but you have taken on one large POV-fest there. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 19:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I'm already there. Its been a fun morning, and is turning into a fun afternoon. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

In ol'blue eye's words "If I can maaaaake it there, I can make it aaaaanywhere..." ....too bad this isn't new york new york. Swatjester 19:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair notice

Hello FM, I've joined the discussion on Category talk:Convicted child sex offenders. Didn't want you think I'm trying to change the rules in the middle of the game. ; ) --FloNight 22:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please choose your words more carefully

I think that if you had looked into things more closely, or avoided unflattering assumptions, your involvement would have been easier to appreciate. Sam Spade 23:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wade

I'm familiar with individuals who push nonscientific POVs on articles, and if that is going on here then it will be shut down quickly without remorse. - JustinWick 15:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking Mike18xx

With all due respect, you should learn to count. He made precisely three reverts, and no more. Rogue 9 15:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Will you please explain why you blocked Mike18xx for 48 hours for the second time in a row? WP:3RR says that user may be blocked "for up to 24 hours". This policy does not seem to have exceptions. Pecher Talk 22:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
As the summaries I left in the block log state, [34], the first time was 24 for 3RR violations at People of the Book and Protest Warrior, with an additional 24 for disruptive personal attacks in edit summaries. He earned his second block for returning to the same article and reverting the same content within hours of his first block expiring. The fact the the first block did not make an impression on him justified the his second 3RR block being extended to 48 hrs from 24. If he continues to violate 3RR or otherwise be disruptive when this block expires, no one should be surprised if he is again blocked, and for increasingly longer periods, either by myself or another admin. You repeatedly break the rules and this is what happens. FeloniousMonk 22:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
The policy does not seem to say that blocks for longer than 24 hours are applied even to chronic offenders in the absence of an ArbCom ruling. Such behavior may justify a referral to ArbCom, but not extended blocks. Am I missing something? Pecher Talk 22:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Increasing block lengths for chronic offenders is common practice and not proscribed by policy.
If Mike18xx pledges on his talk page (which he can still edit blocked) to follow all policies, particularly on those articles where he's had issues, I'll consider unblocking him now. That means not trying to game the 3RR rule on a regular basis, such as by making fourth reversions just outside the 24-hour time period, or running right up to 3 reverts every 24 hours, and includes making complex reverts which attempt to disguise the restoration of the editor's preferred wording. It's his choice. FeloniousMonk 22:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I say again, learn to count. He made three reverts on Protest Warrior, not four. Rogue 9 13:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HA!!

I've never seen that little troll icon. I love it! · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 20:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Important WikiProject Automobiles Discussion

Hello! As a Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles member, I just thought you might want to input your opinions on an important discussion we're currently having about whether articles regarding similar vehicles should be merged into one or split by brand. If you would like to comment or read further, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Articles of Similar Vehicles. Thank you in advance for your thoughts and feedback. Airline 23:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reported

I am reporting you for Wikipedia:Harassment. Please stop now. agapetos_angel 03:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to drop it as soon as you and step back from editing the articles whose topics you're personally involved in and stop misleading the project as to your role and real-world involvement on those topics. You coming clean and apologizing to myself and Guettarda for misleading us, the personal attacks, and misrepresenting us would be nice as well (an e-mail would be fine). But as it stands, as far as I can tell from your actions here your only regret is that you've been caught. FeloniousMonk 03:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Aa has made a nice little post to AN/I - total misrepresentation of the facts, as always. It amazes me how well she can play the victim while being the aggressor. By now I don't expect that she will ever apologise for her lies, but I am still hoping that she will retract her attacks on me. Guettarda 06:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
It's the m.o. of the accomplished victim. Even getting caught outright in the most blatant lies imaginable, meant only to facilitate the continued violation of policy, it's still someone else's fault, harrassment, bullying, etc. Someone seems to have forgotten that lying is a sin. FeloniousMonk 06:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
There appears to be a "school of thought" (for want of a better term) which seems to accept the need to lie to "unbelievers" (not sure where the justification comes from, maybe from Abraham). And, since certain groups define atheists as "anyone whose interpretation differs from ours"... Guettarda 14:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You are not the arbitration committee

[35] - This is somewhat inappropriate, because it seems to suggest that there is an arbitration committee injunction or ruling on this matter. This does not appear to be the case. Kim Bruning 07:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

That's one opinion. I see it as doing my job, reigning-in disruptive and dishonest editors, and no more inappropriate than putting suspected sockpuppet templates on an a suspicious editor's userpage, which is something that happens across wikipedia daily. The statement accurately reflects recent arbcomm findings and rulings. Findings and rulings that were nearly unanimous, I'll add.
When caught lying to the community so blatantly simply to facilitate violating policy as this user did, do you really think that dragging this all the way through RFAr would change anything? Whether I deal with this now, or the community does later, or the arbcomm even later, the only thing that will be any different is the amount of disruption that the community will endure before this policy- and honesty-challenged editor follows the rules. FeloniousMonk 07:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
You are out of line. Kim Bruning 07:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that way. I suppose it wouldn't be the first time, though, would it? I'm simply trying to do my job as I see it. FeloniousMonk 07:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
*Nod* Afraid so. I understand you're trying to do your job.
Tell you what. I don't trust my judgement here. I've posted to WP:AN, and I'll let someone else look into it instead. Kim Bruning 07:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Fair 'nuf. As long as it's not Tony... ;-) FeloniousMonk 07:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

In the interests of full disclosure: I found two more instances, and reported those, I told Agapetos angel to keep her head down, and I found someone other than Tony :-). Hopefully I can now go do something useful. :-) Kim Bruning 12:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Strangely enough, the last entry on Talk:Jonathan Sarfati is dated 17:48, 2 February 2006. As it happens, due to my bad habit of keeping web pages open in tabs I have the discussion to 20:47, 16 February 2006 to hand. Such missing talk with no history of deletions is not something I've come across before, so let me know if there's anything you want to check, unless of course this is some policy I've not heard of. ...dave souza, talk 14:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello, the situation is going kind of complex, now someone has apparently added you to the arbitration committee case here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Req._Emergency_injunction_on_posting_personal_info. Kim Bruning 18:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

There's no doubt in my mind who's behind this coy game-playing, Kim. The fact remains that involved editors shouldn't be editing articles in which they have a personal stake. Particularly disruptive [36] involved editors. FeloniousMonk 18:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, involved editors should be allowed to edit in an NPOV manner. I find [37] and [38] to be completely unacceptable. Since when did we out editors?! At the very least I feel you should apologise to Agapetos_angel. I remember two years back an editor published personal details on one of our Christian editors. Tim Starling deleted this info. Attitudes towards this area have not changed. This is similar to a legal threat: it has chilling effects outing someone. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia rules

Can I ask for some advise? I am having a discussion on what can and cannot be used on Wikipedia. Several editors want to dismiss certain information claiming it is not supported or that it is biased. As I see it, in controversial issues there is always bias, but we must try and present all views so that readers can be informed on the existing views surrounding that subject. All I want to know is: can information be used from sources that are said to be POV? You do not have to agree with the disputed information, I only want to know if sourced material can be used, even if some do not want to include that information?

For more details you can look here. Thank you.--Holland Nomen Nescio 16:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dmcdevit·t 06:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

Hi Felonius.... i don't know you at all, but stumbled across the arbitration case you're involved in, and became interested. There seems to be alot of confusing chatter about what is a very simple issue - the angel woman seemed to be editing with a particular bias, so I presume you did a google on her, like I did, and found a page which gave her name, and her clear connection to the article, which for some reason we're not alowed to state. I don't really understand the clever IP stuff that you mentioned, but her identity seems pretty obvious, and is clearly publically available. She should not be treated as an unbiased editor. I've put this here because the arb process seems all a bit intimidating - but copy it anywhere you fancy, and I hope everyone can stay focus on how simple this matter actually is... cheers... Petesmiles 13:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligent Design article

Hello FM: I have been watching the ID article develop for some 18 months now, and wanted very much to express my appreciation for your diligent stewardship of its long and controversial development. The article is, of course, virtually complete and quite well organized and sourced at this stage. I particularly appreciated the relatively recent addition of the section on Origin of the Concept and tracing it back at least to Plato, etc. As well, your assertiveness and courage in putting the Discovery Institute as ID's "prime mover" is appreciated.

Darn shame how they cherrypicked the brilliant work of Stephen Jay Gould and others to develop their "wedge" and take over an idea that's been simmering in theological and philosophical circles and try to call it "science".

Kudos to you sir, "Kenosis" Kenosis 21:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


Hi again: Saw yours/ Jim's reverts on both ID and Neo-creationism. As you wish. Much as I agree with your assessment of the truth on these two subjects, I honestly think your points would be yet stronger with just a bit more visble restraint and appearance of objectivity about these ID idiots, unforthright and deceptive as they are. Take care Kenosis 02:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some info on disruptive anonymous editors

Hi FM, While investigating a user whose vandalism was causing me to be blocked from editing I came across something that may be of interest to you. The user in question is User:220.245.180.133. I noticed that apart from repeatedly vandalising the article on an Australian comedian (Rove McManus), they have also made many edits to Jonathan Sarfati, Talk:Jonathan Sarfati/dispute, Apologetics and other creationist articles. They also showed a knowledge of international Chess players by editing the Savielly Tartakower & Alexander Alekhine articles.

I am editing from Brisbane, Australia, and I believe User:220.245.180.133 is too, based on their IP and edits made to articles about suburbs of Brisbane.

I also discovered User:220.245.180.134, User:220.245.180.130 & User:58.162.255.242 who have nearly identical editing patterns, leading to me believe that are all one editor. Doing a whois on these IPs lead to a host in Milton, QLD. Milton, QLD is a suburb of Brisbane.

While I don't personally support acting on any of this information, it does make we worry that there is a consistent and deliberate effort to confuse debates on some of these talk pages. Regards, Ashmoo 06:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

220.245.180.133 (and similar) are IP numbers belonging to proxies used by TPG and some resellers in South East Queensland, so what you are seeing is the trail of thousands of TPG users. Block these numbers and there is a large potential for collateral damage, including me in Toowoomba, Queensland Alex Law 08:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

Question answered. [39]

Cheers, Dmcdevit·t 00:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Check your email

Hello FM, check your email for 2 or 3 messages. regards, FloNight talk 02:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WebEx and Min Zhu case. Raul654 19:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry they were hard on you. If it's any consolation I am trying to learn form your experience: there but for the grace of God and all that. Just zis Guy you know? 23:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't feel that there was any harshness in the ruling. I've come around to see that they are right, and that it was something I hadn't given much thought to in the past. I've learned something new and there's no reason for me to complain about that. FeloniousMonk 23:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I Would Suggest

You keep to your own business, and stop playing cabal crusader. It really makes you look ignorant, Sam Tindell 01:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

As FeloniousMonk is a Wikipedia admin, patrolling for and stopping bad-faith edits is part of his business. A simple way to avoid being called to task for bad-faith edits is not to make bad-faith edits. Justin Eiler 01:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC) (Copied to Sam Tindell's talk page)
An interesting dilemma: anyone stupid enough to make the above comment, thus drawing attention to their shiny new sock account, is probably more stupid than Gastrich :-) Just zis Guy you know? 17:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your opinion

I think I found overlapping templates that might be suitable for merging - but if I have, I have no idea how to do it. Please, I'm not asking for you to do it, I'd like to do it myself, but I don't know how right now. I'm asking for instruction, and since you're an admin and someone I've worked with before, I'm asking you. I'd make a Suggestion to Merge, if one can do that to templates.

Anyway, they are Template:Middle Eastern deities and Template:Meso myth.

Thanks for the help. Harvestdancer 16:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WebEx

Zzzzzz! Falling asleep reading SEC regs and WebEx annual reports. Must go through hundreds of pages of BS to find anything useful. I found what I need to expand, I think. Might turn out to be a decent article. FloNight talk

[edit] Thank you!

 Thank you!
Hi FeloniousMonk/Archive 3, thank you for your support in my Rfa! It passed with a final tally of 86/0/0. If you need help or just want to talk let me know! Again, thank you! – Dakota ~ ° 21:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WebEx

Hello FM, check your email for version 2. FloNight talk 04:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KillerChihuahua

Sorry but that is absolute nonsense. KC tracked a dispute on my talk page and then proclaimed that they were going to whatever they could to defeat me on it. They also went round telling people to not use the blatant vandal template after KillerChihuahua themselves had complained about me going to other peoples talk pages and suggesting that using the template was a good idea in some circumstances. Regards Arniep 18:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Who is going to put a stop to these rouge admin abuses? Just zis Guy you know? 18:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
"going to whatever they could to defeat me on it" Where was this said? Do you have a diff where KC made such a statement? FeloniousMonk 19:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Let's see - Arniep encouraged newby-biting, KC went around and told the people he had encouraged to newby-bite that it was probably not a good idea. Inasmuch as newby-biting can get you RFC'd... yeah, sounds like the work of a rouge admin to me. Guettarda 19:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Your pardon, Guettarda, but Arniep began by chastizing me for not biting newbies[40], which his original post here[41] makes clear. He followed that with modifying my signed post[42] which both Bunchofgrapes and I told him was Not a Good Thing. Actually, now that I think about it, he's been generally nasty and disruptive and contentious all around. Accusations, lecturing me, replacing my posts, biting newbies, chasing editors off articles with his harassment and inaccurate fiats... I will have to think about this a bit. This may be a case for an Rfc, as my humble attempts to discuss issues with Arniep have not been well-received, nor, apparently, even listened to. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, being the stalker I am (as is evinced by the fact that this conversation is on yet another party's page) I saw the original bit on your talk page - but I missed the sig editing. As for the other part, based on your summary I would probably be inclined to drop the "may be" from "may be a case for an Rfc". Now I will run along before FM accusese us both of stalking him! Guettarda 21:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah you nogoodniks, scram. Go stink up some other troll's talk page. Hey, wait... FeloniousMonk 21:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
(Edit Conflict with a troll) And Zeus knows I wouldn't want FM to feel I was stalking him, but, hey, since we're all here... I think an RfC on Arnheim might be a great idea -- we've got what, 7 or 8 vios just in those few posts alone. Well, enough loitering on FMs page... Jim62sch 21:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Image:Cyde.png This user thinks it is ironic that thanks for supporting Cyde's successful RFA came in the form of a userbox.

Here's a userbox for you. --Cyde Weys 04:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ben

I would go just slightly easier on Ben's comments. If he wants to put bizaare things like "keep away! keep away!" there let him, for now. It gives him one less thing to complain about (and I suspect that he is going to get another ban very shortly anyways). JoshuaZ 04:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] My comments on the ID talk page

Hi FeloniousMonk. I see you are about again. If it is ok with you, I will remove the disruption on Talk:Intelligent design, or move it to a subpage if you do not want to erase it. --Ben 06:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I saw this and I thought of you...

rouge admin

From one rouge admin to another :-) Just zis Guy you know? 11:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WebEx

FM, I added content to Webex article re: Zeleny/Zhu dispute. Re-write as needed. FloNight talk 04:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irreducable Complexity

I saw your response with regards to irreducable complexity, and I realize you are correct. Please accept my apologies, this was the first case I was assigned to, and I did the best I could with it, which in this case was not very good. I'm sorry for this.

Because it would seem that the other parties are not interested in mediation here(for good reasons it would seem from what you said about the other editor), am I supposed to just close the mediation file on that basis? A lack of interest from other parties?

Thank you for any help you can provide, and again, I apologize for my mistake. Bibigon 07:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A touchy subject

Apparently I touched a nerve. My apologies. FeloniousMonk 19:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Nah, it's hard to sound anything but terse in edit summary-discussions. :) Sorry, I just don't understand the value of naming the different versions after a random selection of a few of their supporters when (1) I'd already recently added a list of supporters to the bottom of the table, (2) whatever name we pick should be short and clear so we can easily mention which version we're referring to in discussion, not some long string of names of people involved in the discussion, (3) every time the "name it based on list of supporters/contributors" plan was instituted on the Talk page, for some reason Version 3 and, even more inexplicably, Version 2, completely ignored the people who actually wrote that intro, and (4) consistently misspelled goethean's name as "Gothean" (which sounds more like some sort of goth variant). So I was a bit confused that reverting to the "named by supporters" version was so quickly switched to after I proposed a new possible name, even though it seemed much less offensive and inaccurate to me than all the names that had previously been chosen, including "Scientific/Secular Point of View", "Inclusionist", and "Encyclopedic" (though I agree that it has plenty of potential to be misleading, too, so I guess Version 1/2/3 is best). Sorry again for snapping at you! Honestly, I don't even know myself why I did; your edits to the Talk page are just about the least nerve-touching ones I've seen there. :) -Silence 19:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Agapetos Arb

If you could take a look at recent exchanges that have happened between Guettarda and me on our respective talk pages, it looks like he won't have time to assemble a lot of the difs for the Agapetos arb, you may want to do those sections instead. JoshuaZ 19:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not WP:PA

You had removed a comment by Goethean on a user talk page: [43]. Your comment was that the deletiae were a personal attack. I only noticed this at all because Goethean requested my advice. Although I have no idea what the conversation is even about, and certainly do not opine in any direction about it, the comment itself was most certainly not a personal attack according to WP:NPA... at most it was a very minor sort of irritability on Goethean's part. I think it would be good manners on your part to restore the deletion yourself, and let the matter drop.... I mean, whatever the underlying issue is, feel free to discuss it, but false accusations of personal attack bug many editors. All the best, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Identifying specific editors as bullies [44] is by definition a personal attack. FeloniousMonk 20:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
It sure sounds like a tortured effort to extend the meaning of WP:NPA to me... but it's not my conflict, and I guess if you want to argue with Goethean for the sake of oneupsmanship, that's up to you. I find concilliation works better... at least at a slightly better success rate. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I have no intention of arguing with Goethean; on the article's topic he's utterly impervious to any viewpoint other than his own I've learned the hard way during my 2 years of experience with him at that article. Goethean has a nasty streak and is a low-grade but chronic violator of WP:NPA. The only time I will spend on this editor is in minimizing his disruptions; my experience has proved that anything else is a complete waste. FeloniousMonk 21:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I have no knowledge of either you or Goethean. Both user names look vaguely familiar to me, but neither as registered significantly (just because we've mostly edited different articles from each other). I actually have no idea why Goethean sought my advice on the diff. But I do know that deleting other users' talk page comments is very bad form, and there is very rarely a good reason to do so. An allegation of "bullying" doesn't even come close to anything I would ever consider a personal attack (again, I haven't the foggiest idea whether the "bullying" claim is true or false... or more likely, somewhere in between). On my own talk page, FWIW, I have a strict personal policy of never deleting any comment (though I do archive), even stuff that you couldn't put on the radio or repeat in polite company: if someone attacks me, that's a fault of theirs, not a fault of mine. The problem of bad speech, after all, is solved by better speech, not by censorship. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
That's a reasonable position, and one likely to yield to good results when applied to reasonable editors. But better speech falling on deaf ears will only get you blue in the face. Again, my only goal is to minimize disruption on the talk page. Paragraph-long diatribes accusing others of bullying serve no purpose other than to fan the flames of strife. Removing personal attacks is an established Wikipedia convention and is supported by guideline. Thanks for taking the time to explain your method to me, I'll keep it in mind next time. FeloniousMonk 22:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
utterly impervious to any viewpoint other than his own
has a nasty streak
It's a good thing no-one said such things about you...it would have been deleted. — goethean ॐ 23:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

FeloniousMonk, would you consent to formal mediation on either the von Bertalanffy citation or the designer paradox? --Wade A. Tisthammer 00:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Your objections are not finding traction and gaining consensus with a good number of members of the community, not just me, and I can't negotiate for others. You need to accept that there is no consensus supporting your objections. Furthermore, in the course of your pro-ID POV campaign it's been shown time and again you are either mistaken or being tendentious, yet it's not until you're pushed into a corner that you will begin countenance that you may be wrong, and even then any half-hearted admission is always accompanied some excuse or misdirection. I seriously doubt mediation will change any of that. FeloniousMonk 03:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, would you be one of those who are willing to consent to formal mediation? You have been the most vociferous objector to my attempts to make entries conform to Wikipedia policies and guidelines (and among the most bitter, with accusations like those, and apparently ignoring the "good number" of those who from the RfC seemed to agree with me regarding the von Bertalanffy citation), that's why I have asked you first. Are you willing to consent to formal mediation or not? --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi FeloniousMonk. As Bill Clinton said, "I feel your pain" -- unfortunately. I've been battling a clique of anti-science editors over the Natasha Demkina article, and guess what? Tisthammer, the paragon of reason and compromise, got himself appointed to be "mediator" of the dispute. I've read through a good deal of documentation of his dispute with you and other editors and administrators and it appears that his approach to "mediation" is no different from his approach to editing Intelligent Design articles. So I'm appealing for your advice on how to deal with what appears to be creeping anti-science obstructionism. Please read the "Tisthammer Is Not Acceptable as a Mediator" section [45] and offer any advice you may have. Thanks. Askolnick 04:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wasting bullets

I just thought I'd let you know that these IPs belong to AOL, as part of a mega-range (5,767,168 IPs) which are randomly assigned to each subscriber on a per-connect basis and remain static until the user signs off, or more frequently, loses signal from the carrier. I know this as a former AOL subscriber. Never going back. — Mar. 27, '06 [16:24] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Thanks. I figured as much, but it was more for the symbolic effect than anything, trying to get the message accross, etc. Any suggestions on a better method? I'm reluctant to block a range because of the sweeping negative impact it would have on other AOL users. FeloniousMonk 16:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Block any one of them for a few hours whenever they try to edit this page? Is there maybe a way we could make a bot to do that and then have it put a note on theire talk pages that if its an error to notify an admin? JoshuaZ 16:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Collateral damage to any individual IP in the 172 range would be about as probable as firing a bullet around the globe and getting hit in the back with it. The assignment of IPs does not follow any perceivable pattern, and a m:range block only let's you shut off 65,536 at once. You can try short blocks, but in addition to the user hanging up and reconnecting to get a fresh IP, also be wary of additional edits from, say, the 152.163.0.0/16 range which consists of caching proxies that are used when the customer surfs the intarweb with the AOL browser, as opposed to a real browser. These are willy-nilly dynamic and change each time the user loads a new page. A short block on one of these IPs that is editing a certain page might effectively block at least a portion of AOL users from editing that page for the duration of the block, due to the caching methods, based on my own personal experiences with it. Semi-protection might be your best bet if the disruption is confined to specific areas. — Mar. 27, '06 [16:47] <freakofnurxture|talk>

I'm not convinced that semi-protection is useful in this case because right now the main problem is him spamming the talk pages and semi-protecting a talk page would be problematic. JoshuaZ 16:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
The article was sprotected, it's the talk page disruption that's the issue now. Any convention on sprotecting talk pages? FeloniousMonk 16:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
If it stops the problem, and doesn't cause just it to spread elsewhere, it's a good solution. — Mar. 27, '06 [16:56] <freakofnurxture|talk>
Other IP addresses have made useful comments on the talk page. I'm not sure that is a good solution. JoshuaZ 17:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar: thanks

Thanks for the lovely barnstar, it is a great adornment for my userpage. Hope the evolution type stuff is going well, let me know if you need a hand... William M. Connolley 11:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dembski

Hello : ) Any suggestions about where I can find a verifiable reliable source critizing Dembski and the Charles Hodge Society? During the time Dembski was at Princeton Theological Seminary, the group caused quite a ruckus. After we removed the unsourced stuff, we need more criticism to make this passage more balanced. As an alternative, do you know if Dembski discusses it indepth in any of his books or articles? FloNight talk 05:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Cabal

Felonious, are you willing to participate Mediation Cabal case regarding irreducible complexity? Are you willing to engage in any mediation whatsoever in this case? --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sam Spade

I find very little that I can say that is useful with regard to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Sam Spade, except perhaps it is wise to not give him any "pile-on" excuses. It would be nice if lessons were learned. I'm not holding my breath. Cheers, and thanks again for your hard work making Wikipedia better. WAS 4.250 03:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links

I noticed that you are in the process of reverting all the links I removed from various school articles. I would point out that those links were removed per Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. It is standard practice to only link words once in an article text. Terms that are linked are not listed under see also. It is redundant to link diploma mill, once, twice diploma mill, or three times diploma mill, as was the case with many of these articles. I would appreciate it if you would review that page and revert these changes. -- JJay 19:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Since you haven't responded to the previous message I would indicate that your edit summaries, accusing me of "a pattern of whitewashing" something, are a violation of WP:CIV, and WP:AGF. I am not whitewashing anything and actually have little interest in the subject matter of the articles. What I do care about are wikipedia policies. Editing articles so that they adhere to accepted wikipedia style and policies is not "whitewashing". And while we may disagree about what constitutes a valid source, there is never any reason, particularly in short articles, to repeatedly link the same words. -- JJay 19:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:POINT AfDs

When you have a minute, two articles I started have been revenged AfDed William W. Hoppin, and TalkOrigins Archive by Dhanks in response to my taking part in an AfD of an article that he made. I'd rather not remove the spurious AfD tags myself because I'm not exactly a neutral party here. JoshuaZ 04:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC) Actually, he appears to have done it a few different articles of people who voted delete in his AfD. JoshuaZ 04:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Toon time

Remember Image:FMonk.jpg? Well, Bud Neill who was a source of inspiration to generations of Scottish cartoonists featured in Did you know... on the main page today ;-p ...dave souza, talk 11:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] O'Reilly

You gave no reason for your revert...--Bairdso66 21:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)