User talk:WLU/arbitration

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Personal commentary

Please don't continue to make comments like this or this to Mystar or any other user. The first veers a bit close to a personal attack, and the general tone of both these and some of your other comments is unnecessarily incivil. I realize that there are substantial ongoing issues, but engaging in a back-and-forth that can appear taunting will not solve those issues in a manner appropriate to Wikipedia. You may feel provoked, particularly by veiled threats like that regarding your location, but keep in mind that personal commentary on other users is discouraged regardless of their past conduct. As a general rule, being right on substantive matters does not excuse incivil expressions of that rightness. The various forms of dispute resolution are preferable to antagonistic exchanges, and we'll all be better served if you turn to them rather than continuing a barbed discussion. Please note that this has nothing to do with your article edits and nothing to do with the arguments you make about content; it is entirely about communication with other editors. Thanks for any help you can provide. Brendan Moody 05:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


Sure. It was getting boring anyway. WLU 11:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Snide commets are unproductive. I have to try hard not to do it myself (with an instance or two of me failing in that) but doing so only adds to the cycle. In the interest of my sanity I've elected to simply stop interacting with Mystar, I would recommend you also take a break. NeoFreak 17:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a break from snideness and stick with editing. Thanks for your advice over the past couple weeks BTW. WLU 19:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course. I'm not going to stop editing either and neither should you or anyone that wants to contribute to wikipedia first and foremost. Cheers. NeoFreak 20:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block

[edit] Regarding reversions[1] made on October 1, 2006 to Terry Goodkind

 You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
The duration of the block is 12 hours. William M. Connolley 09:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

My IP address, which is 64.230.0.107 The name of the blocking admin is William M. Connolley The reason I was blocked is: 3rr on Terry Goodkind

Dear Mr. Connolley,

I do not believe that my actions justify a block. My reversions in my opinion, are good faith edits.

Yes indeed. The trouble is everyone believes this. Nonetheless, you are required to stick within 3RR, no matter how good your faith might be William M. Connolley 14:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
True, but can you or anyone review a comparison of our contributions for an opinion on these things? We've been waiting since August for a mediation decision. WLU 14:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd rather not get involved in content in things I know nothing about. Your best bet is to find other people who *are* interested via WP:RFC perhaps William M. Connolley 15:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
'S a good idea. I'll pursue it, thanks for the advice. WLU 16:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The page that I am blocked regarding has been a source of much contention between myself, Mystar, and numerous other editors. I think that Mystar's edits are consistently in bad faith, seeking to add information about the subject (Terry Goodkind) which is inaccurate and improperly (publication numbers), is essentially the same as having the subject himself (Terry Gookdind) edit the page (Mystar has stated several times that he is very close to Mr. Goodkind), and poorly written (the reverts he made were to a series of quotes Mr. Goodkind made in interviews, in which he discusses his own novels, stating essentially the same information that was already in the article, accurately summarized and much shorter). Mystar also consistently accuses others of bad faith and fails to justify his edits. Please see Talk: Terry Goodkind and Wikipedia:General complaints, the latter falls under Bonehead Wikipedians entry, #30 I believe. The current revision that Mystar is undergoing undoes months of work by several wikipeidans to produce an article that is not overly long and biased towards Mr. Goodkind's voice. In an effort to avoid him cluttering up the page, I created a new page where he could add these themes. Instead, he reverted the page back to his original version (actually someone else's version that added the unnecessary information - suspiciously I think, as it added exactly the information that Mystar originally wanted included in the page, almost verbatim, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High D'Haran where Mystar may have appealed to external forums for non-regular contributors to edit wikipedia pages).

Also of note is the Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Terry Goodkind, and note my contributions to the plot summary of Chainfire, an effort to make it more general and accessible to the general reader, which Mystar reverted to a more complicated and specific version which is less accessible.

I am not completely innocent, I have insulted Mystar before and regularly check his contributions to make sure they are accurate. Still, I believe this block is unjustified.

Thanks,

WLU 12:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The extending issue here is that you yourself have admitted to never having read Terry Goodkind's novels, yet you continue to make edits that change the content of the article, not just the grammar or word usage. If you have not read the novels, you are not qualified to change the content of articles, only to edit for grammar and spelling consistancy. Omnilord 20:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Not true, I read Wizard's First Rule and disliked it. However, if you look at the few edits I have made in the SoT series proper, it was the plot intro of Chainfire in an effort to make it more accessible to the general reader - I took out reference to subtractive magic, leaving it just 'magic' as no-one except a reader of the series know's what subtractive magic is, but just magic is understandable. I did similar changes to simplify. I didn't touch the summary itself because I can't legitimately contribute, but I am able to shorten and simplify to the point where a non-reader (myself) understands it without having to refer to the book itself or external references. WLU 21:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I am in no way defending Mystar. I am just telling it how it is. He is one of the most well versed individuals when it comes to the Sword of Truth series irregardless of how close his ties are to the author. In fact, because of his close ties to the author, he has a better standing to know where there are errors in the articles, and point them out. With that you should not be challenging every little edit he makes, but trying to guide him to fit his contributions into an acceptable format. This means not wholesale deleting something he adds just because he doesn't know where the citation is, but instead helping him find the citation. This is a constructive project for which you're actions are destructive. I am having a very similar conversation with mystar at this moment. Omnilord 20:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

He's one of the most well-versed, but also closest to the author himself, and it is to the point where it's like having the author himself editing his own bio page - a wikipedia no-no. Also, he uses the author's own website as references and source material. Sometimes it's OK, when it's direct info about the author and his life, but other times it's a conflict of interest - what the books mean, their themes, etc. Also, I justify my edits and give reasons for what I do. Mystar rarely does. WLU 21:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
It's only a no-no when the subject of the bio page is not correcting blatantly incorrect information. This has been the nature of mystar's edits. Yes, he goes overboard at times, but that's where my comment on guiding the correct information he is able to pull up into the correct format comes from; helping to find sources for what he is trying to add, etc. rather than complaining like you have to clean up a mess, treat it like a clay sculpture coming together and mystar is just adding raw clay to be molded. Omnilord 22:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Now he's adding to the Influences and themes section, a major source of contention. Mystar and TG do not completely own the themes of the novels, they are aspects that are open to interpretation, such as [this] and [this] and [this] and [this] and [this] and [this], which all point to a distasteful inclusion of sexual sadism and violence in the novels. I'll add them to balance out the positive, chest-thumping that TG/Mystar have added to the sections. WLU 23:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing balancing about adding those, just creating a more vitriol environment using sheer biased opinions on something they either know nothing about or refuse to acknowledge. If you are going to have an article on the Themes and Influences you cannot deny what the author says about it because no one else is going to know what has influenced them. As for themes, Terry Goodkind has deliberately incorperated themes in his novels and whether others perceive more themes or not is secondary, albeit there is an undercurrent of sadism, but not from the heroes.
Those people are right to loath evil behavior, but they are mistaken in a very slanderous way: Terry himself is not advocating such behavior, he is condemning it by portraying such behavior only in the villainous characters. Not one of those pages you link makes that distinction. And there in lies the distinguishing factor that lays the truth of the matter bare: they fear Terry's moral clarity and his ability to portray vile villains and the heroes who overcome the evil of those villains. Just because the world Terry has created is a fantasy world does not mean he limits himself to unrealistic occurances. Rape, murder, torture and other vile acts are perpetrated daily in the real world by real villains. Terry is just showing the depth of how evil villains truly can be so his heroes can properly be gauged by the evils they overcome.
When this truth is understood, those articles you link are cast in a very dark light. The purpose of such articles is not to bring the truth gleeming into the light, but to subject a figure of moral clarity to the darkness. They attempt to distance people from reading these novels on the premise that they are about evil actions. They attempt to cast a light of perversion over the series and the author because they fear the evil actions describe. What they don't do is describe the context in which such evil actions come about in the books; that the villains are evil in a realistic way.
What they fail to recognize is that the villains who perpetrate the sexual sadism, the initiation of careless violence, and all the other evil actions are defeated in the struggle by the heroes who uphold morality and the good things in life. Omnilord 00:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll edit the page, then comment on what I say. It took me 10 minutes of searching on google to find all these articles, which points to the idea that other people have ideas about the sexual and sadistic aspects of the books. WLU 12:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

What I find most confusing is the fact that you are so vehement about this on Goodkind, yet you ignore the very same proclivity on Martin and Bakker. Such content is even worst at time in their books, you edit their pages, yet we do not see you making any such assertions there? You cannot have your cake and eat it too WLU.


Worse, not worst. If you can find links to articles that support TG's opinion, that don't come from TG, feel free to include them. I've never edited anything by Bakker. The stuff on Martin's page is taken from sources external to Martin's own webpage, except for the 6th footnote (as I write this), as compared to the Goodkind bio, which has 5 sources that refer to interviews or webpages by/about TG, including www.terrygoodkind.net yours, now in the archive Mystar. If you can find sources that are critical of Martin, feel free to include them. WLU 12:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


You are indeed making false assumptions and we are incapable of using your point as you have openly admitted to not reading the series. First you break your word you gave. Your words were proof, ANY proof" that I had spoken with an Admin. I gave you the admins name. That constitutes as proof., then you post a blog wreaking of POV and openly aggressively bashing Goodkind's work, knowing better, you suggest that it be used, stating "that has been my experience with Goodkind", then you openly make the assertion that you've not read Goodkind, Now you state you have read Goodkind. What are we to believe? You cannot such contradictions. Breaking your word and half-truths don't work. Please edit in Good Faith. We can work togather for the betterment of Wikipedia--Mystar 01:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  1. The page is about TG, not his work, so technically I don't have to have read it. I'm not using my own words, I'm sourcing from external pages, therefore referenced.
  2. Your point about me breaking my word is tiresome, irrelevant and frankly laughable, and won't prevent me from editing the page further. I suggest not trusting me in the future, that might be best.
  3. I won't be editing the novel pages, just the bio page.

WLU 12:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Lastly, I would ask that if you cannot be constructive in your contributions or knowledgeable in the subject matter (read the novels), please refrain from making edits. Thank you. Omnilord 20:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not editing the novel pages, and I've repeatedly said so. The only thing I'm working at is the biopage, which I have just as much right to edit as anyone. I haven't touched any pages that I remember except Chainfire, and I did that a couple times only, legitimate edits in my mind, but contested by Mystar. My edit resulted in the plot intro of:
Richard awakes to find his wife Kahlan missing. While trying to rally his supporters to begin a search, Richard discovers he is the only living person who remembers her. While seeking Kahlan, he finds out that a dark magic that has affected the memories of the people of D'Hara.
While Mystar's replacement was:
During a raid on his camp, Richard is seriously wounded and now Nicci must use subtractive magic in order to save him. Richard awakens to find his wife Kahlan The Mother Confessor, missing and soon realizes that he is the only person alive who remembers Kahlan. As he begins to search for her, he learns that he is also hunted by a beast created by Jagang's sisters of the dark. Richard must travel the land in order to find out the truth.
It proceeds from there, but actually is decent now, not worth fighting over. WLU 21:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My reply to Mystar, and his reply

This has nothing to do with the Wikiproject SoT except the fact that Terry Goodkind wrote the books. The page that Mystar is referring to is the TG biopage, which has very little info on it regarding the SoT except that he wrote it, and his influences in the series. The edits Mystar is talking about is a revert an unknown user made to basically a single section which doubled the length of the article essentially by adding in a large set of quotations from a bunch of TG interviews, all basically saying the same thing. I have added a link to the page itself which takes the reader to a new (or potentially new) page which is entitled 'Influences and Themes(Sword of Truth)', which is a more appropriate venue, in my mind.

What Mystar disingenuously leaves out is that the page has been involved in a lengthy set of edits and discussion between myself, him, and several other contributors. What existed yesterday was the result of this long process - the article was short, tight, NPOV and didn't sound like it was written TG himself. As Mystar reverted it, it was a jumble of quotes which said the same thing as what is currently in the Influences and themes section. As I write this, after reverting again, it says:

"Terry Goodkind has been largely influenced by the books of Ayn Rand and is a strong supporter of her works and of Objectivist philosophy. While he admits to writing in the fantasy genre, he perceives his novels to be more than just traditional fantasy due to their focus on philosophical and human theme"

The things Mystar wishes to include can be found in the first version of the 'Influences and Themes(Sword of Truth)' page, which I created, and there I moved the information that Mystar wishes to be included. As I realize my bias and don't really care that much about it, I'm not going to bother editing or adding content to the page, I leave that to others who are more interested.

Also of interest is the [for mediation]. I am not jumping into the middle of this, I am maintaining the page as it was decided by several editors. To date, no one except myself and Mystar have weighed in on the issue since the biopage was more-or-less finalized over the last couple weeks.

Further, as I think most people who have had to interact with Mystar would agree, he is an intolerant editor at best. He rarely provides reasons for his editing, aside from "I know Terry, he'd want it this way" or "That's just the way it is". He has frequently presented many issues of the biopage in particular as consensus, agreed upon and complete, prematurely. Check through the history of the talk page. I can't claim to be the perfect editor, but I believe that over time I have improved and expanded beyond the TG page and in incidents where others have disagreed with me and provided reasons, I have acquiesed and accepted the changes as improvements.

Good luck working on the SoT Wikiproject all, I have absolutely no doubt that it will be fruitful for anyone who agrees with Mystar. For everyone else, I'm sure you'll find it as frustrating as everyone else that's had to work with him. I won't be working on the project as I haven't read the books and therefore can't reasonably be expected to add substantive content. WLU 02:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


Rather than get into a dick measuring contest, this user has for some reason acted in bad faith and is only focused on attacking my work. I will point out that as I have so stated WLU is unaware of the series ergo has nothing add to the pages. The Goodkind bio page always has been included in the project. I edited it to make it clearer for her. Adding theme content et al is justified as we see on several other authors’ bio pages including George R R Martin, which WLU is acuity aware of, as she has been working on that very topic.

Again, I am doing my best to work with in the rules and as a user still becoming familiar with this media; I am going to make mistakes, thus my consistent discussion with the admins. As anyone can read my edits have been good ones as stated by parties involved. For the record, the Bio page is neither finalized nor done. Again I ask that WLU who has more than stated her dislike for the author, even though she admits never having read his works, rather allowing others to think and make up her mind for her about said author, she feels she is still qualified to edit one what he has said with regard to his work and its content. A contradiction if ever I've heard one.

My point being We/I are hard at work on this project and we can make it into a top notch Wikiproud page! We simply need people like WLU to take their personal war elsewhere. (by Mystar)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Terry Goodkind.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 12:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Terry Goodkind mediation

Hello, I'm sorry it's been awhile, and I'm not sure if all of you are still interested in formal mediation, but I recently agreed to mediate that case. Please either accept or reject me as a mediator there, and if you accept, please let me know if you would prefer public or private mediation. If it's a stale issue, just say so. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 16:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you already did just a minute before I left you this message. Thanks for the quick response and for having the page on your watchlist! : ) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 16:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My own dubious behaviour

Me being a bit passive-aggressive

me making a personal attack

I accuse Mystar of having a chip on his shoulder

Me being mean

Here I belittle Mystar's reasoning powers and call him a spaz

Me making fun of Mystar

another personal attack on Mystar

general unpleasantness

just pissed off

proof re: bastique thing

suggest ignoring Mystar

You could call this one passive aggressive

More

called it babble, not real nice

Here I call Mystar a bad editor

I sorta call Mystar stupid

Here I take a couple cheap-shots at his relationship with Terry Goodkind

Call him a crappy editor

Insult his spelling

[edit] Worst and most uncivil edit

Here

[edit] Arbitration - Section moved from User_talk:mystar to my own user page

Mystar:

What I'm posting on your talk page are not rantings, they are the beginnings of a case for arbitration which could get you banned from editing wikipedia. These are points where you have violated policy. Your continued editing without changing your interactions with myself at least, could get you kicked off. Each diff that you removed was one point where I at least found your conduct objectionable. Your editing of another user's comments (i.e. mine) on a talk page because you do not agree with what is being said is not sensible, reasonable, or good practices. I should not have to revert a talk page.

Anyway, all that being said, I'm pursuing arbitration.

Other comments:

[edit] Reply by Mystar on Talk:Sword_of_Truth

  • Notes from past arguments on this crapola....
  • To WLU: Anything on a blog is not a reputable source (See Wikipedia:Reliable Sources). In addition, anything that TG may have said to any of his fans really is a completely trivial piece of information, and as such, it is not of an encyclopedic nature.
  • Finally, to Mystar: Please stop accusing everyone who disagrees with you of vandalism (Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism and specifically the section entitled What vandalism is not). I've been contributing to this page for months now, and I have yet to see one instance of true vandalism by a regular contributor.

As always, lets all be civil here. Thanks, Runch 23:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Terry is not a sadist, don't make him out to be one just because he is able to create evil villains who can portray evil traits (IE sadism, violence, sexual-misconduct). If you want to address this, keep it local to the books/series, and don't make it sound like you are labelling the author with the same sweeping judgement. We can work on making it read appropriately in the appropriate article(s). Omnilord 22:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Again we seek creditable sources...professional and NOT POV driven or attacks simply because the bloger feel threatened by Goodkind's success Mystar 00:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

None of the sources are blogs. Which do you consider a blog?

If the author's opinions are not valid, then they should be removed from his bio page. I'm in favour of leaving them up, and including the opinion piece in the section below/on the SoT page.

I never said TG was a sadist (or I may have, but I am not trying to include that here), I included a section which discusses, in part, the sadistic elements of the series. Which is why I followed Omnilord's suggestion and put this up on the SoT page instead of the TG page - this is the page about the novels, not the author.

The reviews are not on blogs, they are on review websites. Most of it could be probably reduced to the infinity review and the Scifi review, along with the response from TG about the abusive relationship, which gives the section purpose rather than making it some random, headline-grabbing element.

Here's the section again in case you wanted to look at it for concrete examples. Please give me concrete examples, as labelling everything as incorrect doesn't let me understand your reasoning.

[edit] Criticism and themes

The Goodkind's sole body of work to date, the Sword of Truth series, has received both criticism and acclaim.[1] Reviewers discuss the awkward and repetetive prose[2], and also the extremity of the sexual sadism[3][4] and violence[5] of the series. However, critics have also noted improvement in his writing over the development of the series[5], his ability to construct a detailed and creative world, and his writing of heroic characters with a powerful sense of morality[citation needed]. Goodkind himself has defended his inclusion of items such as torture, stating that (regarding Wizard's First Rule) his purpose was to highlight the helplessness, degredation and irrationality of an abusive relationship, not to shock or disgust[6].

  1. ^ Review at www.sfreviews.net
  2. ^ Review at www.flakmag.com
  3. ^ Review at christianfantasy.net
  4. ^ Review at www.inchoatus.com
  5. ^ a b Review at www.infinityplus.co.uk
  6. ^ Interview at a Virginia booksigning

[edit] Section moved from Mystar's talk page

Personal attack:

here here here here here this one's debatable called someone a nazi this one's debatable also here's one here's an attack on another user's editing and writing skills here's one where he wants to find out who I am more conspiracy stuff another one wants my actual identity here's another one where he wants to know who I am, plus conspiracy stuff stuff more stuff on my offline identity attack on another user another one Accusation of bad faith, blatant error about the sources

I'm reporting you and requesting comments. Quit wikistalking me and editing just to piss me off.

Also your pestering, passive-aggresive cheapshot comments here here here here here here here here here here here here here this is one of the weird conspiracy theory/everyone hates Terry Goodkind moments here's another one cheap shot irritating comment provocation irritating post cheap shot inciting comments

And here is one where you remove one of my links from the page and here is another section where you either accidentally or on purpose edited in the middle of a link that proved my point.

Also irritating me is the tendency to proclaim an issue prematurely closed: here this one's an empty threat here's a promise for more links here's one where on a very contended page he edits and promises a link, wiithout providing it right away accusing someone of using sockpuppets nominating an article for deleiton just after it was created by myself more promised proof a series of bizzare edits that don't make sense but do gut any chance I have of making an actual point.

This is your second warning and after this it moves on to requests for comments from other users. Feel free to gather the same information on me. WLU 00:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


I guess youleave me no choice but to lower myself to your petty squable and post such thens as your attacks, bad faith, page ownership admissions, removing other posters comments etc. how truly OCD petty...--Mystar 01:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


This is not a rant, and this is not a petty squabble. This is the first step in a dispute mediation process in which both our conducts will be weighed against each other, and binding arbitration could result. I will end my request and not pursue this further if you stop stalking me and stop making tendentious, inflammatory edits. WLU 03:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


Again kindly stop editing my talk page. You are wrong this is petty...on your part. Pot calling th eKettle black and all... While I am in no way completely innocent of past actions, they were in the past. I have conducted my actions with Good Faith, and most of them checking first with several Wikipedia people and admins before making them. Yeah I have proof don't worry :)

You have removed other users comments, edited in bad faith, owned pages and attacked me as well as admitted you having an agenda against Goodkind where you started all this crapola.. It really is in your contribs you cannot hide it. Removing other users commentaries is not a very good thing to do.

As I've said. Yours agenda is clear. You dislike Goodkind, haven't even read him, yet you feel totally knowledgeable in attempting to add content that you know nothing about. Simply allowing other to think for yourself and make your mind up for you. You read a rant and think it justified, when you haven’t even taken the time or initiative to verify it for yourself.... seems to me there is a huge problem with that.

OH your "BFF Terry" also didn't earn you and brownie points. It is attacks and aggressive name calling/smearing that marks your agenda clearly. In the future please refrain from ugliness of that sort. It is very unbecoming of a lady.

In short, you may well try and get an action taken against me, but you are causing a great deal of exasperation along the way, simply because you have an agenda (your admission), which doesn’t bode well for your position. I’ve been editing in good faith. I’ve made some good edits, you simply cannot stand to have them stand is the problem. I happen to know a great deal of many herbal remedies. Your attack against me for taking an interest in that page is an attack and unwarranted. Things like trying to stir up trouble also go against Wiki policy. Trying to incite angst among users is a no no… so an admin just told me. That is not my problem. Page ownership is an overall Wiki problem.

I know I’ve been aggressive in the past, with good reason. One of them was banned, and as I’ve stated I’ve plenty of outside proof of planed attacks on TG’s pages as well as sources out side Wiki that specifically incite people to do what was being done.

BUT, my edits as of late are and have been good ones, and have also been discussed with seasoned Wikipedians before I made them. I spend a great deal of time on Wikipedia IRC discussing these things. I’d take a gooooood long look in the mirror before I moved forward were I you. The pot calling the kettle black isn’t going to sit well with anyone.

Stop owning pages, stop with your agenda, be an honorable person of your word and act in good faith and we will be just fine. The choice is yours. --Mystar 03:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mystar's message from user page

How droll. I find your apparent and unconcern for your misinformation sad. What you may not be aware of is that you so called "carefully referenced information" was in fact wrong. You continue to own pages where people constantly have to go behind you and fix your misinformation. The sad part of it is that usually people walk away because they have lives and have no desire to get into an edit war...unlike you. Again I'm asking you to stop your incessant edit warring and page owning. You mock what is for me and many people who suffer with Lupus the fact that taking the wrong things can indeed kill. Placing incorrect information can lead to many kinds of adverse reactions. How sad for you that you make a mockery of such things. As I so stated on the talk page I show your information to be incorrect. Lupus and Lupus SLE are two different things and require differing methods. And then we have the fact that you are adding needless Information and information that has already been placed. Anyone who comes in behind you and fixes anything, your ego will not allow it to stand, No you have to go reedit in a lame attempt to show your page ownership. Providing correct and pertinent information is not a frivolous endeavor. As I have said in the past. People use Wikipedia as research for their well-being and better health ....not just for facts. You need to behave and take this seriously. With such things as medicine, herbal remedies, homeopathic remedies, such information is too valuable to treat in such a silly manor as you do. Yes people’s lives do depend on such PROPER information. Mystar 16:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My reply

Though doubtless you'll either erase or edit my message, here's my reply to your thoughts.

>I find your apparent and unconcern for your misinformation sad. What you may not be aware of is that you so called "carefully referenced information" was in fact wrong.

See, you say 'misinformation' and call my information wrong, yet you have yet to provide anything beyond your own experience to back it up. If my information is so wrong, so glaringly, obviously wrong, and you're not just bluffing, it should be pretty easy to find something to back up your assertion.

>You continue to own pages where people constantly have to go behind you and fix your misinformation.

Actually Ron, I think the exact same thing about you. Generally in my efforts to fix the stuff you post I end up finding out something else useful to put up on the page that improves it, so it's not a lost cause, but it really does take time away from other things I'd rather be doing on Wikipedia.

>The sad part of it is that usually people walk away because they have lives and have no desire to get into an edit war...unlike you.

Is this you being funny again? Do you see the contradiction here? We've both been tagged for breaking the 3 revert rule, and we've both reverted each other's edits on the Cat's Claw page what, twice today? Anything you accuse me of, you have done as well. Do you not see the contradiction?

>Again I'm asking you to stop your incessant edit warring and page owning.

You mean like replacing the reference in a scholarly, peer-reviewed journal where it discusses the involvement of Cat's Claw in kidney failure? I think that's a whole lot more useful than a general warning that CC should be used with caution like other herbals. If you have a reason to remove the reference, please let me know what it is. That's the thing I find most frustrating about trying to edit with you, you never seem to justify yours. I can't even argue with you 'cause usually the most I've got to go on is stuff like "I talked to Terry and he said it was so." How is anyone supposed to build consensus or a verifiable entry with that?

>You mock what is for me and many people who suffer with Lupus the fact that taking the wrong things can indeed kill. Placing incorrect information can lead to many kinds of adverse reactions.

One would hope Wikipedia would be a starting point, not a final diagnosis. I also think the warning about kidney failure is sufficient to dissuade people from going to the herbal section rather than the doctor. Again, a reason to keep that particular information in.

>How sad for you that you make a mockery of such things. As I so stated on the talk page I show your information to be incorrect.

Um, no you didn't unless I missed something. You put up that quote that said CC has been used to treat a whole list of conditions, of which SLE was one of them. I don't know how that contradicts my point that manufacturers claim it can be used to treat SLE. Seems to support it, unless there is a subtle point I'm missing.

>Lupus and Lupus SLE are two different things and require differing methods. And then we have the fact that you are adding needless Information and information that has already been placed.

See, the thing is every time I look for lupus, what comes up is SLE. When people refer to lupus, they seem to be referring to SLE. I realize there's five kinds of lupus on Wikipedia alone and a bunch of other ones on the Internet, but it seems that Lupus=SLE for the most part. Perhaps you should create pages discussing the more specific aspects of whatever lupus you are talking about that isn't SLE, drug-induced Lupus Erythematosus, Lupus nephritis, Lupus pernio,or Lupus vulgaris, the five kinds that are currently on wikipedia. I'm too busy trying to find time to edit the Steven Erikson articles. And in response to your concrete comment about Lupus not equalling SLE, I altered the link so now the article on CC links specifically to SLE, the type of lupus referenced in the weblink that says CC was used to treat SLE. Specific feedback I will edit for, but as heartfelt as your electronic sighs seem to be, they are less convincing than a web article with a references section. I'm not sure what your academic background is, but mine leans heavily towards double-blinded placebo trials (and qualitative research oddly enough).

>Anyone who comes in behind you and fixes anything, your ego will not allow it to stand, No you have to go reedit in a lame attempt to show your page ownership.

Um, I think you'd find that rather inaccurate, if you check my contributions, which you apparently seem to do. I generally have issues with your edits since they seem to be pretty spiteful and not particularly helpful (by the way, will you PLEASE correct the damage to the lupus article? There are still two treatment sections, and I don't know the difference between "Known Treatment" and (regular?) "Treatment". The introduction of the page is designed to provide a brief preview of the rest of the article - there should be no information there that's not in the main body. You breaking it up into two sections just messes it up. That is "Lupus Erythematosus" specifically). If I owned pages, I would have re-worked that one months ago.

>Providing correct and pertinent information is not a frivolous endeavor. As I have said in the past.

I think you need a comma splice in there, not a period.

>People use Wikipedia as research for their well-being and better health ....not just for facts.

Wikipedia (and research in general) should be a collection of facts. Specific research should also include interpretation, Wikipedia should not. People may be using wikipedia for info regarding health, so I left in the section about how Cat's Claw might have caused kidney failure for that reason. That's a sore point, and one of the reasons I suspect and correct your edits.

>You need to behave and take this seriously.

You need to play fair, which means saying, for real, why, with references or at least justification, why you make the changes you do, if they are being contested. That's why I spend the time on the talk pages. Also, it's Wikipedia, it's fun, and it's publically editable. Half the changes on the site involve the word penis for God's sake. You can't take it that seriously.

>With such things as medicine, herbal remedies, homeopathic remedies, such information is too valuable to treat in such a silly manor as you do. Yes people’s lives do depend on such PROPER information.

I would think that people's lives depend on their doctors mostly. I would not expect someone with lupus (again, Lupus erythematosus) to solely use wikipedia for diagnosis and treatment. Wikipedia should be a starting point for research (hence the references), not a finishing point. I edit in the manner that I do so my information is justified and verfiable, which I do not think of as silly. Again, I would categorize many of your edits as spiteful. But why should we be the ones to decide, let's take it up with arbitration? Since you feel so strongly that you are in the right, you should have no problem with this. Now, I'm expecting you to delete this right away (thank God again for diffs and history) without a reply, because I don't think there's much you could say. Go ahead. I'll be posting it on my page as well.

Thanks for not calling me a girl, and generally items such as this should be posted on user talk pages, not discussion.

WLU 20:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


>If you have so precious little time on your hands and you have other things you want to edit more, or other things in youre life you wish to do, what on earth is possessing you to continue with your editing wars? Do you get a perverse enjoyment out of causing trouble? If you have things that you would prefer to be doing, then please, by all means, go do them and leave us be, I think it would be better for everyone involved. Omnilord 22:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your case

Would you mind if I mediated your mediation cabal case? WikieZach| talk 05:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I would not mind, please go ahead. WLU 15:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your mediation case

Would you like to mediate your case? WikieZach| talk 04:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought I already answered this, unless I don't understand what you're asking... I am fine with mediating the case, has the other party agreed? WLU 13:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further WLU-mystar

As the mediator in the WLU-Mystar case, would you like to bring it to the Mediation Committee? WikieZach| talk 22:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Again apologies for not replying sooner, I'm having trouble keeping track of the talk pages people are replying on. I think I would. I just read the MC page and don't really understand the difference between, say, you mediating the case, and someone else (or several someones? The mediation committee?) doing so. So as far as I know, yes I would like my case brought before the MC. WLU 20:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

It's been closed. WikieZach| talk 22:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The reason the request died

For over a week nothing was posted on the request page and only one of the two parties was actually in direct-contact with me (an unfair thing). Therefore, I closed it. It's not your fault. Have a happy ThanksGivHanakaChriKwanzadan! WikieZach| talk 00:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More

[edit] WLU's personal attacks redux

More wikistalking —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WLU (talk • contribs) 18:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC).


First off this interview? Its been posted many times. so... you don't like it ~shrugs~ so what... we personally love it. Secondly calling anyone a moron, let alone a world renown New York Times #1 best selling author is POV, and an attack meant to provoke a flame war and is unacceptable behavior. It violates Wiki policy WP:NP Namely with regard to you calling anyone let alone Terry Goodkind a Moron. While I grin at your inability to be civil and post with honor, it just proves my point. You cannot act in a mature but have to attempt to slant peoples views not letting them think for themselves. No you must slander someone as a weak attempt to validate an opinion you formed while having no actual knowledge of the content of the series. You obviously feel that in order to make yourself feel good about your lack of abilities, you must lower yourself to personal attacks and name-calling. Rather than allowing people to either approve or disapprove on their own. Tells us a great deal about you. You dislike the series or Goodkind cool I've no problem with that at all. You calling Goodkind and his works bad after openly admitting that you have never even read them shows the problem. That is your opinion, HOWEVER you are not above Wiki-policy of No Personal attacks and committing Libel and slander on her user page or any other page. RegardsMystar 02:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well as I said....lol... you show your ignorance more and more. You will note we do not use that chat as any means of verification of content. The inchoatus thing is just an opinion of a simple minded person (I feel sorry for his lack of abilities and perception). And as Runch has pointed out it has no merit. It is only a blog designed to attack Goodkind and his opinion. Which as I might add is against Wiki policy...but then you already know that :) As I've said in the past, you really have no idea about the books or what Goodkind is saying due to the fact that you haven't read them. What we do see is your personal opinion coloring your abilities. You think you dislike him and his works, so you will do anything you can to smear him. Most assuredly not NPOV are you.... Your history contribs attacking me and Goodkind speak for themselves. You just cannot be unbiased.

And as for the Webmaster being embarrassed...lmao hardly... It is a great interview full of insight, truth and pertinent content to societies Ills today. No we all love the chats, that one especially. It has gotten more good press than you'll ever know. AND it brings people into the site and discussion agreeing with his point of views. Again how sad for you my dear. Still unable to be honorableMystar 03:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Do either of you guys want to end this invective-filled wrestling match you're in or do you think it serves some useful purpose to Wikipedia? Agree to (strongly) disagree or take it outside, I say. Thanks for all you've done to improve the wiki. Wishing you both well, Figma 04:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I quite agree Figma. I'm simply responding to his attacks...again...
Thanks for using the male pronoun, it's appreciated. WLU

Also as you can see at the very top of this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks

This page in a nutshell:
Comment on content, not on the contributor.

Also see WP:CIV But also WP:EQ

See this part of the page? "Don't ignore questions. If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think it's appropriate."

of interest...Use the Talk pages to discuss the accuracy/inaccuracy, POV bias, or other problems in the article, not as a soapbox for advocacy.

Yeah, we're not talking about a talk page, we're talking about a user page, where I talk about myself. Not a talk page. WLU

Most notably is WP:UP What can I not have on my user page? Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia

Note the extensive part of that. The bit you aren't too fond of is four words, if you count the possessive as a word. I could add "I think" to the sentence if you'd like, that'd still be 6 words only, or pretty it up some other way. According to the policy I really should take it down as you've spent far more time carping on my user page than you have actually editing WP for the past couple days. And also, it is related to Wikipedia, it's the reason I'm involved in the TG bio page, so technically it probably could stay up with a bit of tinkering. WLU

"libeling people on userpages is a bad idea, and in fact, using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea"

- Jimbo Wales,[1] Wikipedia founder and leader

"If user page activity becomes disruptive to the community or gets in the way of the task of building an encyclopedia, it must be modified to prevent disruption".

See my last comment. And you seem to be the only one bothered by it, perhaps barring Figma, but let's leave her out of it. And it may be a him, I'm not really sure. Apologies to Figma if he/she is still watching for gender oopsies. But what I'm getting at is that this is interrupting the work of a community of one - you. And if you don't bother watching my user page, it wouldn't even do that. So I've got a solution, click the unwatch button at the top of the page after reading this, and go edit the SOT pages. Soooooooo MANY of them read like they were written by 14 year olds. WLU

Personally, I do not care what your personal opinion of the man is. Your attempt at character assassination is however poor form and bad faith. It indeed crosses the line. If you have such a burr under your saddle, perhaps you need to take a step back, as it is clear you cannot be neutral or unbiased. Take a look inward to see where you are falling short. Stating that you dis-like someone is fine, saying that you abhor his or her work and philosophy is ok as well. But you cannot attack someone even on your user page. It really discredits you and your ability to effectively edit in any kind of NPOV. It taints your work.

For someone who doesn't seem to care what my opinion of the man is, you sure dedicate an awful lot of time to discussing it on my talk page. And I hardly think one comment on my user page about Terry Goodkind is character assassination, particularly when all I'm doing is expressing my opinion. I'll alter it so character assassination is out of the question. And clearly I have a duty to do so, since my words can kill, I should be even more wary of just throwing opinions around. Hopefully it won't cause his worldwide status as a bestseller to tank.

I'm simply asking that you change your wording and bring it in line with Good Faith Editing and Wiki standards. Mystar 17:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I shall change my wording as you kindly request. Thanks again for referring to me as male. Incidentally, are you using a spell checker before you post replies on my talk page? The typos have really decreased. Kudos, I hope it was due to my influence but I really doubt I can take the credit. One last thing - your continued alteration of the headings really smack of bad faith and incivility, as do your edit summaries in general. WLU 19:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

~chuckles~... indeed I see your steller maturity shining as ever... I wish I had an award for you...perhaps the poster child for incivility... Did I refer to you as a man, my mistake as we both know the truth of it. I prefer honerable and honest intent. Sad you don'tMystar 01:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

What ho! You besmirch mine honour yet again! But, but, I thought you were kidding the first time, just making a lame joke the second, but the third, it seems you are serious (if uncreative)!

You're right sirrah, let us settle this once and for all! Choose your weapon!! Pistols at dawn? Rapiers? Bare-knucle brawling? Perhaps jousting on hairy dinosaurs! A slap fight! A tickle fight?

Nay, nay, we must's ends this in the true manner of its beginning! A contest of moral clarity! Let us slaughter unarmed women and helpless babies, salting the earth behind us and torturing the menfolk! Whoever stops first obviously has less moral clarity, and is thus the loser, their life, forefit! They must abdicate their fortune, abandon their womenfolk to the winner and instantly fling themselves from a bridge to a wide, flowing river, where they will instantly drown, instantly. Perhaps a staring contest, with the most raptor-like eyes being the winner!

Dude, this is so lame. Stay away from my edits, stop wikistalking me and quit checking up on my contributions. This whole thing is moderately entertaining, and I love shredding your comments on my talk page, but it's gotten old and you haven't come up with anything new. In case you aren't getting this, allow me to clarify:

You bore and inconvenience me.

WLU

[edit] Alright then....

I'm butting out! Good luck, lads. Figma 19:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mystar

  • Yeah but there is a difference between H.G. Wells and this not only that but this isn't the only penname he uses there are plenty of others he's got and we should use his real name like the H.G. Wells article. 216.174.135.175 18:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)jamhaw

And I quote... "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. For example, adding a personal opinion once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated". {{WP:VANDAL}} You my dear are not the sole arbiter of what is or isn't acceptable. Simply because you do not care for an opinion that is placed addressing the subject mater is not fodder for you to start another reverting binge. The fact that you may not like jamhaw’s wording or point is not relevant. What is relevant is that jamhaw posted where it was applicable, and gave an offering of opinion/thought, which is as stated in Wiki policy jamhaw’s right. It in no way falls into the category of vandalism. What does smack of vandalism is your removal of material aimed as improving Wikipedia. Now were that posted on the actual face page, bio page etc it would not be relevant and should be removed, but as you can see that was not the case. Mystar 05:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

ALso, didn't realize I wasn't signed in at the time...silly lil ole me! puters are such fickle critters....Mystar 05:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] please stop your personal attacks

{{WP:RPA}} I would kindly (again) ask that you coment on a topic or issue and stop calling me or others names. It is both disruptive and offensive to others. Not to mention it gives Wikipedia a bad name. Of note are "Personal attacks are not allowed on Wikipedia. Although users can ignore such attacks, repeat offenders may be banned". Really the whole page will be of great help for you. You can see it can be helpful in helping you adjust your behaviour of repeaded personal tounts and attacks. Thank you Mystar 14:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

And {WP:COOL}} are great rescorces to help

You mean taunts. Read up on arbtration.

WLU 18:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

With regards to your comments on User talk:Mystar: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Mystar 20:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

[edit] Arbitration case

Note to Mystar: Please don't modify this text, or at least only modify your own sections. If you would prefer, begin a similar one on your own talk page. WLU 21:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WLU v. Mystar

Initiated by WLU at 14:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Posted notification on Mystar's talk page here. I have also sent an e-mail to him to alert him away from wikipedia, at this address: mystar@chartermi.net

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  1. Informal mediation Other users have tried to moderate between us (though also other editors), notably Paul Willocx, Runch, Figma.
  2. Discussion with third parties I had an extensive e-mail discussion with User:Armedblowfish, I am in the process of confirming this.
  3. Failed mediation request, also note Mystar's reply

Summary statement:
Disputes between myself and Mystar are acrimonious and disruptive to pages we are involved in.

[edit] Statement by WLU

As I moved away from the Terry Goodkind page, where I first started editing, Mystar has been monitoring my edits and I believe his actions constitute harassment. I have made it clear to Mystar why I am frustrated with his edits. Here is a less civil one where I document everything he's done up to that date that irritated me.

The list below is representative, but not exhaustive. A complete a list is found here.

Actions include:

Editing comments on talk pages
  • One, Mystar pastes a reply in the middle of a weblink supporting my edit.
Commenting on users, not content
Personal attacks/incivility (has been warned before, and other users are reluctant enter dialogue with him. Note Mystar's reply).
Personal attacks/incivility against me
Personal attack/incivility against other users
  • One, changes 'enrage' to 'annoy' in next edit
  • Two
Wikistalking
Meatpuppeting
Sockpuppeting
Abuse of policy
See also

I have been uncivil as well. Recently I posted this (though there are others) after months of repeated warnings, comments and attempts at discussion without any change in his behaviour.

I don't really care if Mystar continues to add to wikipedia or not, and his straight contributions of content can be good, but I am really, really sick of continuously being confronted by his bellicose manner and tendentious edits.

[edit] Mystar diffs by category and chronological order

[edit] Commenting on users, not content

[edit] Editing other's comments on a talk page

[edit] Personal attack/incivility against me

[edit] Personal attack/incivility against other users

[edit] Wikistalking

[edit] Sockpuppeting

  • first, admits to it here (skipping one edit he made). The content I removed was completely irrelevant to the discussion and I originally removed it because the user had vandalised many previous pages.
  • Also, since he was not logged in, in order for Mystar to have seen my reversion he would have to had checked my contributions, making this another example of wikistalking.

[edit] Punitive use of policy

[edit] Meatpuppeting

[edit] Miscellaneous, including poor quality editing and erroneous statement

  • Liana was referenced, and had its own wikipage
  • Removing a paper reference for a scientific journal
  • Uninvolved user commenting on Mystar's editing here
  • One of many edits which don't make sense or are incorrect here, changing a wikilink into a redirect that takes you back to the original wikilink...
  • Also on Lupus, this edit came after this comment on the talk page discussing why I reverted his earlier edit, which broke the introductory paragraph into three sections, two of which were duplications of sections below. It also removed information on diagnosis and treatment from the introductory paragraph.
  • Also on Lupus, this comment by Mystar is in reference to this edit by me. The sentence I added summarized and introduced the paragraph on treatment and contained no information that was not discussed below.
  • This set of edits I just find condescending and irritating, but strictly speaking there is no unequivocal attacks or incivility here. Given our past history though, and my edit count being nearly four times his, I seriously doubt there is good intentions behind it.

[edit] Past contribs under anon ip

Special:Contributions/68.188.220.8

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WLU-Mystar

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel.Bryant 01:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lupus edits

  • Mystar breaks intro paragraph into three sections, duplicating information below in the article (i.e. now there's two treatment sections in the article) here.
  • I justify my changes on the talk page here and revert to previous version, keeping edits made in between here
  • Mystar reverts, and incidentally accuses me of edit warring here.
  • I revert again point to my reply (on the talk page) and emphasize the duplication of sections a second time.
  • Mystar ignores my reasoning, reverts the page again and again accuses me of edit warring. Apparently here he's finally read my reply, but the next edit breaks the section up again. At this point I'd given up looking at the page for a couple days, and my next edit is to put in the reference to House (tv show), which is called fluff. It's not the most critical contribution, but WP:MOS for medical does allow for it. I leave it alone.

WLU 15:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Omnilord thing

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Omnilord&diff=next&oldid=80088806

[edit] personal attack warning

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terry_Goodkind&diff=prev&oldid=73158199

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terry_Goodkind&diff=prev&oldid=73399360

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mystar1959

[edit] stuff

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terry_Goodkind&diff=next&oldid=63604265

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terry_Goodkind&diff=next&oldid=64119558

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terry_Goodkind&diff=next&oldid=64156116

[edit] dislike goodkind = bad person

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terry_Goodkind&diff=next&oldid=64158133

[edit] missing the point

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terry_Goodkind&diff=prev&oldid=64388635

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terry_Goodkind&diff=next&oldid=64406046

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terry_Goodkind&diff=next&oldid=64411577

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terry_Goodkind&diff=next&oldid=71938845

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terry_Goodkind&diff=next&oldid=72620803

[edit] bad faith

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terry_Goodkind&diff=next&oldid=72321511

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terry_Goodkind&diff=next&oldid=72327959

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terry_Goodkind&diff=next&oldid=72338071 (other address)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terry_Goodkind&diff=next&oldid=72446587 ditto

[edit] I'm not the only one

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terry_Goodkind&diff=next&oldid=72477278

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terry_Goodkind&diff=next&oldid=72615288

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terry_Goodkind&diff=next&oldid=72629980

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terry_Goodkind&diff=next&oldid=72632669

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terry_Goodkind&diff=next&oldid=72645801

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terry_Goodkind&diff=next&oldid=72651879

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terry_Goodkind&diff=next&oldid=72730681

[edit] failure to take steps to reduce conflict

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terry_Goodkind&diff=next&oldid=72731082

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terry_Goodkind&diff=next&oldid=72956263

[edit] users, not content

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/WLU-Mystar/Workshop#Evidence_presented_by_WLU:_Mystar.27s_personal_attacks.2Fincivility_against_users_other_than_WLU

[edit] new stuff

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/WLU-Mystar/Workshop#Stalking

I am super, super curious to know the path of logic would lead to me smearing Terry Goodkind on the Cat's Claw, Lupus Erythematosus, T'lan Imass, Eccentric and Concentric contraction pages.

[edit] missing the point (2)

[3]

Not sure what this proves. For one thing, there are a variety of links on the Terry Goodkind website that use Mystar's website as sources - somewhat natural that my IP would show up. For another, I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one with this IP, as it is a pretty generic one with a very popular internet company. Plus I'm pretty sure it changes fairly frequently. If Mystar blocks mine, he might be blocking a variety of people who live in the same city as me, and it might not even block me. And I never said that I have never visited the site, I said I've never posted any comments, which I haven't. And this is just about the most pointless bag of letters I've ever read. What does it prove? And how have I intruded? By reading the website and never, ever posting something?

[4]

That's why I called it PA/incivility. And the statement "I'm discovering new ones all the time" originates in the search through the diffs of the TG talk page, among others. And if I was still finding diffs in Mystar's current contributions, that's problematic and evidence of further ill-faith. How am I controlling Mystar's posts? Am I following him to pages and posting comments? Is his fear that I might read something offensive or uncivil making him be more civil? Hardly problematic the second.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terry_Goodkind&curid=1708642&diff=108367864&oldid=108348029

Oh my fucking God, it has to be deliberate.

[edit] Therapy

wow

awesome

I guess this means the other 3000 edits totally unrelated to Terry Goodkind are an elaborate beard, not to mention the complete lack of negative contributions to the Terry Goodkind for months on end. I'm just biding my time, cackle cackle. My ultimate plan was to sign up for a userid on wikipedia, wait the 30-50 years for Mystar to die, then BAM, single-handedly ruin Terry Goodkind's reputation with a few keystrokes, all apparently occurring subconsciously as I completely lack a memory of consciously deciding to do so. I am a frickin' genius.

I love the admission that this has absolutely nothing to do with the case. That's the best thing in the world.

[edit] TG talk page external links

http://www.bookstandard.com/bookstandard/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002878399 1Spider-Man director Sam Raimi, and his producing partner Joshua Donen, will develop a miniseries based on Terry Goodkind’s bestselling “Sword of Truth” series. Production will begin within a year, with Wizard’s First Rule, the first book in the series. 2Goodkind, who has previously turned down film offers, was struck by Raimi and Donen’s idea for a miniseries. 3“It’s a dream come true to work with someone of such remarkable vision, talent and ability,” Goodkind said in a statement released today. “Given Sam’s sincere love for these stories and his determination to only make great films, this mini series will be a watershed event.” 4Phantom, the latest in the ten-book series, was released last week, with the 11th set for release in early 2007. The ninth book, Chainfire, was released in January 2005 and has sold more than 235,000 in hardcover and mass-market editions, as tracked by Nielsen BookScan. 5Raimi is currently wrapping Spider-Man 3, with Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst.

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/tvnews.php?id=15750

A "Spider-Man" franchise director Sam Raimi and his producing partner Joshua Donen have optioned rights for Terry Goodkind's bestselling "Sword of Truth" adventure series, published by Tor Books.
B Having been approached by Hollywood a number of times over the past decade, Goodkind was never convinced that his 400,000 word novels could be successfully compressed into worthwhile feature films. In a meeting at the author's home, the renowned director and producer instead conceived of a groundbreaking mini-series. Within two hours Goodkind was sold on the concept and negotiations commenced. Ten months later the deal was finally concluded.
C "It's a dream come true to work with someone of such remarkable vision, talent, and ability," Goodkind said. "Given Sam's sincere love for these stories and his determination to only make great films, this mini-series will be a watershed event."
D All of Goodkind's novels have been international bestsellers. Translated into 20 foreign languages, there are over 10 million copies in print. The "Sword of Truth" series began with "Wizard's First Rule" in 1994. The 10th novel in the series, "Phantom," is on sale now. The 11th and final volume is under contract and will be published in 2008.
E Raimi and Donen hope to begin production of the opening mini-series, "Wizard's First Rule," within the next year, to be followed by ensuing volumes of the epic novels. The development process will begin while Raimi completes Spider-Man 3.

1 and A are the same information. 2 and B are the same information. 3 and C are the same quote 4 and D are different information about book publishing. Of the 2, the coming soon is the better info for the TG page as it's got information about the number of languages and copies in print. 5 and E are the same information.

There is nothing in the book standard link that is not in the coming soon link in greater detail. There is no reason to have this link in the external links.

[edit] awesome

[5]

[edit] oh yeah, it's personal

[edit] recent terry goodkind

first removal

first talk page posting

first revert

second removal

second revert

second talk page posting

third removal

first talk reply

third revert

final removal by uninvolved user

third talk page posting

second reply

fourth posting, moved from arb case

fifth posting with verbatim comparison

insane reply

sixth posting

seventh posting

[edit] recent ASOIAF

changed title

Mystar reverts with spurious reason

Other uninvolved user reverts

[edit] Old lupus

intro sentence to treatment section

Mystar's addition of fact tag

Mystar's challenge on talk page

my reply (and follow-up)

other user's comments

I remove fact tag

What I don't want is to have to pull in other editors every time I add info to one of Mystar's pet pages and he starts reverting me out of pique.

[edit] stalking

[6]

As a courtesy, I make a point of not editing pages that Mystar make changes to unless it is one that is already on my watchlist. This is because I know how aversive it can be to be followed by someone you don't respect or like. On top of that, many of the changes Mystar made worsened the pages and I had to fix the mistakes. Not to mention stalking me to a page, then slapping it with a spurious AFD tag out of pique.

[edit] therapy (2)

My reply to some of the statements. It's a waste of time to post these on the arb page itself, so they're mostly a way of venting without the arb committee having to read even more.

Well, let me add a few items here. Let us be crystal clear on the Terry Goodkind pages. As Neofreak stated [7] that as I also stated (with proofs) that outside elements were at work to discredit and vandalize the Goodkind pages.

Except this hasn't happened.

We clearly see some of the extent of that from user WLU who has been extremely vocal about wanting to do harm to Goodkind, his reputation and even goes so far as to place may offensive statements on her user page [8] & I politely asked for user WLU to bring her/his user page into line with a more NPOV face, which was rebuffed with "well show me policy then....No? Well up it stays!"

On my user page, not the TG page. Where was I vocal? That there is no diff means this comment is pissing in the wind.

Later WLU knowing quite well the conduct unbecoming removes it, [9]

Showing I read the policy and decided that it did apply, that I am amendable to reasonable discussion.

But I think this gives a crystal clear view into the intent to disrupt, cause consternation and discord, and yet WLU wants to have "me" removed from editing the Goodkind pages, where I've made countless excellent edits on content, summary, fact of information and keeping vandals at bay. Again the problem is not me.

What, 6 other people also had problems with the edits? Both of us being blocked means no conflict, and I believe I've reverted far more vandals than pretty much any other long-term editor to the page.
Also, I didn't suggest the arbitration ruling, that was the arbitrators.
Also (ii), the edits were generally not seen as excellent by other editors, including myself.

WLU clearly states as fact As for wanting TG shamed, I'd say I've downgraded to wanting at least the fact that his books involve strong and explicit violence, torture, etc [10]

So what?

Regardless of what claims WLU wishes to assert as to my making the Lupus pages a mess, my editing of the Lupus pages, Cats claw etc, did not make them worse.

I think they did.

Many of my changes are still intact, format, statements, just rewritten by WLU.

When they were worthwhile, I re-worded them to remove plagiarism and left them up.

I ask any admin to read my edits on the pages. I made good edits and contributed to them with information that still stands to this day.

Showing that I don't remove good information. Unlike Mystar. Also, the arb committee doesn't deal with content disputes and they aren't going to go fishing without diffs.

The only person who had any problem with any edits I made to them is WLU, who made a war out of it.

Yup, 'cause I think many are low-quality edits and there are never reasons given.

Lupus and Lupus SLE are two differing types of the same disease.

No they are not.

This is also why they are listed separately. My daughter died if this horrid thing, my wife suffers from it to a great degree. I live it, so I happen to know the effects and depth of the disease. Doctors, specialist etc. within the Rheumatoid profession will also attest to this fact. So stating that they are two differing this is in fact quite correct.

Show me a reference.

As to ASOIAF, I ask any admin to look at the links provided. I added my vote to consensus of Kevin on the matte, and then I allowed it to drop. Not worth more grief.

There was no reason to revert the title.

As for the other link again, I ask an admin to look at it independently, you will find nothing wrong with my comments or my edits. Looking further we have WLU claming vandalism where none exists. [11] and when I was attacked for reverting a simply and honest discussion on a talk page where it is meant to be, [12] and WLU insisted on removing honest and pertinent posts on a talk page...where it is meant to be place. I direct you to any admin who will attest to the fact that the user jamhaw committed no act of vandalism, rather this is more of WLU's page ownership problems.

Jamhaw's edit (if it is actually him) make no sense. There was no discussion or reply.

[13]. JWSchmidt, Lars, Cowman_109, as well as several other Admins have all look that over and said the same exact thing, WLU was page owning. WLU acted inappropriately.

They've never told me directly so I have no way of knowing if this is true or not.

I have very little time to devote to this kind of tomfoolery. But I would suggest that some admin look into WLU's edits and find out for themselves that any edit that WLU doesn't care for, no matter how good it is, or how honorable a user is in making it, WLU will list it as vandalism and berate said user. Is this really that way we want to treat newer users?

Show me a diff. I don't know how honor can impact a page. I think these generalized statements are absurd and patent nonsense.

As WLU has stated she/he has no knowledge of the books other than reading a few reviews. This does not constitute being able to edit with any kind of knowledge as to content and or specifics to the pages.

And I never have.

WLU has also made many attempts at, and succeeded in slandering Goodkind on Wikipedia, attacking his character and name-calling. Is this the kind of use you want editing a page of someone they openly profess to hold the highest distain for? No I think not.

Lots of people write articles about others they don't like on wikipedia. Critical commentary is allowed as long as it is referenced, balanced and NPOV.

Again At my suggestion Runch, Omni and I have started a Sword of Truth Wiki-project, and since this has been started we have been working on consensus and collaboration for the good of the pages and Wiki as a whole. This kind of cooperation and inter action can only be a good thing.

Spent more time following me around than on the wikiproject.

[edit] I don't make the decisions

[14]

[edit] amends

[15]

I don't remember amends

[edit] mentors

[16]

I don't think I need a mentor, and I think it would be a waste of time. Though a mentor might help with understanding each other's rationalization of edits.
What biting?
Admins might think it is ridiculous, but the arbitrators don't.

[edit] no edits

[17]


As WLU has stated she/he has no knowledge of the books other than reading a few reviews.

Talk about incivility, how many times do I have to say I'm a man?
Repeatedly said I've read WFR

This does not constitute being able to edit with any kind of knowledge as to content and or specifics to the pages.

Haven't edited a Sword of Truth page in a good long while.

WLU has also made many attempts at, and succeeded in slandering Goodkind on Wikipedia,

Where have I successfully slandered TG?

attacking his character and name-calling. Is this the kind of use you want editing a page of someone they openly profess to hold the highest distain for?

As long as I keep my contributions to the mainspace pages NPOV and can back them up with references, doesn't really matter what I think, just what I post.
I am not maintaining a 3000 post beard in order to hide a larger agenda of smearing TG.

[edit] other editors

Regarding Mystar's interactions with other editors (discussed here), currently it seems to be less of a problem, though it has in the past (links are for subsequent diffs, not necessarily comments):

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/WLU-Mystar/Workshop#placeholder_heading - diffs in second point

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/WLU-Mystar/Evidence#other_people_have_problems_with_mystar

as well as this comment.

Again, currently it is less of a problem, particularly since the Terry Goodkind page has settled down.

Irrespective, I'm satisfied with the potential outcome of arbitration.

[edit] Outcome

all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here.

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.

  • Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed.
  • Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
  • Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if they so choose. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed.

For this case, there are 13 active arbitrators and none are recused, so 7 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop.

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Stalking

1) It is not acceptable to stalk another editor who is editing in good faith. (Note that everyone is expected to assume good faith in the absence of definite evidence to the contrary.) Once an editor has given reason to suspect bad faith, monitoring is appropriate, but constantly nit-picking is always a violation of required courtesy.

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 05:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 19:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Paul August ☎ 17:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Way too strong. We have an ongoing problem with baseless accusations of stalking.
Abstain:

[edit] Courtesy

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. All users are instructed to refrain from this activity. Admins are instructed to use good judgment while enforcing this policy. Personal attacks are not acceptable. See Wikipedia:Civility.

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 05:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 19:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Paul August ☎ 17:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Incivil behavior

1) Both WLU and Mystar have at times engaged in incivil behavior toward each other; for example: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22].

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 05:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 19:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Paul August ☎ 17:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Stalking

2) Both parties accuse the other of stalking. Both are correct to some degree.

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 05:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 19:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Paul August ☎ 17:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC) per principle above.
Abstain:

[edit] Problems with other editors

3) Neither party seems to have any serious history of problems or issues with other editors.

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 05:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 19:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. On the workshop page User:NeoFreak, claims otherwise. Paul August ☎ 17:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I did look in the direction pointed by NeoFreak and was unconvinced. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

[edit] WLU

1) WLU shall not interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about, Mystar, on any page in Wikipedia. Should WLU do so, he may be blocked by any administrator for a short time, up to one week.

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 05:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 19:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC) (note slight change of "he" to "WLU" to make clear who this remedy is referring to.)
  6. Paul August ☎ 17:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Mystar

2) Mystar shall not interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about, WLU, on any page in Wikipedia. Should Mystar do so, he may be blocked by any administrator for a short time, up to one week.

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 05:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 19:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC) (see note in previous remedy)
  6. Paul August ☎ 17:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Previously problematic articles

3) For the purpose of the above remedies, any edit by either WLU or Mystar to one of the articles over which they had previously been in conflict (including, but not limited to, Terry Goodkind and Lupus Erythematosus) shall be considered an interaction with the other party.

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 05:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 19:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Paul August ☎ 17:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit] General

[edit] Motion to close

[edit] Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Majority in this case is 7. As of now, all principles, findings and remedies pass 8-0 or 7-1. Thatcher131 01:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

[edit] Principles

[edit] Stalking

1) It is not acceptable to stalk another editor who is editing in good faith. (Note that everyone is expected to assume good faith in the absence of definite evidence to the contrary.) Once an editor has given reason to suspect bad faith, monitoring is appropriate, but constantly nit-picking is always a violation of required courtesy.

passed 7-1 at 12:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Courtesy

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. All users are instructed to refrain from this activity. Admins are instructed to use good judgment while enforcing this policy. Personal attacks are not acceptable. See Wikipedia:Civility.

passed 8-0 at 12:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Findings of Fact

[edit] Incivil behavior

1) Both WLU and Mystar have at times engaged in incivil behavior toward each other; for example: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27].

passed 8-0 at 12:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stalking

2) Both parties accuse the other of stalking. Both are correct to some degree.

passed 7-1 at 12:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with other editors

3) Neither party seems to have any serious history of problems or issues with other editors.

passed 7-0 with one abstention at 12:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

[edit] WLU

1) WLU shall not interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about, Mystar, on any page in Wikipedia. Should WLU do so, he may be blocked by any administrator for a short time, up to one week.

passed 8-0 at 12:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mystar

2) Mystar shall not interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about, WLU, on any page in Wikipedia. Should Mystar do so, he may be blocked by any administrator for a short time, up to one week.

passed 8-0 at 12:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Previously problematic articles

3) For the purpose of the above remedies, any edit by either WLU or Mystar to one of the articles over which they had previously been in conflict (including, but not limited to, Terry Goodkind and Lupus Erythematosus) shall be considered an interaction with the other party.

passed 8-0 at 12:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enforcement

[edit] Log of blocks and bans

Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

[edit] Vote

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

  1. Close, looks like we're done here. Kirill Lokshin 03:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Close. Paul August ☎ 03:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Close. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Close. Flcelloguy (A note?) 04:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Close. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 08:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)