LessHeard vanU (talk | contribs) →Agent007ravi (single purpose account?): I have indef blocked |
|||
Line 850: | Line 850: | ||
Can something be done about this? TJ continues to announce what games are coming out, but the information isn't from a reliable source. Also, the information that he posts isn't added to the article for that same reason. So he is basically using the talk page as a way to promote a bad source, as well as making it an announcement board for himself and a few others. These same people are the ones that were posting other off topic comments until recently. They've stopped since the reminder you posted, with the exception of TJ's most recent post. We can wait and see, but I can bet people will chime in with their off topic comments. [[User:RobJ1981|RobJ1981]] ([[User talk:RobJ1981|talk]]) 04:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC) |
Can something be done about this? TJ continues to announce what games are coming out, but the information isn't from a reliable source. Also, the information that he posts isn't added to the article for that same reason. So he is basically using the talk page as a way to promote a bad source, as well as making it an announcement board for himself and a few others. These same people are the ones that were posting other off topic comments until recently. They've stopped since the reminder you posted, with the exception of TJ's most recent post. We can wait and see, but I can bet people will chime in with their off topic comments. [[User:RobJ1981|RobJ1981]] ([[User talk:RobJ1981|talk]]) 04:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
:If you check out the edit history of [[List of Virtual Console games (North America)]], you will see two IP editors that used the information that TJ posted. TJ's post on the talk page seems to be encouraging people to add the information as if it was reliable and accurate. In my opinion, if the talk page section wasn't there... IP editors wouldn't be adding the information in. If this continues (next week for example), can the sections made by TJ be stopped finally? The problem is with the talk page, which should be prevented in the first place. [[User:RobJ1981|RobJ1981]] ([[User talk:RobJ1981|talk]]) 18:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC]] == |
== [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC]] == |
Revision as of 18:18, 10 February 2008
"won" "too" three "fore" "fie've" |
Mattisse
I know you said you were tired of dealing with him... but now he is making threats of retaliation against me on his talk page see this dif. He seems to think it was my fault that you blocked him. I am not going to respond to him. All I want is to back out of this mess. Please help. Blueboar 02:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Bluebore ...sigh
- Sigh...I agree with Bluebore. This small issue has once again been blown out of proportion by Cyborg Ninja and the success she has achieved by being th messenger between Bluebore and PalanceGuard and the support, as they saw it, by your taking sides. If they will just stop talking about it I am more than happy to do so. It is a petty issue. I long ago conceded their copy/paste tactics worked despite policy. I is clear there is nothing I can do. I do not expect fairness. Lets drop it. I have been given a long list of anti-wikipedia links, and I think I will take my energies there. I have head those links are much more rewarding that these small minded preoccupations incouraged by admins who love wielding power. --Mattisse 03:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
More sighing
- Please ask him to just drop it. No one else beside you, Cyborg Ninja, Blueboar and PalacGuard008 is interested.
- I have asked you to clarify exactly what I did wrong, as PlalaceGuard008 and Blueboar are prolonging this and continuing it. Since I do not know what I did wrong I would appreciate an explanation. When Cyborg Ninja gets back in the ring (it is she who filled the mediation) then it is likely to escalate further. Please explain specifically what I did wrong (not diffs of long paragraphs where I cannot tell if you are saying if anything I said was O.K. in your eyes or only certain portions. I need specifics. If a do not understand, then a real mess has been created, the outcome of your actions is waiting in the wings. Surely you will get involved in the mediation as you are a major factor now, due to your taking sides. Perhaps there you will provide the specifics, as the links you have given so far will not be considered helpful.
- I will also explain that I spent one year on Wikipedia as a "nice" person always being polite and doing the right thing. That netted me pobably 15 t0 20 ANI complaints, got me labeled as a proven sock puppet (rediculous) and had me banned several times. This year, after the sock puppet ring after me returned and I realized that I would not get any help, I decided on the nasty approach. Unfortunately, the nasty approach works better. This is my first ban this year, and I do not think it is well substantiated. You still have not pointed out specific examples. Giving diffs to very long paragraphs is not helpful. Are you meaning every word I wrote in those long paragraphs were uncivil. Perhaps if I knew what you meant I would be in a better situation regarding understanding this. Now, I have no idea what you are talking about, as so much uncivil and personal attacks have been directed a me that do not count in you eyes. How can I tell the difference?
- Please do clarify or I will never understand. Mattisse 03:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)}}
Dealing w/ talkpage harassment
Hi. You might recall the business between myself and G2bambino, back in August, and my consequent making of a user sub-page as a means of dealing with talk-page harassment. That sub-page has just been nominated for deletion. Whereas you were a witness to its making, and to the circumstances of and reasons for that making, I hope that you will comment at the deletion discussion. You seemed, at the time, to understand the page's worth and usefulness. If so, and if that remains your opinion, I hope you will support its keeping. So far, it seems to have discouraged further spiteful posts on my talk-page, and I wish that to carry on, as the least troublesome ways of handling such nuisances. Thanks.
-- Lonewolf BC 20:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Reply
Yeah I'm discussing the case in here. I'll remove his msg on Jimbo's talk after he get blocked. Thanks --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 15:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- You can't remove the msg, whether my account is blocked or not. If you want to remove the msg on Jimbo's talk, discuss with User :LessHeard vanU as a separate issue.Kelbaster 15:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Removal should usually be done by an uninvolved party, per discussion elsewhere or not. As an involved party you should only act to refute the accusation and draw attention to any relevant discussion - unless you gain consensus at sockpuppet discussion for removal. Cheers. LessHeard vanU 15:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Your block and more
You continue to become involved in issues over Mattisse whenever she notifies you, though I and you yourself have noted that because of your previous involvement over the drapetomania article, you may have a conflict of interest. As for the supposed "personal attack," Mattisse was talking about herself and I commented on how I didn't know they let "old ladies" on oil rigs. Mattisse referred to herself as a grandmother in the past. Calling someone "old" and a "lady" is inoffensive. If I called someone a "hag" or "on their death bed," then you would have a point. But unfortunately, nothing occurred here except your inability to properly manage your job at Wikipedia. Your ignorance of my attempts at mediating the arguments over the Caisson (Asian architecture) article and past attempts in helping Mattisse over drapetomania and psychiatry is disappointing. I would hope that someone of your position would accumulate a background of knowledge before taking such drastic attempts of warning and blocking other members. Also, your arbitrary decisions while ignoring evidence of the other party's violations is repulsive for me to see on a site such as Wikipedia. I hope that a formal review of your conduct will be undertaken, and in the meantime I will assemble evidence of improper conduct on both your part and Mattisse's on behalf of the populous of Wikipedians. - Cyborg Ninja 23:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Whatever. You do what you think is right. LessHeard vanU 23:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
New admin
See my SSP backlog note at AN, the brand new admin's response and my retort there and on his talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think your actions and comments are sufficient, nothing more needs doing for now. Cheers. LessHeard vanU 12:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Mattisse & Mediation
Hi, there's a mediation request pending at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Caisson (Asian architecture) concerning Caisson (Asian architecture), following the collapse of informal mediation after Mattisse stormed out. I have notified Mattisse on his talk page, but the notice seems to have been removed in one of the big deletions in recent days.
I wonder if you could remind Mattisse of the mediation request? I'm afraid she may not have noticed it when it got deleted, and I don't want to post again on her talk page, lest it provokes a reaction like the last time I posted. Thanks in advance, --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a new administrator!
Thanks Mark
God bless Pal. Vera, Chuck & Dave 23:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
In Remembrance...
--nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 04:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
More trouble from 216.79.155.1
On 3 November you temporarily blocked User Talk:216.79.155.1 from editing, due to repeated removals of material. It now appears that he/she is at it again, only three days later. A large portion of the Controversy section of False Memory Syndrome Foundation was removed by 216.79.155.1, with no explanation. I left yet another warning on his/her Talk page, but I am skeptical that it will be read by the individual in question. No response necessary — please just do whatever you think appropriate. Cheers! —Aetheling 22:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
RE: WP:AIV
I will take to WP:SSP, thank you. Bmg916Speak 00:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Marie-Rose Mueller
Whether Wikipedia values supercentenarians or no, you can find them here:
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/
Are you a member yet?Ryoung122 20:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Whippersnapper! ;~) LessHeard vanU 21:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
My RFA
Deal? I've switched it on! I'll make an effort to make edit summaries from now on :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 01:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done! ;~) LessHeard vanU 01:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Smile
Can you take a look at User:Hereinindy to see if that user is a sockpuppet? All the edits by that user are recent and vandalism. What's interesting, however, is that the edits were done with an obvious knowledge of WP. He/she uses templates, uses WP terminology (i.e., dab), includes misleading edit summaries, etc. The editor is almost certainly an experienced WP editor but the short edit history indicates the user was created for the purposes of vandalism.
If you are not available or not the right person, can you point me somewhere? John Cardinal 05:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I have begun a thread on Haizum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) at WP:ANI#Haizum_-_request_for_further_admin_action, whom you blocked today. • Lawrence Cohen 18:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
RfA
I considered not spamming talk pages but not saying "thanks" just isn't me. The support was remarkable and appreciated. I only hope that I am able to help a little on here. Please let me know if I can help you or equally if you find any of my actions questionable. Thanks & regards --Herby talk thyme 12:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I just reset his block due to socks. Just to let you know. Kwsn (Ni!) 15:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Barnstar
The Socratic Barnstar | ||
For your ability to think against the flow, which led the Privatemusings case to an amicable solution. — Sebastian 19:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC) |
Thank you to whomever...
...it was who altered my sig so my talkpage is appended. I had been meaning to do it since forever. -- LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Fellow keeps re-creating that page. I CSD'd it and you deleted it and he's done it again. ScarianTalk 13:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, no worries. Thank you for the delete(s). Have a nice day! ScarianTalk 13:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
RfA for Canadian Paul
My RfA
Hi; thanks for your support to my RfA, which closed successfully at (51/1/2). I'll keep this brief since I don't like spamming anyone: I'll work hard to deserve the trust you placed in me. Thanks again. — Coren (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I need a favour!
Are you around? ScarianTalk 00:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Aw, sorry! Ha, I have difficulty with patience so I got "Chase me ladies I'm the cavalry" to do the job for me. Although you can keep an eye on it? [1] ScarianTalk 01:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Aye, if you could keep an eye on it? I've warned both chaps, navlos slightly more harshly, as he's acting defensivley, but it's nothing that tea can't fix. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Block of Academy Leader
Less, I am more than a little disappointed that you chose to issue me a warning, rather than attempting to discuss the disagreement first. The warning is a statement that you believe you are right and I am wrong. That's no way to begin a discussion. Considering that I had reviewed the 530 contributions of Academy Leader, and you had not looked at the matter yet, you might not have had as clear a picture as I did. Please look at the wording of good hand, bad hand accounts and you will see that the behavior of Academy Leader qualified as a bad hand sock puppet. He has another account in good standing that he is free to use. I hope this disagreement between us can be resolved informally. I have appreciated your perspectives in the past, and felt like this warning was hasty and uncharacteristic. If you refactor your remarks, I will be pleased to adjust mine accordingly. - Jehochman Talk 16:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
File:Dainsyng.gif You are always welcome at my talk page. I am sorry we had a bit of misunderstanding today. - Jehochman Talk 06:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
re Mattisse block
- Hi LessHead vau! You should explain to Jehochaman that you are treating him specially that you even issued a warning to you!!!! You blocked me without warning quite a few hours after I had moved on from my conflict with another editor, and I lost a whole intricate article with many footnotes I had been writing in the meantime because when I tried to save it I learned, without any warning, that I was blocked. Perhaps you are an editor who does little article writing. Jehochaman appears to be one of the privileged ones as far as you is concerned! (You should take a look a MONOGO for a little reality check of what is blockable --- I have as many "contributions" as MONGO but I am not even eligible for the common decency Jehochman expects, never mind the extra special treatment MONGO gets.) Oh, well. It is good to be the king. Mattisse 17:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- That would be LessHeard vanU - n, capital U - and MONGO - only two "O"'s -. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry. Thanks for the complete explanation. Your helpful spelling correction clears up everything. I will ask another to find out from you. Mattisse 00:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- You were behaving quite disgracefully with User:Blueboar, to the point that he was feeling harassed, who had previously had offered to mediate in good faith. My block was preventative, in that you ceased interacting with that editor. I would refer you to my archive five, last item, for the diffs regarding the specific comments. I would, in the meantime, request that we both remove our last comments from Captain panda's RfA since it is unfair to use that as a venue. Please note that I am aware of your raising concerns, albeit obliquely, regarding my actions at various venues (as, ironically, has User:Cyborg Ninja) but have chosen to WP:IGNORE them so as not to escalate the situation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry. Thanks for the complete explanation. Your helpful spelling correction clears up everything. I will ask another to find out from you. Mattisse 00:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- That would be LessHeard vanU - n, capital U - and MONGO - only two "O"'s -. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Pisky
I would use a -y, but I daresay there are huge arguments amongst Cornish-language revivalists about this! I appear to be back again! DuncanHill (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I see you've blocked then unblocked beh-nam recently, he is vandalising pages so why are you not doing anything to stop him? I request that he be blocked indef due to his disruptive behaviour who is and has been vandalising pages after pages of national leaders by falesly inserting that they were child molestor, slave owner, facists, etc.[2], [3] He's been vandalising Pashtun people and many other articles for a very long time.[4], [5], [6]
He keeps removing the official government website from Afghanistan/Hamid Karzai article [7] and usually placing over it anti-Afghanistan blog sites, this after an administrator (Future Perfect at Sunrise) has warned not to mess with again. [8], [9] If anyone adds images of popular Pashtun leaders in the Pashtun article he will revert the page right away, probably that he does not want Pashtuns to appear good in the eyes of others. He is ethnic Tajik, a Persian nationalist, and anti-Pashtun or Afghan as well as anti-Turk.[10] He has an unusual extended block history which includes 2 indefs for which he was allowed back on condition to stop harrassing or personally attacking another ethnic group.[11]
Same as all other vandals, he will never change and will continue with vandalising pages by writing all sorts of untrue things about leaders who are not from his ethnic group. He reverts everyone who fixes his vandalism without explaining anything.[12] Beh-nam is working closely with a banned User:Tajik (who is hiding under anon IPs that start with 82.xx.xxx.xxx which is confirmed by several admins including User:Dmcdevit [13]) [14], [15], [16], and has User:Anoshirawan as his edit-war partner. He and his edit-war partner are going around changing the correct name Afghan (which is backed by the Constitution of Afghanistan, CIA world factbook, as well as all the government and media sites of the world) to a false afghanistani name simply because they like it. There is nothing that can be said to justify his actions, even if it comes from an administrator who knows him. Please ban this user indef so that the rest of us can have peace and finally fix all their vandalism slowly.--Hurooz (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't make a habit of keeping tags on editors I have sanctioned. As I recall I indef blocked per a report at AIV, but the block was reduced per a discussion on ANI which involved people more knowledgable than I - and I agreed to let them decide. That is all that I can remember. I don't have an answer for you since I do not know the details about the dispute. I regret that there are still divisions along ethnic, national, and political lines but I am not prepared to attempt to make choices between editors expounding different views. If there is an instance of obvious vandalism then I can act, but I leave it to others with more experience to decide upon the difficult areas. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Edit summary
I'm not offended or complaining. I'm scratching my head. :) How does typing slower help? Mercury 22:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- It is an old joke, around the formula of "A (insert choice of ethnicity/culture/class here) Loving Mothers Letter to Her Favourite Son". In it she says that she is writing slowly since she knows he cannot read quickly... Other lines are, "This week it has only rained twice; once for 3 days and once for 4 days", "I was going to send you some money, but I have already sealed the envelope" and "Father has now installed the new washing machine; I put some clothes in, pulled the chain and we haven't seen anything of them since".
- In retrospect it wasn't the most helpful comment/edit summary ever made, and I apologise for making it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Its fine, I did not make to correlation, it flew right over my head. :P Mercury 23:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
My RfA
Thank you for your comments in my RfA and on my talk page regarding it. I agree that I will have to work on my mainspace contributions in order to have a successful RfA in the future. Hopefully, I will do that and have a successful RfA next time. :) Captain panda 21:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
User talk:Jimbo Wales
I think you did right thing. Neither my User:Neo. deserve to comment nor obvious sockpuppet User:Smilehalt deserve to comment there. Thanks. 195.189.142.200 (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- The first comment was obvious (and I really hate both the word and concept, but it is apt) trolling and your response regarding WAS.520 - close enough? - disregarded the fact that he and Jimbo are already in discussion regarding related matters. That you are a self admitted sock did not help... Anyhow, it was only removed from the page and not the history. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Deception...
thanks for fixing the type-o. glad to see my articles being noticed by admin, i know its not much of an article, but im new to this. any pointers would be greatly appreciated File:FireFlames.jpgYes, I really am a Sith Lord (Comms) 00:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
halls of residence
Certainly they are not intrinsically or even usually notable, but they're not one of the things that can be removed on speedy as nn, according to WP:CSD A7; --many are copyvios, but if not, prod usually works DGG (talk) 02:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I did check for copyvio, and it was okay(ish). I will PROD next time. LessHeard vanU 09:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections comments
Good morning. Regarding your recent comments on the candidate votes page for Giano; unfortunately, the comments are too long and should be made at the voting talk page. The maximum length of comments on the voting page itself should be two short sentences. This determination was reached on prior consensus on the ArbCom Elections talk page. For your convenience, I have moved them appropriately, and have included a link from the vote page to the comment on the talk page - but feel free to edit my move to your preference. However, extended comments, like the ones you provided, are best placed on the talk page. I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. Thank you. - ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ta. I have reinstated one sentence from the moved text. LessHeard vanU 13:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
FeloniousMonk
Actually I was the one who instituted the block, not him. I have replied to your comment at AN/I. Guettarda (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I see. Maybe I should read things a little more carefully :) Guettarda (talk) 22:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Penwith Wikiproject
Hi, I see you are a member of the Penwith Wikiproject. A proposal has been made to merge it with the Cornwall Wikiproject. You can join in the debate here. Best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 12:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks.LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
two questions
you deleted a stub i created on a band, Victory at Sea, due to lack of asserted notability; i'm just curious what would qualify for notability? they released five albums and played for ten years, have 80,000+ 'scrobbles' on last.fm, an article at allmusic.com (which i had linked in the stub), and played many respectable venues, though none of that information really seems appropriate for an article.
i also have a separate, unrelated question/suggestion: instead of simply disabling vandal's ip addresses from making changes temporarily, could we make it so that they themselves continue thinking theyre making changes, but the changes are only visible to them? it might require too much overhead or something, i dont know. i was just thinking, it seems like a vandal who thinks he/she is still making edits might be less persistent in their vandalism than someone who is periodically banned and then returns either when the ban is lifted or when they get to another ip address.
i know there is probably a better place to post such a suggestion, but im not involved enough really to know where, and i figure since youre an admin, i might as well mention it to you. anyway, i would prefer you respond at my talk page please, and i appreciate your time with either question. --Quietly (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- thanks for the speedy response! my article almost certainly didnt qualify for notability, and theyre not such a huge band that finding reliable independent sources is easy, so ill look around, and if i can meet the criteria, ill recreate the article.
- also, with the suggestion, what im trying to express is, right now, when someone repeatedly vandalizes articles, (whether as an anonymous ip or registered user), you, as an admin, might disable their editing abilities for some time, right? what if instead, for the same period of time, a bot followed around their edits and undid them minutes afterward? or i guess maybe youre saying that would discourage any faithful editing that someone might try to perform during that time as well... which i can agree with. anyway, thanks for the pointers.--Quietly (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- okay, i figured out that their last two albums were released on Gern Blandsten Records, which qualifies for notability. so is it possible to undelete the stub? it was at Victory at Sea (band) and shows up in the deletion log. if not, i can just re-start it. thanks again for your help. --Quietly (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
It's the colon
i.e. [[Image:x]] versus [[:Image:x]]. Of course, there's all new body part humor in the colon as well.... -- Kendrick7talk 18:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know who I should bring this to (I just posted to WP:AN/I] but you seem to be familiar with this editor. She (I just realised) started a rampage of disruptive editing on the Psychopathy article earlier today...at first it looked as if she was a bit POV, but as she has gone on it seems as though she is actually making up many of her claims as she goes along (though they look convincing at first). The best way I can put it is that she seems to be reinventing both the article's topic and WP protocol as she goes along VERY insistently. I know the subject middling well and a lot of the claims she make (with apparent authority) verge on the ridiculous. She is removing or inlining valid citations...it's all really WEIRD...--Zeraeph (talk) 18:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your advice, unfortunately I don't HAVE a whole lot of time right now. I'll probably just have to leave her to it and recover the damage later. It'll be easier to make sure I explain it all properly on the talk page as a "block" rather than piecemeal, and less time consuming for me. It's also never a BAD idea to overhaul a stable article every once in a while. I have listed for "Third Opinion", and there are a couple of other pretty determined and knowledgeable editors who check in from time to time. --Zeraeph (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- To give more information, she has actually tagged citations for citation at one point [17] and also commented them out [18] on the grounds that they do not refer to Psychopathy, when one of them refers to it even in the title and here, with the addition of uncited commentary [19]. She adds uncited commentary such as [20] . Adds a POV tag on grounds of "inaccurate references continue to be restored - the article mixes up UK and US practices & does not distinguish between research findings & clinincal practices" which has noting whatever to do with POV EVEN if it were true, which it doesn't seem to be. There is loads more. I am beginning to realise I made a BIG mistake reverting her at all, because if I hadn't. the pattern of her edits all together would have been bizarre. Here is an example of her rationales on the talk page [21] "not used in court rooms to diagnose real people" that's totally odd. So is this [22]
- I feel like Alice down the rabbit hole. --Zeraeph (talk) 21:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest that you continue to seek a third opinion, or for help from some of the other contributors to the article. Has Mattisse previously edited this article? If so, had there been previous discussions about the validity of some of the references? Has there ever been discussions about the sources validity by anyone? If she hasn't previously edited the article then she does need to indicate why she believes consensus is wrong - even though having a fresh editor look at an article is often a benefit it is up to them to prove their viewpoint. It would help if you could get some previous article contributors to look over the exchanges, and see what their reactions are. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- This was her only previous edit om talk (VERY POV, and not in line with available information) [23] which was answered here [24] (not by me). There has never been a dispute about any of the citations. Many were dredged up to establish points others disputed. I originally AGF about the Washington State legislature and just went looking for an alternate without checking it, only to find that it most certainly DID contain the reference, so I restored it, specifying why and she "fact" tagged it AGAIN, to me that is failure to AGF at best and potentially just disruptive. The references she commented out supported the statements they were supposed to support. She only had to check them. But she claimed the links were "503", they were not. --Zeraeph (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm... Firstly, not the model answer... I note from the talkpage header that there is a related project; have you asked there for some assesment of the discussion/edits?
- I had forgotten that Mattisse claims to have qualifications in the field - I will not suggest conflict of interest, but I understand (from only the popular press, I admit) that there are several schools of thought regarding psychopathy. Perhaps she follows a type of thinking not reflected in the article? If she can supply sources for her contentions then it should be included, but I still feel that cited content should not be removed until she can convince others that it is wrong; Saying so aint enough. You really do need to get some counter-counter arguments lined up, and some other voices. Last of all, it doesn't matter if it takes a few days to sort out - it is better to go slowly and surely than to get into revert wars. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- I only see WP:COI in the combination between her declared position on talk and her claim to work in the field. Certainly if she can find citations in accord with WP:MEDMOS to support her contentions they must be included, but her pattern has been to insert uncited commentary that reflects on and often distorts existing text. In one instance she inserted a block of uncited speculation followed by a cited comment of no relevance alone [25]. She even wants to remove the disease infobox!--Zeraeph (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- As I said previously, you need to get a few more voices involved in the discussion over content - and to make the case that consensus requires argued change. Until there is a body of opinion that concludes Mattisses changes are incorrect or are otherwise damaging the article then this is a simple content dispute (and between only two parties). Once there is agreement that the pre Mattisse version is the consensus version then any non-consensual changes by her can be reverted as vandalism (no 3RR limitations, and possible sanctions for abuse). Of course, if consensus changes then the sources need to be found and cited... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- I only see WP:COI in the combination between her declared position on talk and her claim to work in the field. Certainly if she can find citations in accord with WP:MEDMOS to support her contentions they must be included, but her pattern has been to insert uncited commentary that reflects on and often distorts existing text. In one instance she inserted a block of uncited speculation followed by a cited comment of no relevance alone [25]. She even wants to remove the disease infobox!--Zeraeph (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Your post
Re:[26], As soon as people construed that I explicitly and repeatedly made the appropriate clarification. The rumor persisted anyway despite my efforts to stop it. DurovaCharge! 23:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I concede that the impression was rebutted swiftly (even if not noted). My point remains that there are good faith reasons why someone may believe that all avenues have been explored and exhausted, and may therefore feel that bringing the matter to a wider public is necessary. Hopefully we are in a process of looking forward to possible scenarios rather than rehashing the recent past. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
AN/I request
Could you please take a look at the frivolous thread that Deeceevoice started on me, two threads above the Brendan one? It started out frivolous, as is indicated by the diffs I posted (DCV only pointed people to talk histories in her "complaint", no diffs). During the discussion, one of her supporters, Jeffpw chose to "out" me as a vanished user. It's there in the thread of the conversation, and has been for many hours. I'd appreciate a quick resolution of both the underlying "complaint" and the serious matter of Jeff revealing me as a vanished user. Mr Which??? 15:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Question on Brendan
I dipped my toe into this one after what I thought was a less-than-stellar block of Brendan for "outing" a guy who had made no secret of his identity right up until the point that Brendan supposedly "outed" him. I familiarized myself with WP:OUTING, and it talks about the fact that the attempted "outing" doesn't even have to be true (per the recent comments about Brendan's complaint about Shot Into). Just bringing that to your attention. There may actually be a breach of policy in this case. Mr Which??? 15:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- You should take a quick peek at that policy. IMO, the violation of it by Shot Into was clearer than Brendan's, given that the person "outed" by Brendan had effectively "outed" himself through links on his userpage, which is explicitly covered in that policy. Mr Which??? 15:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Please refactor
This - please find a more genteel way of expressing the sentiment. My heart's with you, but we should be setting the example. DurovaCharge! 16:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Nope. Zero tolerance for racist agendas. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- No personal attacks is a policy, and not an optional one. Please reword that comment in a more civil fashion. Refraining from personal attacks is not tantamount to tolerating someone. 1 != 2 17:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- see Talk:Blair Peach. Any sanction against me in respect of my personal position regarding racists will be regarded as a badge of honour (and I hold no ill-will against anyone who exercises such sanctions, as I take the consequences of my actions). I don't abandon principles. Sorry. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- I discovered long ago that I have more success combatting bigotry by politely showing people a side of things they might not have considered before. Anger breeds anger; vulgarity breeds vulgarity. Sometimes I stand up and draw the line. It carries more clout to do so in a dignified manner. DurovaCharge! 01:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Help requested...
I accidentally created a category page (Category:Category:Christmas number-one singles) while trying to edit the page without the double "Category:Category:" prefix. Can you delete it for me? If not, do I have to propose it for deletion as page/category created by mistake? Thanks for any help/advice you can offer... John Cardinal (talk) 15:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the help! Regarding your comment about some situations you couldn't help with, I still felt I had a friend in the business! <g> — John Cardinal (talk) 21:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Block
Yeah, accidentally used block3 instead of block1, fixed already :) BLACKKITE 16:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
British vs US spelling
You "corrected" the word grey to gray on the site about Rose and Malone. This is standard British spelling and is acceptable - especially on a page about a UK subject. Thank you.Daisyabigael (talk) 01:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
First Warning re Moneybomb
Thank you for the advice and warning. I will do as you ask, but calling some one "biased" is not very inflamitory. I have been trying to communicate with "HelloAnnoying" but he seems to be a "know-it-all" as soon as I post within seconds (30-60 sec.) he deletes them (sometimes before I have time to edit). I have tried to talk to him on his page. However when I post an on topic factual information all referenced, I do not expect him to troll. Nor I do not expect a personal vendetta either. --Duchamps comb (talk) 02:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Duchamps_comb
Wrong range
FYI, I left a comment at WP:ANI#Requesting 2 range blocks about the range block being incorrect. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Unblock
Thanks for unblocking Ceoil. We need him badly over the next day or two because he is doing the final adjustments before sending Las Meninas to FAC so that he can respond to reviews over the holidays. It would not have served Wikipedia's interests to have him banned from editing during the present 48 hours. qp10qp (talk) 14:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Seconded! Johnbod (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- I just enacted the consensus, and was only one voice among many there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Don't know if you misunderstood my point
But your own edit summary is much like mine. And what I can see of yours is really excellent work. Merry Christmas!SBHarris 01:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Chrissy Card(s)
RfA thanks
Ban of user User:88.248.17.92
Any chance you want to make this 1 week or even more? It seems like a SPA...--CastAStone//(talk) 15:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- And maybe protect the talk page[27]?--CastAStone//(talk) 15:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher 00:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Assassination article protection
There have been some questions on Talk:Benazir Bhutto assassination as to why the article was semi-protected and if the semi-protection is really needed. -- tariqabjotu 15:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi LessHeard, I've been contributing to this argument on the article talk page and on the admin noticeboard. Could you please unprotect the article and see how it goes for a while. Thanks. 86.31.35.135 (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Re: Report at AIV
Ok, thanks for notifying me. I wasn't looking for any indefinite ban or anything of that sort, its just frustrating reverting and trying to communicate with a user that doesn't respond. I posted the similar report on ANI but a user requested i try SSP or AIV, either way, it looks like the user has stopped for now. If he continues to vandalize the page I'll just file a report at SSP. Thanks again. Happy holiday! -- LaNicoya •Talk• 23:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you
For this. DurovaCharge! 01:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
RfA thanks
Dear LessHeard vanU, here is a little note to say thank you for your kind support on my request for adminship which succeeded with a final result of (72/19/6).
Now that I am a sysop, do not hesitate to contact me with any queries you have. I would be glad to help you along with the other group of kind and helpful administrators.
Thank you again and I look forward to editing alongside you in the future. — E talk 12:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I had to report User talk:Zeraeph to the 3_RRR today as within approximately two hours after her 28 day block was completed, she made 19 edits to Psychopathy, removing and rearranging my reference citations, refusing to discuss on the article talk page, removing my wording with edit summaries stating that I am wrong, incorrect information etc. and that she will get citations later. Is there another way of dealing with a person like this? She is making major use of material I wrote and distorting it to fit her goals. Her view is that this is her article and only edits she permits are allowed. Please advise. Regards, Mattisse 22:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- But what should I do? Helpful comments have been left on her page many times. In fact, you among many, told her to discuss and get consensus. She is refusing to discuss at all. Does this mean I cannot edit the article because it is hers? Since the 28 block had no effect, and since that block was just one of many in the past, will I never be allowed to edit the article? I am too scared to edit the article myself, as are other editors. Everyone I contacted said the best advice was to never edit the same articles she does. It seems hopeless. Regards, Mattisse 22:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, my 3-RRR request was denied because it was "malformed". I do not know what "malformed" is so I give up. There is no help here. I may try another admin - hope you don't think I am admin shopping, but this is so depressing and I feel so helpless. Mattisse 22:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the offer but it is in such a mess right now it is hardly worth it. I am not going to take the time and effort to bother with that article again. It was foolish of me. This is why I no longer do anything but write my own articles. Getting involved with this one was an exception and proves again why not to edit other articles. I had Barnstars galore (if you look on my userpage) for copy editing and got several articles to FA. But no longer is my goal to help Wikipedia as this sort of thing over Psychopathy is the inevitable result. I will stay away from Psychopathy, as I have been warned by other editors to do, and write my own articles.
- Well, my 3-RRR request was denied because it was "malformed". I do not know what "malformed" is so I give up. There is no help here. I may try another admin - hope you don't think I am admin shopping, but this is so depressing and I feel so helpless. Mattisse 22:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Could you explain what "malformed" means? How do I submit one that is not malformed? Sincerely, Mattisse 23:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- I gave diffs for 19 edits in 2 hours directly after her 28 day block ended. If that is not enought, then nothing is. Mattisse 23:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Changes made by your friend to Psychopathy today:
- first revert [28] 17.20 December 28
- second revert [29]-Revision as of 17:41, 28 December 2007
- third revert [30]- Revision as of 17:43, 28 December 2007
- fourth revert [31] -Revision as of 17:46, 28 December 2007
- fifth revert [32] - Revision as of 17:47, 28 December 2007
- sixth revert [33] -Revision as of 17:55, 28 December 2007
- seventh revert [34] - Revision as of 17:56, 28 December 2007
- eighth refert [35] - Revision as of 17:58, 28 December 2007
- ninth revert [36] - Revision as of 17:59, 28 December 2007
- 10th revert [37] - Revision as of 18:00, 28 December 2007
- 11th revert [38] - Revision as of 18:07, 28 December 2007
- 12th revert [39] - Revision as of 18:12, 28 December 2007
- 13th revert [40] - Revision as of 18:14, 28 December 2007
- 14 revert [41] - Revision as of 18:16, 28 December 2007
- 15 revert [42] -Revision as of 18:17, 28 December 2007
- 16th revert [43] - Revision as of 18:22, 28 December 2007
- 17th revert [44] - Revision as of 19:17, 28 December 2007
- 16th revert [45] - Revision as of 19:20, 28 December 2007
- 17th revert [46] - Revision as of 19:22, 28 December 2007
- 18th revert [47] - Revision as of 19:26, 28 December 2007
- 19th revert [48] - Current revision (19:43, 28 December 2007)
All this within hours of bein unblocked. Thanks! Mattisse 06:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Your note
Hi, just to let you know that I've left a note on Talk:Psychopathy asking that someone explain the dispute to me, and I'll keep an eye on things there. Thanks for letting me know about it. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Have you looked at SV's page - everyone is fed up - please read this
- (copied from Slim Virgins page)
-- User:Zeraeph question --
Since you seem to have developed some repertoire with User:Zeraeph, I was hoping you would help out now. Her 28 day block expired today, and she immediately made 19 contentious edits to Psychopathy, making edit summaries like, "this is wrong", "incorrect", etc. but refusing do discuss on the article talk page, as she says she is right and that is that. I reported her to 3-RRR but it was declined as "malformed". I do not know what that means. Do you have any advice as to how to handle this? Now she is taking information I put in the article and mistaking it, and she is moving citations around in a misleading way. Is it true, as everyone says, that none of her article's can be edited by anyone else? Regards, Mattisse 22:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
---same subject ---
It is my understanding (possibly wrong) that you were involved in Zeraeph's unblocking. I have been contacted by Mattisse regarding this matter, and I have left comments with User:Mikkalai here and User:Zareaph here. I have suggested to Mattisse that the article may be protected until Mikkalai (or you?) can get the parties to agree some working conditions. Your advice will hopefully prove useful here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Not 'involved', please. SV was the unblocking admin. Why the (possibly wrong)? Are we children. Ceoil (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
User:Mikkalai has made it clear he is done with Z. [50] Mattisse 00:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Let's see what SV makes of it all. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I have dealt solicitors, barristers, Queens Counsel, and the like in my professional career and am used to writing in those terms
Please, am I supposed to be impressed this; I dont brush streets myself, and not that it matters or is anyway relevant. And I impressed that you are 48? My mother is 63. So what, actions speak louder than years. Please take regard of the substance, and the background. Ceoil (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, you must think I am a fool. Mattisse 00:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please clarify who you are talking to Mattisse. Ceoil (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I am talking to User:LessHeard vanU. Mattisse 00:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please clarify who you are talking to Mattisse. Ceoil (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
why should I care that you wish to involve yourself in discussions between two other parties?
- Well, the thing is that Sandy is a friend, has been for a long while, and has helped me enourmosly during my 'career' here . She was harrassed. For months, on and off site. The account that harrassed her was unblocked. I asked why. I was given bullshit reasons, and told, authoratively I have dealt solicitors, barristers, Queens Counsel, and the like in my professional career and am used to writing in those terms. What the fuck? Ceoil (talk) 01:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I was explaining why I was using the terminology that I did. Simple. That is how I wrote to members of the legal profession back in the day. That is my personal style in these circumstances. If you don't recognise that you were getting an explanation, in much the same manner in which I was conversing, then I doubt there is any point in continuing this conversation. Re Sandy; she is someone I have previously dealt with, too. Small world. Now fuck off. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- "Re Sandy; she is someone I have previously dealt with"; Now fuck off? Oh boy, it gets interesting now. So I can cut to the chase now right?? Because I know whats going on here. I was just too much of a gentelman to say it out loud. Ceoil (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Remember this: [51]. watch your lip. So you won't mind if I reply in kind; "Fuck off until you learn not to piss on your neighbours lawn!" LessHeard vanU 17:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC) ??????? Funny how history repeats. Oh boy. Ceoil (talk) 01:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've been alerted to this discussion by a concerned WPian. I want to place on record my concern at the re-activation of an account that has been involved in the harassment and stalking of Sandy (possibly of others too, or is this Zeraeph's single obsession?). I have personally found Z very difficult to deal with—specifically at articles such as Tourette's Syndrome, where on her entry, the discourse rapidly disintegrated into a circular, personal, self-referential fog. It's most distressing for serious WPians. I think that there is ample case for Z to be blocked on a more permanent basis. Tony (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Twern't me that unblocked Zeraeph - that was SlimVirgin. I only unblock the polite type of editor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
More info for you to consider - since you are apparently not aware - please read so you know what is happening -- you are just the latest in the forum shopping
Scrunched up into diff to save on talkpage space and eyesight. Posted by User:Mattisse Regards, Mattisse 01:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Please enjoy the reading. This has been a long road. Z was given a community wide ban and Jimbo overturned it. If you do not want to wreck my life then do not suggest anything that involves Z. As I said before, I have lost all interest in the accuracy of wikipedia articles. If Z wants to prove herself, why doesn't she submit it as a GA or to FAC? I have had enough bad experience on wikipedia after months of doing copy editing for other people's FA, that my interest is no longer in helping wikipedia be better. The fact that the article Psychopathy is a joke and no one can do anything about it speaks volumes about wikipedia. The end. Mattisse 01:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't need to know the precise details on how this matter has developed. I fully realise that there are issues with editing Psychopathy, and that you and Zeraeph are the protagonists - with other editors/admins involved, too, and that there are other related matters. Please understand that it is not the place of admins to determine who is correct in the matter of the content, only that it has written in accordance with the rules, etc. There is an experienced admin waiting at Talk:Psychopathy to help resolve this situation. Use her good offices. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I spent a day collecting "evidence" and providing my reasoning on the Psychopathy talk page, previous to Z.'s block and also after, So are you saying I should do the whole thing again, just because Z does not respond and SV is "not up to speed"? Perhaps you suggest I spend New Years doing it? (Also, if SV does not understand the scientific method, which seems to be to case, there is no hope.) She appears to want Psych 101A. Regards, Mattisse 13:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Psychopathy etc
Hi, there were some very serious factual errors (not disputes, real errors, like the one about Washington State Legislature, where she referenced the wrong page and insisted, falsely that there was no reference to psychopathy) in the article I just could not leave. She also had references that were used in very misleading ways that I corrected. I don't think I "just removed" anything except unreferenced conjecture and linking text? From ok, the article had been turned into the kind of thing that people use as evidence against Wikipedia. I made no 3RR, nor even close...surely she cannot harass me by making things up like that and get away with it? I wouldn't get away with it (actually I wouldn't try, it isn't in my nature, I'd feel like an idiot if I did that). --Zeraeph (talk) 01:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- User:SlimVirgin has made herself available at Talk:Psychopathy for anyone interested in resolving this matter. Best if comments were directed there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
And lets not forget the bullshit posted on WR
lets not forget Ceoil (talk) 01:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Any particular bullshit, you being an expert presumably. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Please read - as the latest forum shopped
Please do try to find out a little of the past history. You were the one that sent Z a "feel good" note that resulted in her most recent block because she paid not one wit of attention to your note. You gave her the "feel good" note but there was no follow through from you. You just left me out there to rot in hell. You told her that she could not remove cited material. She continued to remove cited material. Your reaction: ZERO. [52]
If you can believe one ounce of what Z says, then she is all yours. Happy Holidays! Mattisse 01:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Mattisse, can you contain you posts to diffs, it would be a shame if the thrust of the argument was drowned by month old agruments. Please revert the above with diffs. Ceoil (talk) 01:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC):
- You are kidding. I have no interest in the accuracy of any article on wikipedia anymore, and I am not going to waste my time as others have. The best advice is not to edit articles that Z owns. Please read below, just a sample of my collection.
redacted - already posted a section or so above
Per header. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
The Rest
I don't think I'll live long enough to correct all the factual errors in the above! But where the name of someone I respect has been taken in vain I feel I must. I have never been given a "community wide ban" and Jimbo has never overturned any such thing. All he did reverse was a 3RR that was not technically accurate.
In addition, I doubt if the two citations I restored (one my error, one not), were particularly "controversial" edits, nor the spelling error I picked up, and I cannot see how moving text to (blatantly) more relevant sections could be particularly "controversial" either, nor, I am afraid, was altering (and citing) one piece of text that was in clear factual error. I discussed what User:Mattisse wished to discuss on the talk page, and said all I had to say about it, then I went to bed. --Zeraeph (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I contacted you because you sent Z such a sweet little note even though she has disregarded all your advice - you enabled her to be bad
And so you shall continue. I thought maybe you had learned something, but no. Mattisse 01:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
The Actual Changes made to Psychopathy today
Here are the actual changes I made in total, as you will see, very little of anything has been removed from the article. [53] here is one interim change made by User:Mattisse [54] and here is another [55] --Zeraeph (talk) 02:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Warning
As i have just commented an ANB [56] if you address obscenities to other editors, i will block you. DGG (talk) 02:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Replied there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC) Followed up on my talk page. DGG (talk) 03:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I also came here to remind you of the civility policy. LessHeardVanU, I have always had a lot of respect for you as editor and admin. Your behavior on this page and the AN discussion has really surprised and disappointed me. Please strike and modify your comments. Jeffpw (talk) 10:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- This gets a little difficult, because I did write it and mean it at that time. To strike/modify is to alter the fact after the event, but the fact remains. I am unable to accede to these requests, and if there are consequences so beit. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I also came here to remind you of the civility policy. LessHeardVanU, I have always had a lot of respect for you as editor and admin. Your behavior on this page and the AN discussion has really surprised and disappointed me. Please strike and modify your comments. Jeffpw (talk) 10:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Blueboar - knew there was a reason not to trust you
You allowed me to be personally attached for over week through the "mediation" you set up. How can you set up a medation with a person who deletes their talk pages every day. That really facilitates communication.
Now you come up with this great idea of Slim Virgin and your little favorite, User:Zeraeph. Everyone seems to feel that is an exceedingly bad ideal. Perhaps you should retire for a while - a wikibreak to get some brains together for youself. Just trying to help! And to prevent you from causing any more messes. Meant as a kindly suggestion -- but there would have been so much less disruption today if you had stayed out of it. And you accomplished absolutely NOTHING constructive. Mattisse 06:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- So you've taken it upon yourself to ignore the discussion page, ignore the fact that the article is obviously written by the subject. A player who has made absolutely no impression on the game at all?????????? Paste (talk) 11:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
This Day
Less, I do not honestly think that anything I did (short of dying, and even that might not have worked) would have averted this.
I won't be backing out of anything given the chance. Whether you can believe this or not, I have honestly tried everything else, there are only two alternatives, to go on in this miserable situation here (and I truly do not think I can, I am in a terrible state over all this) or to retire out of Wikipedia. I would hope that an RfAr would be more structured. All I want to achieve is a situation where SandyGeorgia stays away from me (directly and indirectly) and I can just stay away from her. The minute she leaves me alone she doesn't matter to me. That is all I want. To be left in peace to edit here on equal terms with anyone else. --Zeraeph (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Request for arbitration
I have filed a request for arbitration where you are an involved party. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration and add a statement if you wish. Jehochman Talk 17:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I am rather surprised (and pleased) that you and SlimVirgin have supported this arbitration. Thank you. Nobody should fear scrutiny of their behavior. Jehochman Talk 21:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Problem
Admins aren't supposed to know about the subject, they try and apply Wikipedia rules, policies and guidelines to disputes...'
- That may be the accepted Wikipedia mantra, but it isn't true. You can't apply policies and guidelines to a dispute unless you understand the basis of the conflict, which is intimately and inextricably connected to the topic. It sounds great in theory to claim that one can dispassionately distance themselves from any knowledge of a topic and make an accurate decision about a topical dispute, but in practice it is impossible. This is precisely why a growing number of scientists with Ph.D's are seeking law degrees in the hot field of intellectual property. —Viriditas | Talk 11:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Respectfully, I do not fully agree with your interpretation as it turns on the interpretation of know. I do not know what the current status of the term psychopathy is, but I can recognise a content dispute simply by the type of editing/reverting and the comments of the protagonists in respect of the article. The application of policy, etc, can be made on that basis. The editor concerned however dismisses such consideration as being invalid on the basis that a sound understanding of the subject would support her interpretation and thus her edits. If true, then the admin becomes part of the content dispute (on one side or the other depending on their understanding of the subject) - possibly being useful in improving the article but worse than worthless in applying WP policy fairly. I would comment that the other editor in the related dispute is also adamant that their interpretation is 'the truth', so "knowledge" is surely subjective anyway?
- Distance from a subject, or lack of detailed knowledge, is therefore beneficial; it is not coincidence that admins are reminded to recuse themselves from using the mop in areas in which they have involvement - in case of unconscious bias. I work from the Oscar Wilde dictum; "... never read a book before reviewing; it does prejudice one so!" ;~) Seriously, a review of the diffs, editing history, and any talk comments should give an indication of the nature of the dispute (or vandalism, depending on the complaint). A review of the content may also help determine that the disputants are being disruptive or not in their editing clash.
- I would also suggest that Wikipedia's mantra of 'Verifiability over Truth' also questions the assumption of knowledge in being able to determine the validity of a content dispute. Removing cited text on the basis that it is incorrect, replacing it with correct content without sources, refusing to talk about the changes other than to say "I am right" and reverting any change back to the cited information on that basis is disruptive - no matter if the person so acting is indeed correct. Even if an admin was aware that the disruptive editor had the facts on their side (and might even be able to supply the references) it should form no part in their dealing with the disruptive behaviour of the knowledgeable editor. Sysopping, in my view, is the process of aiding the contributors of content, and not making judgement calls on the content contributed regarding accuracy.
- Notwithstanding all or any of the above, I am very pleased that an
admineditor of your standing has involved themself in this matter. I would be pleased to explain myself or any point raised above. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)- I am not an admin nor an "admin of standing", nor do I need to be one to recognize that a decision made out of ignorance is still ignorant. —Viriditas | Talk 19:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ummm... okay, I've seen you around making some sound calls, then. Shame the respect doesn't go both ways. Perhaps you might consider going for admin (I think I would support) and find out how working the mop is different from theory.
- I would also suggest you consider that if some expressions are considered mantra's, then there is a lot of experience that backs it up. There are a thousand active sysops on en-Wiki expected to assist tens or hundreds of thousand contributors; no admin can take the time to completely familiarise themselves with a subject for every time they are asked to help. Since the rules, policies, and guidelines are not subject specific (except BLP and a very few others) then it is knowledge of the rules etc. that are applied to the article editing - not judgements on content. Content disputes are directed to other forms of resolution that includes the entire community (i.e. some of whom may have the relevent knowledge) which may also include admins. That is the split between knowledge of WP processes (sysops) and knowledge of content (the volunteer community).LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- With all due respect, most Wikipedians are intelligent enough to realize that we do not need rules, policies or guidelines to justify our edits. These things exist for three reasons: to reflect the best practices of the community in a standardized form; to help newcomers adjust to conventions to make the experience as easy as possible; and to reign in those who would wish to harm the community. Unfortunately, within the last several years these policies and guidelines have been used by a small group of active editors and administrators to increase their power and to stamp out change and innovation -- and to allow the rules-makers to become rules-breakers. This was not the original intent of such rules, and this situation is slowly destroying the site. The rules were not intended to be written in stone; they were meant to be broken- on a daily basis - because this site is a work in progress developed by peers who experiment within the general framework of ethical editing. The rules were not created to support a centralized, bureaucratic institution run by power-mad despots who have no knowledge or experience regarding the topics that they edit - which is what it has become. —Viriditas | Talk 09:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Beautiful! You hit the nail on the head. Don't mind me, I saw this insightful post and felt compelled to nod in agreement! I fear the slide toward mindless bureaucracy is killing this project. --MPerel 10:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Instead of rules we need paths - multiple paths, to go from point A to B. This is similar to a rule but provides for greater flexibility and growth depending on a) who is following the path (reader, editor, admin, etc.); and b) the destination (research, FA-Class, adding content, deletions, disputes, etc.) As for bureaucracy, we need sunshine at every level, outside expert panels that make recommendations, and term limits for administrators. —Viriditas | Talk 11:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Which is fine... except sysops rarely act pro-actively; I am a reactive admin, I respond to requests for help. To ensure that I treat all requests fairly I apply the same rules to each, which are the rules, policies and guidelines created by the community. If the community wanted a more organic and intuitive method of resolving problems then the rules would be written accordingly. As it is, it is the community that generates the requirement for admins, and the community that demands a base for all admins to apply their remedies against.
- Fixed term adminships? Interesting proposal (that would be Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) you'll be wanting) with one or two flaws I can see - but then I would say that and I don't suppose you are that interested in my self-interest arguments. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think if you look at the article statistics, you will find that admins generate the requirements for admins, not the community at large. Same is true for policies. When the average editor tries to edit a policy or major guideline, they are inevitably reverted on the spot by a bevy of administrators. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? —Viriditas | Talk 23:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Who indeed? It was my experience that when Jimbo attempted to formulate a credential verification policy that it was the community (with major sysop participation, although I was then an editor only just dipping my toes in wiki-gnoming) that ultimately defeated it; which both indicates that inertia has its own dynamics, and that even the Commander in Chief of the Guards can be held accountable to the community. There is a major problem with drastically amending the policies and guidelines is that the only "set in stone" principles are the Five Pillars - one of which is consensus. Once a policy is established then there has to be a majority view that any change will improve it - something that WP:BOLD doesn't have much chance against. The only mechanism for trying to change policy is the discussion document, where a change is discussed and a body of opinion formulated which can then be applied at the policy page. However, WP does change incremently and it is through the application of policy that it is most apparent, which is mostly through the medium of admins. For instance, this discussion is likely to inform my decisions in the future; possibly not even close to a degree that you might consider satisfactory, but your input will have some influence. I am at a loss to suggest any other methods by which change can made on-Wiki. There are obviously some off-Wiki forums which appear to have a disproportionate influence on the community, and one of those has a section where the actions of (certain) admins are... er... "discussed with prejudice". However, the resistance to the input generated at such places doesn't allow for them to be used as an agent of change within WP (and possibly will not please the denizens of those sites either). Perhaps there is a case for a "non admins" noticeboard on wiki, where the considerations pertinent to the contributors only can be discussed? Um... do you want to set up the discussion page? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- I support the enforcement of the credential verification policy whenever an editor claims to have a degree as part of an argument from authority in an article, policy, or guideline discussion, or in their user space. I don't make any claims about my personal and private life for that reason, as I would expect someone to check up on me (and people have off-wiki). In one sense, we need to stop pretending this is a MMORPG; it seems that some editors are only here to cause trouble, and enjoy dissecting editorial contributions, much like a child tears the wings off of a fly. But we could approach this site as a professional MMORPG, and improve the site in the process. As previous controversies have demonstrated, this site can affect the lives of real people and we must keep that in mind. A non-admins noticeboard is equivalent to a short bus, and I find it offensive. I see in your edit summary that you even offered to turn this into an essay, which I find insulting. One day, someone is going to collate all of the essays and ram them up the collective ass of Wikipedia as an enema. They are after all, the true policies and guidelines, based on direct editorial experience. Nothing else matters. —Viriditas | Talk 10:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- I believe in "no appeals to authority" as regards content disputes - either the sources support the text or they don't. As for MMORPG, I have never had the slightest interest in such stuff and have little appreciation of the mindsets and role-playing that is required. What you get here from me is a more studied, formalised and sanitised version of me away from the pc - for good or bad. As such I am fully aware that the other person on the other side of the screen is just that, a real thing that continues existing even after the screen goes dark.
- Which brings me to us. I obviously am failing to communicate my good faith, and am saddened that you find my suggestions and comments offensive and insulting. I can only think it must be culture derived (since I was unfamiliar with the concept of Short Bus, and cannot think of an UK analogy even though I now understand what you are saying - a poor(ly regarded) relation) as much as our fundamental differences on the place of policy and the admins that apply it. Rather than risk acerbating the situation I am now going to finish my part of this discussion. If you wish a final word or thought in this then please be my guest. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- I support the enforcement of the credential verification policy whenever an editor claims to have a degree as part of an argument from authority in an article, policy, or guideline discussion, or in their user space. I don't make any claims about my personal and private life for that reason, as I would expect someone to check up on me (and people have off-wiki). In one sense, we need to stop pretending this is a MMORPG; it seems that some editors are only here to cause trouble, and enjoy dissecting editorial contributions, much like a child tears the wings off of a fly. But we could approach this site as a professional MMORPG, and improve the site in the process. As previous controversies have demonstrated, this site can affect the lives of real people and we must keep that in mind. A non-admins noticeboard is equivalent to a short bus, and I find it offensive. I see in your edit summary that you even offered to turn this into an essay, which I find insulting. One day, someone is going to collate all of the essays and ram them up the collective ass of Wikipedia as an enema. They are after all, the true policies and guidelines, based on direct editorial experience. Nothing else matters. —Viriditas | Talk 10:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Who indeed? It was my experience that when Jimbo attempted to formulate a credential verification policy that it was the community (with major sysop participation, although I was then an editor only just dipping my toes in wiki-gnoming) that ultimately defeated it; which both indicates that inertia has its own dynamics, and that even the Commander in Chief of the Guards can be held accountable to the community. There is a major problem with drastically amending the policies and guidelines is that the only "set in stone" principles are the Five Pillars - one of which is consensus. Once a policy is established then there has to be a majority view that any change will improve it - something that WP:BOLD doesn't have much chance against. The only mechanism for trying to change policy is the discussion document, where a change is discussed and a body of opinion formulated which can then be applied at the policy page. However, WP does change incremently and it is through the application of policy that it is most apparent, which is mostly through the medium of admins. For instance, this discussion is likely to inform my decisions in the future; possibly not even close to a degree that you might consider satisfactory, but your input will have some influence. I am at a loss to suggest any other methods by which change can made on-Wiki. There are obviously some off-Wiki forums which appear to have a disproportionate influence on the community, and one of those has a section where the actions of (certain) admins are... er... "discussed with prejudice". However, the resistance to the input generated at such places doesn't allow for them to be used as an agent of change within WP (and possibly will not please the denizens of those sites either). Perhaps there is a case for a "non admins" noticeboard on wiki, where the considerations pertinent to the contributors only can be discussed? Um... do you want to set up the discussion page? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think if you look at the article statistics, you will find that admins generate the requirements for admins, not the community at large. Same is true for policies. When the average editor tries to edit a policy or major guideline, they are inevitably reverted on the spot by a bevy of administrators. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? —Viriditas | Talk 23:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Instead of rules we need paths - multiple paths, to go from point A to B. This is similar to a rule but provides for greater flexibility and growth depending on a) who is following the path (reader, editor, admin, etc.); and b) the destination (research, FA-Class, adding content, deletions, disputes, etc.) As for bureaucracy, we need sunshine at every level, outside expert panels that make recommendations, and term limits for administrators. —Viriditas | Talk 11:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Beautiful! You hit the nail on the head. Don't mind me, I saw this insightful post and felt compelled to nod in agreement! I fear the slide toward mindless bureaucracy is killing this project. --MPerel 10:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- With all due respect, most Wikipedians are intelligent enough to realize that we do not need rules, policies or guidelines to justify our edits. These things exist for three reasons: to reflect the best practices of the community in a standardized form; to help newcomers adjust to conventions to make the experience as easy as possible; and to reign in those who would wish to harm the community. Unfortunately, within the last several years these policies and guidelines have been used by a small group of active editors and administrators to increase their power and to stamp out change and innovation -- and to allow the rules-makers to become rules-breakers. This was not the original intent of such rules, and this situation is slowly destroying the site. The rules were not intended to be written in stone; they were meant to be broken- on a daily basis - because this site is a work in progress developed by peers who experiment within the general framework of ethical editing. The rules were not created to support a centralized, bureaucratic institution run by power-mad despots who have no knowledge or experience regarding the topics that they edit - which is what it has become. —Viriditas | Talk 09:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- I am not an admin nor an "admin of standing", nor do I need to be one to recognize that a decision made out of ignorance is still ignorant. —Viriditas | Talk 19:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 19:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
See
Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia/Evidence#Response_to_User:LessHeard_vanU_evidence_request. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Clarification
SlimVirgin had no duty to consider the effect on a party who had brought up the matter in the first instance, in relation to the edit war.
- Hi. I do not understand what this means. Can you explain it to me? Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 03:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- In context, when reviewing a block and its circumstances the consideration of the effects of unblocking to any party that did not form part of the reason given for the block is irrelevent. Specifically, Zeraeph was blocked for editwarring with Mattisse on Psychopathy - the dispute with SandyGeorgia had formed no part of that decision. As it was, SandyGeorgia was the party which bought the matter of the relationship between her and Zeraeph into the content dispute. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Addendum, this may or may not have been SlimVirgins reason for unblocking - she comments only on the vandalism on Zeraeph's talkpage - but is my response to accusations that unblocking Zeraeph re-opened the opportunity for attacks on SandyGeorgia. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm still not following your seemingly evasive language. Forgive me, but I have a penchant for clear, unambiguous speech. I say what I mean and I mean what I say. BTW, I have sent you an e-mail with diffs concerning your last request. —Viriditas | Talk 10:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for sending the diffs; I will respond when I have had an opportunity to study them.
- I'm sorry that people have difficulty in understanding my language, so I will try to be clearer by using an example - if my sysop privileges were removed for a period because of poor decisions relating to this case, the effect on another editor who is vandaling articles which I have been previously patrolling should have no bearing on the decision to return the mop to me. Simply, Zeraeph was not blocked for abusing SandyGeorgia - which in this matter occurred after the block was imposed, following a post by SandyGeorgia - but for edit warring. The decision to reverse the edit-warring sanction need not consider the different, if not unrelated, matters that subsequently arose.
- I'm afraid that this is the best I can do to explain myself. If you are still having problems with my prose I would respectfully suggest you have someone else look over my responses and see if they can explain my position better. I do not wish to repeat the misunderstandings that became apparent in our last discussion. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- How does that address (13)? You're changing the subject. To bring you back on track, the subject of (13) is the bottom of User_talk:Zeraeph/Archive3, especially all the content above SlimVirgin's section titled "Various", where she lifts the unblock, claiming "I don't know what this is about". Clearly, looking up at the previous sections shows an astounding, unbelievable number of personal attacks directed at other editors, including an attack upon an administrator - and an absolute refusal by Zeraeph to acknowledge any responsibility for her actions. If you honestly are telling me that an unblock was justified by SlimVirgin at 11:29, 28 December 2007 based on what you see just hours before, then you are avoiding the issue. Between 07:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC) and 09:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC), Zeraeph wrote:
- I'm still not following your seemingly evasive language. Forgive me, but I have a penchant for clear, unambiguous speech. I say what I mean and I mean what I say. BTW, I have sent you an e-mail with diffs concerning your last request. —Viriditas | Talk 10:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Addendum, this may or may not have been SlimVirgins reason for unblocking - she comments only on the vandalism on Zeraeph's talkpage - but is my response to accusations that unblocking Zeraeph re-opened the opportunity for attacks on SandyGeorgia. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- In context, when reviewing a block and its circumstances the consideration of the effects of unblocking to any party that did not form part of the reason given for the block is irrelevent. Specifically, Zeraeph was blocked for editwarring with Mattisse on Psychopathy - the dispute with SandyGeorgia had formed no part of that decision. As it was, SandyGeorgia was the party which bought the matter of the relationship between her and Zeraeph into the content dispute. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- "Mikka, it is my sincerely held belief that you should be de-sysopped for banning me for 28 days at all. The editor breaking the rules and continuing to do so without censure was, in fact User:Mattisse...You blocked me because you are afraid of User:SandyGeorgia and her clique, not because I did anything wrong...User:SandyGeorgia breathing down my neck and hobbling me at every turn, making me a "soft target" for other bullies like User:Psychonaut."
- Now back to the topic: 13) Given that Zeraeph had posted recent and obvious personal attacks on her own user talk, SlimVirgin's unblock of Zeraph was unjustified. At a minimum, the unblocking admin should have investigated plainly visible indications of disruptive behaviour.
- SlimVirgin unblocked Zeraeph at 11:29, 28 December 2007. Why? —Viriditas | Talk 10:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- You will have to ask SlimVirgin those questions. My point is; that the circumstances of the block are the primary considerations for investigating and varying any sanction. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, and those circumstances include official policy relating to editors who abuse block appeals: "A minority of editors who are blocked use these privileges poorly, for personal attack or to play games and make a point. Inevitably the response to such actions is simple - editing access is blocked in its entirety and without further discussion, whereas if the user had been responsible and reasonable, an entirely different result might well have happened....Users who are blocked are asked to use this as a chance to reflect, an opportunity to show their understanding and ability to act responsibly, and a period of time to let the matter pass and be learned from." Zeraeph was actively and knowingly engaged in abusing the unblock process, did not use the block to reflect on her behavior or learn from it, used her time to continue making personal attacks on her user page, and visited Wikipedia Review's forum to continue the attacks. After SlimVirgin unblocked, Zeraeph went straight back to disruptive editing and personal attacks onwiki. How did the unblock benefit the community and what did it attempt to achieve based on the in interim period between the block and the unblock? It is the responsibility of the unblocking administrator to be fully cognizant of WP:APPEAL. —Viriditas | Talk 11:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- I was not the unblocking admin, and I cannot answer for her. I am now aware SlimVirgin did comment that she had been in contact with Zeraeph before deciding to unblock, but I do not know the nature of this discussion. I am also aware that Zeraeph did start to remove some of her comments on her talkpage - but I obviously cannot determine whether she was intending to remove that which related to SandyGeorgia. All that I am aware of is that Zeraeph did not edit her talkpage from 06:18 on 13.12.07, until she was unblocked 13 days later. The attacks had therefore ceased.
- I was unaware that Zeraeph was unblocked until I saw the discussion at WP:ANI - I had not been reviewing the matter since Zeraeph was blocked whilst I was away (sleeping) from WP and my dispute resolution help was no longer needed, I was unaware of the attacks until I saw the ANI thread, I returned to Zeraeph's talkpage to offer my continued assistance - and then to admonish her for her return to edit warring. The debate regarding Zeraeph's unblock was already well under way when I became aware of it. I was uncertain of SlimVirgins position in relation in regard of the unblock - sometimes an admin will use the sysop tools by request when they have had no previous input in a matter, simply enacting consensus - which is why I used such careful language in my initial approach to her. When the communities concerns became apparent I supported the request for Arbitration. I formulated my full understanding of the situation, including Zeraephs poor behaviour after the block, while compiling my evidence.
- Again, please refer any query regarding SlimVirgins reasons to her. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with your comments entirely LH vU, and this is what I said on the arbitration's talk page. That particular block was nothing to do with SandyGeorgia, for her to be warned Z was being unblocked.Merkinsmum 21:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, and those circumstances include official policy relating to editors who abuse block appeals: "A minority of editors who are blocked use these privileges poorly, for personal attack or to play games and make a point. Inevitably the response to such actions is simple - editing access is blocked in its entirety and without further discussion, whereas if the user had been responsible and reasonable, an entirely different result might well have happened....Users who are blocked are asked to use this as a chance to reflect, an opportunity to show their understanding and ability to act responsibly, and a period of time to let the matter pass and be learned from." Zeraeph was actively and knowingly engaged in abusing the unblock process, did not use the block to reflect on her behavior or learn from it, used her time to continue making personal attacks on her user page, and visited Wikipedia Review's forum to continue the attacks. After SlimVirgin unblocked, Zeraeph went straight back to disruptive editing and personal attacks onwiki. How did the unblock benefit the community and what did it attempt to achieve based on the in interim period between the block and the unblock? It is the responsibility of the unblocking administrator to be fully cognizant of WP:APPEAL. —Viriditas | Talk 11:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- You will have to ask SlimVirgin those questions. My point is; that the circumstances of the block are the primary considerations for investigating and varying any sanction. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- SlimVirgin unblocked Zeraeph at 11:29, 28 December 2007. Why? —Viriditas | Talk 10:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
(Outdent) "The debate regarding Zeraeph's unblock was already well under way when I became aware of it." OK, and the debate was already well underway by the time Sandy posted regarding it. You were aware of it, in fact, before she was. You have written: "SandyGeorgia and her colleagues, however, decided to treat the unblock as a question of permitting an editor responsible for personal attacks to continue that behaviour, and started a discussion at WP:ANI decrying the block and attempting to start the process of a community ban." Sandy did not start the AN/I discussion. That's a plain fact. (And I don't know what "SandyGeorgia and her colleagues" means.) Nor did she or anyone mention a community ban on AN/I when the thread first started; there was no coordination to that end. I urge you to retract or amend the statement. Marskell (talk) 09:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Timeline
FYI... Many of the diffs linked to LHvU timeline have been deleted due to the removal of Zeraeph's talk page, however, the actual comments are still available in her talk archive. —Viriditas | Talk 13:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
uk meet
did you know of Wikipedia:Meetup/Manchester_3 ? I appreciate it's quite a way from you, though. Merkinsmum 21:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I regret having to bother you with this matter again
Mark thanks for your note. For what its worth (and that might'nt be a lot!)I don't think you language was 'extremely offensive', and given the circumanstances and tone of the interaction between us to that point, it was quite restrained. I apologise again for my poor behaviour. Ceoil (talk) 08:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- In the spirit of forgive, forget, thats life, move on, I posted this. I treated you and DGG harshly, there is no question of that and the irony of your presence in my block record from 2 weeks ago isn't lost on me. Is it ironic? Is it all connected? Dunno. Lets move on. Someday maybe we'll have a conversation that does not contain the words 'fuck', 'tard', or 'apology'; but until then, no hard feelings. Ceoil (talk) 08:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you :)
Thanks for blocking that vandal. I'll keep an eye out and make sure to tell you if they do another personal attack again. Regards! FamicomJL (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi i was reading this [57] BBC story about the Lommemeannen and thought it would make a good new wikipage, and checking the deletion log found one had been speeded by you for being and attack article. I have no idea how bad that article was (i did not write it) but could you talk to me about re-creating this article in a way as to avoid it being an attack article. (Hypnosadist) 07:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, yes could you undelete it and remove the last line as well that mentions the supposed name of the lommemannen as that is unsupported by the BBC source i gave you and is a privacy violation (the address) as well. I'm off to bed so i wont be able to work on the article for 12ish hours so use your judgement and i agree with your call of speedying the original article. (Hypnosadist) 14:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Now a proper wikipage, thanks! (Hypnosadist) 00:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
This arbitration has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The case was renamed upon closing from "Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia" to "Zeraeph". User:Zeraeph, including and socks and future accounts, is banned from Wikipedia for one year. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Also, your attention is directed to item 1 here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeraeph/Proposed_decision#Discussion_by_Arbitrators. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough; I see FT2 didn't correct the misunderstanding regarding previous incidents, perhaps not seeing my note, but it isn't important.LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Reply
... on my talk page. Thanks and noted. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- cool LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Just cos
I would like to send you an email
But I notice your caveat. You have elsewhere requested information which I'd like to provide, but not if it involves the dissemination of my email, or perhaps my identity. Please indicate here, on my talkpage, or via email if you would consider suspending your disclaimer in this present instance (and any email I receive from you will remain in strict confidence, unless it contemplates murderousness). Thanks. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 01:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- I will not divulge your identity or ip address, since that is beyond what Wikipedia allows except in certain situations (by the use of Checkuser re ip addresses - and I do not have that level of trust) and I do not set myself above that. Providing there is nothing in the email that is illegal, or is against the rules and policies of Wikipedia, then there is no reason why I would disseminate the contents. Please be assured that it is not my intention to break confidences as a matter of course, but only that I am permitted to republish any correspondence or part of any correspondence in extreme circumstances where the benefit to the community outweighs the expectation of privacy. I hope the above reassures you sufficiently to contact me. If you require further clarification then please ask. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
redirect / deletion
I've weighed in on your discussion @ User talk:Lar. - Revolving Bugbear 23:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. It is inappropriate to include contentious material in biographies of living people... but what I said was on a talk page and the comment was entirely informal. Did you research this matter properly?--EndlessDan 20:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- replied at ANI and talkpage.LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for your message and help in dealing with the "block evader" (for want of a better expression). I just wanted to check though about User:QPRsteve, will they also be banned as a sockpuppet of User:JackQPR as User:QPRben was too? cheers, ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 21:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have indef blocked QPRsteve for sock abuse. I haven't templated the talkpage since it hasn't been previously created. QPRben was previously indef blocked. If there is a special sockblock I missed it, but the result is the same.LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, I have a suspicion that User:Youf123 is a new sock puppet of JackQPR's. Jimbo[online] 09:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- ...and another JDT2k8 Jimbo[online] 17:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- ..another Special:Contributions/QPRlLAD Jimbo[online] 12:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- ...two more, User:Jackt123/User:QPRlad, is there a way of permanently banning him - or a lengthy ban? Jimbo[online] 17:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- ..another Special:Contributions/QPRlLAD Jimbo[online] 12:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- ...and another JDT2k8 Jimbo[online] 17:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, I have a suspicion that User:Youf123 is a new sock puppet of JackQPR's. Jimbo[online] 09:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Hah, I didn't even notice it was you. Nothing personal, I promise. We seem to know all the same people ;)
Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear 22:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit summaries
Thanks. I didn't know that option was in the prefs, I've turned it on. I recall reading very long ago minor edits were ok without summaries but these days I'm tending to agree it's more helpful to always use them, so I shall. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Great. I look forward to sharing the mop pail. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Correction?
Woooooooh, am I glad you weren't involved in the recent ArbCom I was a party to! ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- What'd I do? - Revolving Bugbear 15:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- re ScienceApologist - I was correctly reprimanded for use of the anglo saxon vernacular. I assume that was SA's violation? LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- He has an ArbCom restriction against incivility. I don't have a problem with profanity, but three incidents in one day, including trying to bully another user (who was giving a good-faith warning) off his talk page, is clearly over the line. - Revolving Bugbear 15:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm, I told two different editors to f*ck off with a 10 month gap between the two events - the first time was pre-admin - and got reminded on appropriate conduct as part of the findings of a recent ArbCom. Re your actions per SA, I realise that you are simply applying the conditions in a different finding - I was just joshing on our last couple of interactons. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- We've all said things that are questionable here -- I'm reminded of a time I said another user was being "disgustingly offensive" ;) And yes, I realize you were just messing around re SA, but I wanted to make sure there was no doubt, since the subject has already come up on AN/I.
- It does seem that we're seeing a lot of each other lately. I shall do my best to make sure you're around for my next major cock-up ;) - Revolving Bugbear 16:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm, I told two different editors to f*ck off with a 10 month gap between the two events - the first time was pre-admin - and got reminded on appropriate conduct as part of the findings of a recent ArbCom. Re your actions per SA, I realise that you are simply applying the conditions in a different finding - I was just joshing on our last couple of interactons. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- He has an ArbCom restriction against incivility. I don't have a problem with profanity, but three incidents in one day, including trying to bully another user (who was giving a good-faith warning) off his talk page, is clearly over the line. - Revolving Bugbear 15:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- re ScienceApologist - I was correctly reprimanded for use of the anglo saxon vernacular. I assume that was SA's violation? LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Your comments at ANI
I'm glad to see you self reverted but honestly don't you think its a little insensitive to advocated desysopping him?? Talk about kicking while he is down.... Spartaz Humbug! 22:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm talking about protecting Wikipedia when a user with certain community given powers may be emotionally distressed, and that the removal of the tools is only for that period while these issues may be effecting him. JzG has a history of having his decisions/actions being less than appreciated by sections of the community; disallowing him the potential of seriously compromising his standing while he may be particularly vulnerable might be considered being helpful, I suggest. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thx
<font=3> Thanks for your support, my request for adminship passed 60/0/0 yesterday!
I want to thank Mrs.EasterBunny and Royalbroil for nominating me, those who updated the RfA tally, and everyone for their support and many kind words. To paraphrase a president ... I wish my mum and dad could see the comments made. My dad would be so proud to see the comments ... and my mum would have believed them". I will do my best to use the new tools carefully and responsibly (and you may be surprised to find that I have not deleted all of the pages by accident..... yet). Thanks again, Victuallers (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC) |
---|
My RfA
I hate to sound like a dick, but could you please reword your question, it's kind of confusing. Cheers, LAX 22:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Have done. A hint; it is regarding Conflict of Interest, and follows your response to Q.1. Cheers, and best wishes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi just wondering if you could have a look again at the above article please? The user JackQPR is paying no attention whatsoever to the block nor the blocks of the various sockpuppets they have created recently since the block and it seems at the moment that every day they are back again with a new username doing exactly the same edit. The latest username being QPRILAD. Is there any chance of the article getting a longer protection from allowing new users and IP users from editing as it does look as though this will not go away and that they are determind to create new usernames. Perhaps they seem to think no-one will notice or that in the end will back down. But as you will see from the edit history it is getting ridiculous now. Two of the sockpuppets, QPRILAD and QPTsteve don't seem to have been blocked as sockpuppets, though the others (including JDT2k8,Youf123 and QPRben have been blocked in the last few days. Thank you. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 16:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi sorry for the second message. However another article I have on my watchlist has been vandalised by what seems to be yet another sockpuppet of JackQPR - User:Ben10023, an old account but exactly the same edit as on the List of hooligans article and surely not a co-incidence that "ben" appears in the username as another sockpuppet is QPRben. I have no idea how to approach all this and would appreciate your help please on the above and this? Thank you.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 19:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your messages. No surprise really but today there are yet another two new sockpuppet accounts from the same user. Today it is User:Jackt123 and User:QPRlad with exactly the same edits on exactly the same article. The article really could do with being semi-protected ASAP from new and IP users, as a number of other users are now just using the reverting method of dealing with it which is resulting in numerous reverts each day as both the sockpuppet and them get involved in a daily edit war. If you don't mind I would prefer it if you could bring it up at the Admin Noticeboard/Incidents as I am unsure as to how best to word it all so that it is dealt with correctly. Would that be ok with you?
This is a list of all the various accounts that I know of so far (there may well be more). Some of them seem to have been blocked already, others there is nothing noted on their user page. Plus I noticed that on one of the accounts at the bottom of the page it was listed in a "sockpuppets of JackQPR" category. However it was "redlinked" so presumably the page itself doesn't exist yet?
- JackQPR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Ben10023 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- QPRlad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- QPRlLAD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Jackt123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- JDT2k8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Youf123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- QPRsteve (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- QPRben (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
There are probaly more accounts as at least one of them (Ben10023) is an old account from about a year ago which they used and he also edited at least once while logged out as an IP user. Plus he doesn't exactly make any attempt to hide as on the QPRlad userpage he has added"My name is Jack". Thanks. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 18:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
That is excellent, thanks for your help. Just a pity it has had to come to this though as the user could have been a useful editor if he had taken on board the advice given to him, but he was/is totally unwilling to communicate at all.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
a thank you note
Thanks for participating in my RfA! | ||
Although it failed 43/27/0, I'm happy because the outcome has been very helpful in many meaningful ways. Your support and remarks contributed so much to this. If you followed my RfA you know what happened. Most of the editors who posted opposing opinions have never edited with me. Some articles I edit deal with controversial topics and with respect to a very few of these, editors who didn't know much about me had some worries about confrontational editing and civility. Since I support their high standards I can easily (and will gladly) address this. The support and ecouragement to run again soon has been wonderful, thanks again. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 05:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC) |
Working in the background
The Invisible Barnstar | ||
For being one of the folks who does the scut work without expecting plaudits or groveling, and with respect for those whose path you cross. Risker (talk) 01:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC) |
Well, it seemed to me that you had some good points in your recent self-described "rant" on another editor's (extremely watchlisted) talk page. And let's just say you still have enough of the "editor" in you to treat non-admins with the common touch rather than noblesse oblige. It *is* appreciated. Risker (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Your comment at WP:AN
Thanks for your comment about the "Three Strike" proposal at WP:AN. As a result of your comment, I have created a subpage within my userspace with this proposal on. The page in question can be found here. Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 11:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh dear...
You know who's fault that is? Silly WP:HUGGLE... counting the warnings rather than detecting their levels... Sorry about that... I'll shoot through his contribs and see if he does anything else. Cheers for telling me! ScarianCall me Pat 17:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
My Rfa
My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 19:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
User Blaxthos
Rather than having Blaxthos's back and protecting his page from LEGITIMATE constructive criticims to which he has become increasingly inured, why not suspend him for falsely accusing that guy (69.244.181.184 )of being a sockpuppet of Rynort?
Blaxthos guessed. And he guessed wrong. But because YOU and others have enabled him, he has been empowered to ABUSE other editors.
He falsely accused someone of being a sockpuppet of Rynort.
I say put up or shut up.
But Blaxthos can't put up, because the charges are absurd and patently untrue.
Why aren't you holding him accountable?
In the spirit of making wikipedia the BEST online encyclopedia, I respectfully submit that you SUSPEND the POV-pushing Blaxthos for a period of no more than two years and not less than 180 days.
Thanks!
Ps His POV pushing is LEGENDARY. His MO is not particularly cryptic or inventive. Essentially, he locates conservative editors, baits them, then GAMES the system to get them caught in a prosecutable grievance upon which they are threatened with an RfA 68.40.200.77 (talk) 15:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- After reading this, this, and especially this, I must confess to a certain lack of sympathy regarding your concerns with this editor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Amythystdragon block
Hi,
I was about to block User:Amythystdragon and you won by seconds. The 31 hours you gave them surprised me, as I see it as a vandalism account. They have only been on for two days and have blanked the same page repeatedly. As a fairly new admin I'd like to hear your rationale for such a short block, so I can add it to my experience for future similar situations. Thx. -- Alexf42 21:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Your Caveat message
I like your Caveat message. Do you mind if I steal it for my Talk page? BTW, you have "to to" repeated in it. -- Alexf42 21:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
New pages list
Thanks for the heads-up. Your workaround pretty much describes the way I actually work (actually, I use tabbed browser pages, but it's the same principle) - I was just hoping that WP had some nifty widget to get round it :-) CultureDrone (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
RfA thanks from Happy-melon
I just wanted to say thanks for your support for my RfA, which closed (74/2/0) this morning. I can't say I do know who you are, and I don't think we've ever bumped into each other before, but your comment and support was very much appreciated. Happy‑melon 10:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry
Thank you, yeah, I understand. Just got a bit tired of Rob picking fights with me. --LN3000 (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Despite your unblock, this user persits in removing speedy delete tags from Men of War. He also has blanked his talk page, in an apparent effort to hide his previous warnings and blocks. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- I see now that I got ome timestamps flip-flopped. Sorry about that. Time for a trip to the eye doctor, I think. Thanks. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Notification of new post in "resolved" ANI thread
I've made a point about custom edit summaries in an ANI thread. See here. Notification left because the thread was previously marked "resolved" (I've removed the resolved label as I felt the issue is not resolved). Comments would be welcomed. Carcharoth (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
User LessHeard VanU. I am watching Andy for he personally attacked me. I am watching him and not threatening him. I am not harass him nor am i attempting too. If you read my post on the page you post above you will see that I propose that we (andy and I) proceed down the dispute resolution process. I also reply to accusations of being a sub-troll. I do not think this constitutes a threat I think this constitutes a motion to follow the official wikipedia rules to resolve a dispute. If you think posting that i am watching a user and I post a reply and a how-to resolve our differences constitutes harass I think you should reconsider. Otherwise, you are giving users who are in the wrong free rein. Please watch me, for if no one is watching the watchers' we are all in the wrong. Dbmoodb (talk) 08:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
202.95.200.17
Hi - yeah, I was just looking at today's edits, which actually appeared constructive (though I'm no airline expert). I've no problem with the block if there's a longer term pattern of disruption. Best, Black Kite 12:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Notability of March (band)
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on March (band), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because March (band) seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting March (band), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 14:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you!
Hi, just dropping by to say thanks for supporting my RfA, I totally wasn't expecting to get so much support, it was a really pleasant surprise. And I have turned on the force edit summary option now, I didn't even know it existed until someone pointed it out to me. Melesse (talk) 04:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
JackQPR
Hi there, remember JackQPR and his numerous accounts on List of hooligan firms? Well he is back again this time as JackT14 (talk · contribs · logs)
with exactly the same edits. He's not exactly subtle or trying to hide himself, but it is presumably yet another sockpuppet of his and I hope you don't mind my informing you and asking if you could deal with it? Thank you.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 15:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the suggestion - I have shamelessly nicked the box off the top of this page and stuck it on my talk and user pages. DuncanHill (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I.P. with the limited vocabulary
Yeah, a selective restoration would have been appropriate - was that what you were in the process of doing? If so, I'm sorry for interrupting it (although your deletion summary didn't indicate that that's what was going on). I wouldn't object to that revision being deleted now, although I don't particularly think it's necessary, either. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- As I said, I don't think it matters, so I won't. But if you want to, you have my formal blessing (i.e. it won't be WP:WHEEL). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Could you help at Talk:List_of_Virtual_Console_games_(North_America)#February_11
Can something be done about this? TJ continues to announce what games are coming out, but the information isn't from a reliable source. Also, the information that he posts isn't added to the article for that same reason. So he is basically using the talk page as a way to promote a bad source, as well as making it an announcement board for himself and a few others. These same people are the ones that were posting other off topic comments until recently. They've stopped since the reminder you posted, with the exception of TJ's most recent post. We can wait and see, but I can bet people will chime in with their off topic comments. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- If you check out the edit history of List of Virtual Console games (North America), you will see two IP editors that used the information that TJ posted. TJ's post on the talk page seems to be encouraging people to add the information as if it was reliable and accurate. In my opinion, if the talk page section wasn't there... IP editors wouldn't be adding the information in. If this continues (next week for example), can the sections made by TJ be stopped finally? The problem is with the talk page, which should be prevented in the first place. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
This arbitration case has closed and the final decision may be found at the link above. Giano is placed on civility restriction for one year. Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling. All parties in this case are strongly cautioned to pursue disputes in a civil manner designed to contribute to resolution and to cause minimal disruption. All the involved editors, both the supporters and detractors of IRC, are asked to avoid edit warring on project space pages even if their status is unclear, and are instructed to use civil discussion to resolve all issues with respect to the "admin" IRC channel. For the Arbitration committee, Thatcher 04:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
IRC guidelines
Hi :-) Since the case is closed I will not be commenting on the proposed decision talk for much longer. The topic is important and I plan to start a discussion on Monday about forming a working group to develop some guidelines. Until then feel free to make your thoughts known on my talk page. Have a nice day. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
archive creation on my talk page
could you look at my talk page to see if I made the archive correctly? Abridged talk 19:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Agent007ravi (single purpose account?)
Agent007ravi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has done quite a number on several Dragon Ball pages; this user went around and disruptively placed unsourced data. Since you've dealt with him/her before, what do you think should be done? Please reply on your talk page. Thanks, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have indef blocked the account as disruptive. If they undertake to discuss the changes they want, and to provide sources for their different information, then they can be unblocked. Otherwise they are simply creating too much distraction and effort on the part of others. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)