User talk:Ed Poor

I guess the "consensus" is that people want me to stop being an admin here - and of course, not a Wikipedia:Bureaucrat either.

Okay, but what next? You've all decided to skip 2 steps in Wikipedia:dispute resolution and go straight to the arbcom. Fine. Cover up the problems, blame them on me, and try to force me out.

But this won't really fix anything. The wiki process does not scale well enough. People who do not accept the Main Goal of this website are poised to over-run it. When they find that they were able to force me out (or even just to make me step down), what will they do next?

I think it would be better to stick to our principles. If anyone has a problem with me, please talk with me about it. Give me a chance to see your points and find common ground with you. Don't cut off comment, skip mediation, and head straight for an up/down arbitration vote when we're so close.

...Unless the IRC meeting with RobChurch, Phroziac, et al., was just a trick.

I'm a very trusting guy. I thought we had an agreement to work things out via IRC dialogue. I spent a lot of evening time doing so. I got the impression that we were on the verge of completion. Well, I can mis-judge people and maybe this will give an advantage to those seeking my dis-association with this project.

All right, then. I won't resist. Demote or restrict me as you see fit. But let me make it easier for you in one respect. You don't have to worry that I'll quit unless if I'm not accorded certain powers. I'll stick around, even if assigned a diminished role, as I have promised to Anthere, Mav and many others.

Because I believe in this project, and in the wiki way. And I'm willing to adjust myself to comply with it. Uncle Ed 19:46, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

For better or worse, friend ed, youve got my support.Gavin the Chosen 19:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I was going to respond to your comment about Lucky6.9, but you seem to have archived it. As for IRC, we were doing fine until someone who perhaps did not appreciate the seriousness of the conversion derailed it by taking half an hour to hold forth on "truth and love as a metaphor for Wikipedia policy." The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

While I concede it was a bit rash, I for one, and so many others do not join any consensus that the resolution should go any farther than putting things back the way they were - and continuing to hammer out an improved process for VfD. Those who value temperance and consistency so high that it stiffles any hope of progress do not have a place in a changing world - and this is. Benjamin Gatti

You people were awefully hard on the guy, just for accidentally blanking an article, then locking it in the midst of vandalism--someguy 20:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I love you man, please NEVER go away!! I need you!--someotherguy 20:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Can I nominate you for wikipidias list of God-like figures list?! w/o you I don't think my life will be comple anymore--somedifferentotherguy20:02, 50 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, if there was a more god like wikipedian I haven't seen him--someothercompletlydifferentperson20:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

No way, Ed. One incident does not undo months of Wikiservice. Leaving aside the rather bizarre support from the various anons, you continue to have my full support also. DJ Clayworth 20:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

rather bizarre support??Whats that supposed to mean?--somedifferentotherguy21:72, 51 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll let you work that out...DJ Clayworth 15:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

This is a wiki WIKI Wild and crazy wiki world it is ... grr... bark bark... OK, in all seriousness, I think Uncle Ed has done a good job and helped many people -and articles. For emphesis, I shall repeat that below. --GordonWattsDotCom 10:49, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Ed - I urge you to stay. And if you get tired of all the politics and bullshit - join AOL - and ignore any page starting Wikipedia: - as an AOL anon you can edit articles, improve others, and ignore the crap. In other words be like me - use your user account (or several user accounts) to watch the articles you like and then edit them anonymously and let the power of your edits stand for themselves. It is the best, and the only, way to return to the Wikipedia goal of writing a great encyclopedia. The only down side is that you can't be as helpful to new users - and they are thrown to the wolves - but fortunately there are some good users who have the patience to endure and be helpful. 64.12.116.6 02:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

That color stuff is my doing; I simply wanted to bring this to Uncle Ed's attention; As I said in the prior edit summary, I would not edit anonymously, but I do support the intent of the poster here. Please leave my colourization schemes in place at least long enough to get Uncle Ed's attentions --all you "color deleters" out there. Thanks. PS: In all seriousness, I think Uncle Ed has done a good job and helped many people -and articles. For emphesis, I shall repeat that above. --GordonWattsDotCom 10:46, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Misunderstanding?

Please understand that I am not invloved in your RfAr- my comments were solely because of what I'd seen of you at RfA. It's good to hear that you'll stay with the project- as I noted in my statemnt, your contributions are valued. Incidentally, if you think that I'm trying to "force you out", you're mistaken. Also incidentally- am I one of the ones you refer to as being poised to "over-run the project"? Because I hardly think that's fair. --Scimitar ^parley 21:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

if i may say,and imsorry if this is out of line, but as with me, proove your wordswith actions. in this case, back him up, activly.Gavin the Chosen 21:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• you would all be doing wikipidia a horrible dis-service by prohiibitng this person from fufilling his duties, if that kind of actiuon is taken, it is a terrible shame--somedifferentperson20:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

You CAN'T GO AWAY!!! you just can't!! my life would be so empty without you!!!! I NEEED YOU!!!!--averagejoewiki 21:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

You are my god, and to see you cease your activities here would be a terribkle thing, and a terrible day in wiki history, you will and always shall have my support-someotheraveragejoe21:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I think all thee attacks on such an honarable person represents a terrible failure to listen, and an appalling decay in wiki etiquette, and wiki protocol-somebodywhowantswikimocrocy 21:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

IRC Mediation Conference 3

With regard to the third (and hopefully final) mediation conference relating to the Ed Poor case, would you please visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NicholasTurnbull/Mediation_IRC#Scheduling and indicate when you will not be available at the usual time for the forthcoming week. I am hoping to propose a time within the next few days.

I will also draw up an agenda for this meeting as soon as possible, which will be on the same page, and as for the previous meeting's agenda, I encourage editing in true wiki-style.

If you have any concerns, please don't hesiate to drop me a note. Rob Church ^Talk 23:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Shoot the Messenger?

Ed has done the community a great service. He's been unnecessarily humble; very open to the truth that not all members agree. Still, he must pay for his "crime".

A very large percentage of Wikipedians think just as Ed does: that the deletion process needs reform desperately. Most of us failed to do anything about it, often because the process appeared so well-entrenched as to be unalterable. Ed proved that it is not. Granted his alteration was temporary, but for a few blessed minutes, our community was free of at least one nexus of petty-minded evil. Many now follow where Ed has led, and the debate on deletion reform is the best thing that's happened to this project in a year.

Don't shoot the messenger. — Xiong熊talk* 23:57, 2005 August 10 (UTC)

WP:RFAr. JRM · Talk 00:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Sir; I don't understand your point. I have already joined Ed's RfArb as an interested party and made my formal statement. What more can I do there? — Xiong熊talk* 04:29, 2005 August 11 (UTC)

Is there a rule that you can't add to your formal statement after it's made? I think that would be fine, as long as it's indicated clearly. There's the RFAr talk page, too. Your statements address Ed's deletion of VfD, exactly the thing the RFAr is about. I suppose many will watch Ed's talk page, too, but you're still not necessarily getting the right crowd. JRM · Talk 07:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

You imply I've written something new here; I thought of it only as an informal and partial recap of my comments before ArbCom. I think you're right; the RfArb is about Ed's deletion of VfD; but the wording of the charges waffles around this and brings in secondary issues. I'll review and compare my remarks there and here and see if I ought to extend my remarks -- but brevity is the soul of wit, and of rhetoric, too. — Xiong熊talk* 14:45, 2005 August 12 (UTC)

Right you are—but in that case I must say I think the way you state your case here packs much more of a punch than your original formulation. You nearly convinced me. Of course the RFAr is still partly motivated by all those times Ed Poor did something uncomfortably bold, but most of that is water under the bridge and could hardly warrant a current RFAr. Nobody can deny the VfD deletion is the thing that made the people run to their barns, get the pitchforks and compare notes on his attitude in general. Which, don't get me wrong here, is not a bad thing at all. JRM · Talk 21:11, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Gavin/Gabriel

OK, you asked me to not communicate with the Gavin that was Gabriel, and I pointed out that he inserts himself onto my talk page and articles I am on. He's still jumping into events I am involved in making stupid comments from the peanut gallery. For example, today he posted this: [1] on the talkpage of someone else completely trying to act all rude in a coversation he wasn;t in. He has also jumped in to talk pages of a guy who was blocked for multiple violations of 3RR that I reported to try to offer advice and so forth and I think is poking his head in elsewhere. IF you seriously expect me to not respond to him then it'd be a good idea if he kept his nose out of places it has no business being in. DreamGuy 00:02, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and it would also be nice if you instructed him to remove his comments from within the evidence sections of other editors in his RfAr... If he wants to provide his own evidence section disputing comments, that's fine, but per the rules he is not allowed to jump in on other sections. He should either remove all of them completely or move them, and if he moves them he really ought to try for something other than childish denial of proven facts and trying to blame other people. DreamGuy 00:04, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

AND he just removed the sockpuppet tag from User:Pukachu jumping in there as well -- this is the "harassment" he claims I was doing to him in reality -- he follows me around undoing my edits and making stupid comments and then complaining when I do respond. DreamGuy 00:14, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

you want to put tags like that on pages? become an admin, until then tis not your place to modify other peoples pages.Gavin the Chosen 00:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Ralph Woodrow

This is up for deletion. I would like to have it kept as he is a significant critic of The Two Babylons. Would you care to vote on the VfD? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:10, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

random name search

I came across your name at random Lazygate 15:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Really? I thought we did something together with User:IrishPunkTom. Uncle Ed 15:33, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

self proclaimed

Ed, nice work on the self proclaimed deities. Balanced. Is this your article or is it your work? Robby159 15:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Not my article, and hardly any of it is my work. Do you know how to check out an article's "history" page? Uncle Ed 15:45, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Cooperation and Policy

Thanks, Ed. I made that comment after receiving messages like I think Bengali sytle is like that huh! be shame on you pal..--Eddiewiki 19:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC). From the same set of IPs, I had received earlier this comment, NONE YOUR BUSINESS MR. MAGH.. Go back to Bengali wiki and do it whatever you like MR. MAGH. These, certainly, are nasty racist comments. I am not reverting the article anymore. Also, please review my comments and let me know if you think any of them is against any policies.

If you look into Talk:Rohingya, you can see my 2 or 3 month long effort to clean up the article. See Talk:Rohingya#Cleanup, Talk:Rohingya#Restructuring, Talk:Rohingya#MR.MAGH, Talk:Rohingya#Removing comments, and Talk:Rohingya#"Attention".

Throughout my time in Wikipedia, I have always tried to comment in a civil manner. If I am at fault in any place, let me know, so I can improve. As for comments in Talk:Rohingya, you can see that I have been making pleas to the anon IP block and subsequent sockpuppets for a long time. (see the talk page sections above). If I ever crossed any line, let me know. I have got abuse from several accounts, some even commenting on my educational status, my literacy and my national origin. I believe I have NOT returned any such abuse to the vandals.

Finally thanks for handling the issue. --Ragib 14:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

The comments you quoted don't belong at Wikipedia. I have banned 2 of the sockpuppets. You have put up with a lot, but I must ask you to put up with some more. Please be patient.

There is a proposed policy about only complaining once per week about someone else's personal attacks to oneself. It's in a transition period, but I endorse it. (Sorry, I forget which page it's on.) The essence is to 'leave a clean audit trail' by setting a standard of courtesy that is so much higher than anyone else's involved, that the others stand out in clear contrast.

Please continue editing the article, but if you'll voluntary limit yourself to one revert per day that will make it easier for Mel and me to handle the problems. See also Wikipedia:text move. Thanks. Uncle Ed 15:24, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Ed, for handling the issue in this manner. I would be delighted to limit myself to one or even no reverts per day on the article. This issue has disrupted my own handling of other articles on my to-do list, and if you look into it, this would help a lot. I am doing my own research for getting more facts on the Rohingya people, and would try to enhance the article with more facts. There is not much info available online. In any case, thanks again for handling the matter. I hope the flood of sockpuppets would subside, and editors to the article would focus on the contents. --Ragib 15:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Ed, I think I have just reverted the article more than once today, sorry for that. Some sections were blanked, and other users restored it, but the ips from the same group keep coming up and blanking. I re-inserted a language family reference with a citation, but that was blanked again by the familiar IP group. I also put the issue to the talk page, but no replies or references refuting the language link was provided by the blanking editors. I remember I put a voluntary 1-revert promise to you, since I've reverted the blanking twice, I'll not revert it again today, other than rv of vandalism. But you should take a look at the changes. Thanks. --Ragib 20:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm thinking of declaring it an edit war and protecting the page. Thanks for stopping at 2 reverts. Uncle Ed 22:02, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Talk page revert

Nope, just RC patrol. But best of luck to you in all your WP endeavours--hope you stick around. Yours, Meelar (talk) 15:40, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

I'm staying permanently, regardless of the rfArb outcome (see my final statement). --Uncle Ed 16:04, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Rohingya

Thanks for your message, but I'd thought that that was what I'd been trying to do... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

My first attempt

Hi Ed, this is Jason at IRFWP. I finally added my thoughts to the Unification View on Sexuality page. I was hoping that when you have time you could take a look at it and fix up anything that's inappropriate or incomplete. I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

Ninjajason

Moving a proposed guideline into a real guideline

Ed, I grabbed your name because you were the first one to create the page... Wikipedia:Naming conflict has been stable from editing for a long time and I think it'd solve plenty of really thorny issues. As an admin, do you know the process to move it from the current proposed state to something accepted? Care to take the step to do it? SchmuckyTheCat 23:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Let's merge the two articles, first. Then slap a "proposed policy" template on it.

Next step is to put it to a vote. Uncle Ed 13:19, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

• thx. Merge, done. Proposed policy template, been there forever. Where does it go to a vote? SchmuckyTheCat 19:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Ed, I need to contact you privately. Do you have an e-mail address? 83.109.141.34 01:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Contacting me privately

Try Special:Emailuser/Ed_Poor. Uncle Ed 13:06, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid it returns "This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users.". Could you post your e-mail address here and just remove it afterwards?

Yeh, Ed. I'll show you mine if you show me yours. — Xiong熊talk* 16:28, 2005 August 13 (UTC)

I turned off the "Disable e-mail from other users" option. Please send me an e-mail. :-) Uncle Ed 17:29, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

you might have forgotten to enter an email adfdres...Gavin the Chosen 17:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I clicked it wrong. Try again? Uncle Ed 18:28, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Vampire article

dreamGuys at it agin, removing my additions, claiming they are crap when i tried rather hard ot make it a good one, and trying to insert pPOV again. all im trying to do is to help the article along, hes deleting massive sections and alteringthings with zero explaination. please help

I daresay everything in Wikipedia written about vampires is someone's point of view. Please be gentle about what others think. Uncle Ed 17:24, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Blocking policy/Personal attacks

Hello! I believe you liked this proposal when we were talking about it a month ago or so. I've formalized the proposal and would like to make it official policy (after some discussion, and probably a vote to get consensus). Your feedback is appreciated. Radiant_>|< 09:30, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Snapshots

Hello Ed,

I know you are interested in the idea of having reviewed layers of WP and snapshots of the same, for periodic downloadnig or reuse; after the latest questions about this on the mailing list and recent renewed interest this month, I started (better: simply suggested) a FAQ here: Wikipedia:Snapshots.

I'd also love to know how your work on a professionally-reviewed selectino from Wikipedia is going; are there any public reports so far?

Where are you living now? Perhaps you can make it to the next Beantown Wikipedia meetup. It would be nice to see you again. There is a usability expert from the area who will hopefully be there to discuss improving the WP interface for use by disabled readers.

Regards, SJ

小籃子 comment wikifix

Hey Ed, I hope you don't mind...I did a little bit of wikifixing to your signature at zh:User talk:小籃子. Tomer ^TALK 01:23, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act

Ed, Sorry about the VfD affair - Ironically, if you were less successfull in helping Wikipedia scale, it probably wouldn't matter, and while I'm the last guy to take advise from, here's one more voice to add to those who support you - regardless. There's a great line in Kidnapped by RLS in which the Scotsman says to the boy, "I always thought I liked you 'cause you never fought, but now that you fight - I like ya even more." I for one appreciate the humaity of it all.

Oh yeah - why I'm here. I added a sentence to Price about the extension. Might be a bit thick in places, I'm sure it will be pared down to skeleton before I press enter. Simesa "checked" with you before he made a change, so I thought i would as well. If you're busy counting rosaries or somethin' we understand. Benjamin Gatti

why?

Why did you made these edits to my userpage? It seems like you wanted to block me. I'm not a sockpuppet: In my userpage you can find a link back to my old username, which I changed because I represent a wiki community. I constantly contribute to Wikipedia and the other sites of Wikimedia by adding content, uploading images and reverting vandalism. At http://www.mediawiki.org/ I contributed a new rewritten CSS-based homepage and I also revert vandalism whenever I can. We try to have good relations wiki Wikipedia, as we currently have with Slashdot (where I get mod points and my reputation there is excellent, and my site has been slashdotted 4 times (and my blog one more fifth time) with more than 20000 readers. We also develop our own wiki software, and we invite the MediaWiki developers to share code. I'm not gaming the system, we just try to develop friendly inter-community relations. Www.wikinerds.org 07:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Nearly everything you write above is objectionable.

1. You created a second account - this fits the definiton of sockpuppet, yet, confusingly, you deny that it is a sockpuppet.
2. Your appeal to the number of contributions here or elsewhere is irrelevant to the point under discussion.
3. Your attempt to "develop friendly inter-community relations" seems more like an attempt to impose your will on this community.
4. Your appeal to rules to bolster that attempt is the textbook definition of Wikipedia:gaming the system.

If you will immediately cease your disruption of Wikipedia, I can forgive all the damage you've done - but if you continue I will ask the others to show you the door.

Follow the rules, or be elsewhere. Uncle Ed 15:24, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

According to the pertinent policy, "a sock puppet is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who edits under more than one name," and "the standard definition of sock puppetry" is "using one account to support the position of another."

Their respective contribution histories establish that the NSK and Www.wikinerds.org accounts have zero overlapping edits, so it's ludicrous to claim that their creator is "edit[ing] under more than one name" (let alone "using one account to support the position of another").

Furthermore, I'll direct your attention to Wikipedia:Changing_username#Alternatives. "You can simply create a new account with the desired name, and redirect your old User: and User Talk: pages to your new account. Put a note at the top of your new User: and User Talk: page to explain the change."

I find it highly "objectionable" (and rather mind-boggling) that you would accuse someone of sock puppetry (and threaten to block!) for engaging in actions tantamount to the above.

And incidentally, your rant about "disruption," "damage" and "follow[ing] the rules" is astounding hypocritical and downright laughable. —Lifeisunfair 16:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I did the opposite of threatening to block: See this diff if you have any interest in real life or fairness. Uncle Ed 18:04, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

"Your selective quotations from the definition seem designed to malign me."

1. Your use of the phrase "selective quotations" implies that I've deliberately presented excerpts in an out-of-context manner that distorts their meaning and/or scope. Please direct my attention to text from elsewhere on the page that supports such a contention.

2. My reply was a good faith effort to refute claims that I believe to be inaccurate. Please explain how I've maligned you.

"If he's stopped using his first account, fine. It's a valid sockpuppet."

No, it's a valid second account.

"I did not say that he was 'using one account to support the position of another' but that he was using 2 accounts."

The first account is not in use. This individual isn't "edit[ing] under more than one name," which is the broadest definition of sock puppetry (a term that typically refers to the deceptive use of multiple accounts).

"I do not recall threatening to block."

How should your insertion of the {{userblock}} tag (with the edit summary "Considering userblock") be interpreted?

"I did the opposite of threatening to block: See this diff if you have any interest in real life or fairness."

I'm strictly addressing the alleged sock puppetry. The user in question might be guilty of various other offenses, but that doesn't entitle you to pad the list with baseless accusations. —Lifeisunfair 18:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

If you can't or won't consider the distinction between considering and threatening then there's no use talking to you. Have a nice day, man. Uncle Ed 18:36, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

One needn't use the word "threat" to convey a threat. When an admin accuses a user of violating a rule, and simultaneously informs the user that he/she is "considering" imposing a block, that clearly constitutes a threat. Such a threat can be appropriate, but only if the user in question actually has committed the alleged infraction.

I await your replies to my other points. —Lifeisunfair 19:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I conceived "considering" as a threat, and I believe this is how anyone else would conceive it. I believe I was within Wikipedia's policy when I changed my username, since I linked back to the old name from the new userpage, and I redirected the old userpage to the new one, as well. By no means I could imagine anyone calling this a sockpuppet, and there are no valid and invalid sockpuppets. Sockpuppet and username change are different things. I never tried to edit the same articles or make anyone to believe I was two different users, never. Now I changed username, after they requested it, however Ed Poor re-edited my user pages adding links back to my old username, although I had included a notice "Old username: User:Www.wikinerds.org" in my new user page. I won't delete Ed Poor's notices because I don't want to make others believe that I have something to hide, but I consider his edits unnecessary since I was the first to put similar notices in my pages. Wikinerd 20:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I used the term sockpuppet incorrectly. If you created a new account and abandoned the old one, then technically I have made an error here. If your purpose is a friendly one, then you might be interested to know that according to Wikipedia policy, "Multiple accounts have legitimate uses." (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppet#Multiple_accounts)

I would also regard it as a friendly overture if you would agree to stop labelling my attempts to figure out what the heck you are doing as a threat as the word threat connotes a policy violation on my part. I know of no policy which forbids an Administrator to announce that he is investigating possible account abuse. I sure hope you are not applying words like threat or threaten to me in an attempt to harm my reputation. This would, as you might reasonably suppose, be a clear violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

At your wiki there might be no rules, but here there are. Please follow them, or I will aske the arbcom to limit or suspend your account. If you label this request for compliance as a "threat", I will take that as a refusal to comply with our civility policy. So I suggest you think over your aims carefully. Uncle Ed 15:49, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

According to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, a "threat" is "an expression of an intention to inflict pain, injury, evil, or punishment." You seem to believe that Wikinerd and I were accusing you of threatening to inflict pain, injury or evil. In fact, I was referring strictly to punishment (id est, the "userblock"), and I'm fairly certain that Wikinerd's intended connotation was identical.

I humbly suggest that you make a greater effort to assume good faith and re-examine people's words when they initially provoke a negative response. This is precisely what I did above (by inquiring how your insertion of the {{userblock}} tag and "Considering userblock" comment should be interpreted). Rather than asking me what I meant by "threatening," you replied by ignoring the remainder of my post and abruptly discontinuing your participation in my branch of the discussion. —Lifeisunfair 10:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Vampire

DreamGuy is edit warring agian, and i do not wish to be getting myself in trouble. please assist.Gavin the Chosen 07:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

You agreed to stay away from him; you can't take that back. Please copy the disputed passage here, and I'll take a look. I would also like a diff, if you know how to make one. Uncle Ed 13:48, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

He can't post the disputed passage here, because: A) He reverted something like twelve different paragraphs of Vampire that were changed by three or more editors (shown here) so that he could get it back to the way he last reverted it 24 hours before, and B) He's been blocked again for violating the 3RR rule (as discussed here) so can only post to his talk page right now. DreamGuy 14:35, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Good. Thanks. If I had my way, he'd be on 1RR parole. Only one revert, per day, per article. And each revert must be accompanied by a coherent explanation on the article's talk page. Uncle Ed 14:47, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Well, one of these days the RfAr is going to finish up, and I think they have more drastic things in mind. DreamGuy 15:01, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

NSK

Hi Ed. I've made some changes to this RfC to make it adhere better to the standard format, and added the issues with spam. I've not signed it yet since it's too early to claim I tried unsuccessfully to resolve the dispute. If you don't feel the suggestion to change username should be there, feel free to remove it, but it's the only thing I can see which would resolve the spamming issue. Some diffs of problematic behavior, and a notification to NSK are still needed before it meets all the RfC rules. Angela. 16:39, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, it's my first one, and it's a lot of work to do it right. I appreciate the help and guidance. Uncle Ed 17:51, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

VVAW

You left a message on 209.86.4.111'2 page (good luck with getting an anon user to respond to you) about their edit to the intro on the VVAW article. Before you kill that person's edit, please respond to what I wrote on the article's talk page:

I'm having a hard time with some segments in the introduction. Any back-up for them?

"Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) is a tax-exempt non-profit corporation, which adopted the North Vietnamese position on the Vietnam War and opposed US involvement in it."

And

"They did not oppose war per se, nor did they merely want the Vietnam War to end. They campaigned for the victory of the North."

--Rroser167 13:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that there's a valid question here. I would deeply appreciate your response.--Rroser167 16:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response. But what is your question? Uncle Ed 15:10, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

eh

somebody (http://jnana.wikinerds.org/index.php?title=User_talk:NSK&curid=764&diff=0&oldid=3251)created an account Ed Poor on one of my wikis. Was it you? I responded to the RFC. We have a #wikinerds (http://portal.wikinerds.org/irc) channel on FreeNode, but I don't think I have anything to say on IRC. Wikinerd 21:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course it was me. Who else? Now, are you willing to talk this over or not? Uncle Ed 15:54, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Gabriel has three 3RR violations already today

On Vampire, User talk:SlimVirgin and also Otherkin (with the last being an anonymous IP that he admits narrows it down to a three block radius with his house and that also made edits on the exact same pages he edits). He's burning up the 3RR violation page. I tried to email you but I don't know if it got through. He's totally messed up several articles and continues to do so. DreamGuy 16:35, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

If you would learn to accept whne your wrong and stop rtemoving what i place on it, then it wouldnt be this way, DrteamGuy.

ed, if you wish to have a cpmnversation, use my emial or IM me. im seriously wondering why i have to be the village idiot,and no one ever does anything about the constnat incivillitiy that DreamGuy shows? hes r8ude to almnost aeveryone at al times. i mght sinply go away for a while. maybe then ppl will leave me alone.Gavin the Chosen 16:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Gabriel/Gavin

Hi Ed, the situation with Gabriel isn't working. The reverting and disruption continue, and apparently he's been editing without logging in, which is arguably sockpuppetry (though I haven't checked the diffs yet). See my talk page starting at User_talk:SlimVirgin#Gabriel.27s_just_back_from_a_block. My idea now is that he either be blocked indefinitely or that he agree not to edit any page DreamGuy is editing, and vice versa. What do you think? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:12, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Awards

Ed, I've collected your barnstars and other awards on User:Xiong/Ed Star and transcluded that onto your user page. You can always remove the reference if you like, substitute instead of transcluding, edit as you see fit, or move the page into your own user space -- they're your awards. I'm just sorry not to see them anywhere.

I urge you to take pride in your action and in the recognition you deserve. I understand that now is a stressful time and there are many for whom no struggle session can possibly brutalize you enough. Do as you think best; but know that in your shoes, I would have no slice of humble pie. You've done the Wikipedian Community a great service. Stand tall. — Xiong熊talk* 17:16, 2005 August 16 (UTC)

Thanks, I was on the verge of just taking the rest of the week off. Right now I don't care that much if the trolls win; I could use some encouragement right about now. :-( Uncle Ed 18:02, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Encouragement? Encouragement?? GO MAN GO! YEAH! You DA Man! Don't go changing (too much) Uncle Ed. We loves ya! May the road rise to meet you brother, may the wind always be at your back and may the rain fall soft upon your fields. Hamster Sandwich 18:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Template:Adminchat

Can I help? I seem to have picked up a knack for doing difficult things with templates. I'm not quite sure what your goal is, though. — Xiong熊talk* 06:41, 2005 August 17 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Anti-war

You stated on my talk page that you liked the idea of a wikiproject to unify the "anti-war" pages and that you'd like to to participate in it. So I am letting you know that I have set one up;Wikipedia:WikiProject Anti-war. Please come a join in.--JK the unwise 18:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Admin out of control

Under exactly what authority does UninvitedCompany think he can unilaterally permanently ban users, and destroy their user pages, and protect their talk pages so that they can't respond? - [2]

It should be noted that the alleged images were listed at User:Evil Monkey/Nudity as well as being considered entirely appropriate for articles, having, as far as I can tell, already survived IFD, and have been on Wikipedia for over a month.

Note that an arbcom case has only just opened and has by no means come down with even remotely any penalty such as a ban. UninvitedCompany seems to think he has greater authority than ArbCom, and can completely act outside it.

Does UninvitedCompany has infinite power and permission to unilaterally with impunity?

Particularly when the user/victim in question has challanged a prior abuse of adminship by UninvitedCompany in an RfC, and has diametrically opposed political opinions?

This seems to be a case of right wing evangelical Christian admins thinking they have the right to dictate to everyone else.

It also seems in contempt of the arbitration committee's right to make the decision.

SomeAccountThatIWillListOn-Ril-'sUserPageWhenOrIfIEverGetItBack (-Ril-) 11:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I replied on your user page. Uncle Ed 01:01, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Ed

I have a quick question I think you may be able to answer. If a link is used within the body of an article ie (http://google.com/bleh.html), is it proper to have that same link again in the external links section? Seems rather useless to me, and a waste of space, but I need some sort of guidance before removing. 172.164.160.90 00:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I have always done this, since I started in November 2001. A lot of people don't read the entire article. It's nice to collect useful links at the bottom of the page, especially those which appear in the body of the article. Sometimes you can even get more info from a book's footnotes than from what's in a chapter. Uncle Ed 01:04, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't entirely clear. After digging through the crazy amount of pages regarding external links I came across this "If an article has used information from an external webpage or it is to be indicated that more information regarding the article will be available, such as statistics, picture gallery, essays on a website, then such links should be part of the "External links" section at the bottom of the article. If the external reference to be cited pertains to only a paragraph or a line in the article, then the use of inline external links as footnotes serves as a proper citation." on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28links%29#External_links . Would you agree with this? 172.164.160.90 01:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

As you wish, it's not a big deal. Just don't go around enforcing this on 100's of articles that are already written. Like those nuts that want to change A.D. to C.E. everywhere. Uncle Ed 01:29, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it wouldn't be an issue to me if it were just to a general website, but these links are to Op/Eds, both of which are given paragraphs within the article. Just seems wasteful. 172.164.160.90 01:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Your opinion

In light of your opinion here, what do you think of the discussion here regarding Tony Sidaway's opinion that policies don't apply to admins? - Tεxτurε 15:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

If that's what he's saying, then he's wrong. And that's why he's still in trouble while I am (somewhat?) out of it. I went too far, too fast; I readily concede this. But the difference between me -- and what you see him as being/doing -- is that I can be reined in. Because I think that the rules apply especially to those charged with enforcing the rules. Moral authority comes not only from taking responsibility, but also from being regarded as being responsible. And I actually learned this from an Army ethics course. Uncle Ed 17:19, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

You don't know how glad I am to hear another admin say that the rules apply to us. I was beginning to feel naive or silly. The bad thing is that Tony doesn't appear to be in trouble. Just lots of negative feeback and no accountability. - Tεxτurε 17:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Want me to make some trouble for him? I know the rules as well as anyone around here. All of must be accountable. I only get away with being ultra-bold on occasion because I always either (1) guess right or (2) take my lumps. I'm not here just for me: product and process, Encyclopedia and Community. Uncle Ed 20:47, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

I have no interest in punishing him. It will bring me no joy or guilty pleasure. I truly just want him to follow the rules so that the dozens of users and admins he disregards can be part of the process. Oh, and a little respect for both groups would be appreciated, if not absolutely necessary. - Tεxτurε 22:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok Ed i've got a question for you. Should my votes by counted at VfD or not. Because I've been in a foul mood ever since I found out Tony Sidaway tosses my votes out, whenever he's closed a VfD in the past month. If I had known there is some time limit regarding how long I've been a contributer here or something, I wouldn't have wasted my time at VfD. I have been leaving messages on his talk page all afternoon and feel stonewalled, put-out and Bitten by the whole episode. So tell me, please, whats the dealio? I await your reply, if you care to provide one. As a reletively new user, I look to you for direction. Hamster Sandwich 22:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Gabriel yet again

Violated 3RR on Otherkin shortly after coming back from his latest block. I told SlimVirgin about it but she hasn't done anything yet, even though I see her responding to other people. I also think it was extremely ou of line for her to ask me if I would willingly abandon two articles I've been editing for a long time -- before Gabriel even showed up -- just because Gabriel feels like he should be able to edit there without my intereference. I'm sick of a guy whose been blocked some 13 times or whatever for continual violations getting preferential treatment and SlimVirgin treating me as if I were the one who should be punished. I am not abandoning article because Genreil doesn;t want to have to play nice, an I am coming to you too first about thes issues like you had requested, but if she or you do not block him again I'll have to the 3RR board and fill out yet another report that people will ignore and I may suggest to the ARbCom on his RfAr that a permanent ban would be a good idea, because he still ahs not shown any capacity to try to follow policy or get along with others. DreamGuy 22:15, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

That one was accidental.Gavin the Chosen 22:17, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

also, its not me whos not playing nice, ive been as polite as i can muster since day one. hes been aggravating since tha time.Gavin the Chosen 22:17, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Religion and schizotypy

Hi, some people are asking me to disregard a vote cast by User:Gabrielsimon on this VfD because he has admitted that he sock puppets User:Khulhy, with which he also attempted to cast a vote to keep. In fact my pre-counting checks successfully excluded Khulhy.

So the only question is whether to count Gabrielsimon's vote as Gabrielsimon.

I've decided to ask you and SlimVirgin, who seem to be acting as mentors for Gabriel/Gavin. My feeling is that I should disregard the vote. SlimVirgin says that because I caught and excluded the Khuhly vote no harm was done, so I should count the Gabrielsimon vote.

So it's up to you. I'm asking you to act as a tie-breaker. Should I count one vote cast by Gabrielsimon, or should I exclude him entirely from the decision and revise my decision in closing this VfD? --Tony Sidaway^Talk 22:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I am biased, of course, since I believe the few words in that pitiful stub should be merged. Instead of deleting, could you please userfy? Or copy and paste the 100 words or so to my talk page for me? I haven't gotten around to merging it.

More to the point, please count Gabriel and all his socks as ONE person. But is there a rule that VFD's are closed by the number of votes? I don't agree with that, so I can't really advise you. I would say "no consensus" and let it stay. Maybe someone will copy and paste to a relevant article and leave a redirect behind.

I think these cases should be decided on their merits - not on the bases of polls. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Uncle Ed 01:35, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Little Help please with DotSix

Ed, Thanks for blocking DotSix [user:67.182.157.6] last night for 24 hrs. After 19 hours he began editing again with a sock puppet. See here: [3]. He has been warned by the other admins who have blocked him in the last couple weeks that his block expiration would be reset every time he evaded the block with a sock puppet. (See here: [4]) For that reason, could I ask you to please extend his block? Thanks. --63.231.15.66 22:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks but no thanks

I'm free to propose necessary policy changes as I see fit, and the occasion has arisen more than once where a wikistalker has been banned for doing so. You do not have the right to "warn" me about anything in this regard, so I suggest you spend your time advocating your own new policies and mind your own business when it comes to permitting others to do the same. Rangerdude 05:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

New paragraph on the world-wide Elvis industry

My opponents have repeatedly deleted the new paragraph on the Elvis industry I have written. I think this is not O.K., as I have used a peer-reviewed source, the article by Professor David S. Wall, BA, MA, M.Phil, PhD, Head of University of Leeds Law School and Professor of Criminal Justice and Information Technology. User:Ted Wilkes has now also removed the Memphis Mafia paragraph from the "Relationships" section. Very interesting indeed. I wonder what is going on there. Perhaps you can help. See Elvis Presley and Talk:Elvis Presley. Onefortyone 15:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Original Research

I found the following talk page message waiting for me:

Please do not remove disputed information from Vietnam War. See Wikipedia:text move for correct procedure.

You must use the talk page, and you must respect Wikipedia's policy on including opposing POVs. Uncle Ed 16:13, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I've not edited the Vietnam War article. Perhaps you confuse me with another. As for correct Wikipedia procedure, it is customary to NOT include an opposing POV held by a single editor. That might be construed as Original Research. If the view is widely held enough to be included in an encyclopedic article, I'm sure that editor can find suitable sources and citations. It also appears that your edit on the VVAW article has removed information, so I'll just head over to that talk page to view your use of the talk page to explain that. You did use the talk page, right? (There....now we've both talked down to each other. I'm going back to civil discussion now. Hope you'll do the same.) 209.86.4.111 16:44, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Celebration!

Champagne is often drunk as part of a celebration

Please join me in celebrating my 1000th edit at Wikipedia, the most important online information resource! Hamster Sandwich 21:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

gzip

Did you discuss the gzip→GNU zip move anywhere before performing it? I can't find discussion on its talk page, or on Wikipedia:Requested moves.

Since the program is universally known as "gzip", not "GNU zip" ("gzip" being short for "GNU zip", in the same way "GNU" is short for "GNU's Not Unix"), I'll move the page back in 24 hours or so, unless you or somebody provides a compelling reason not to.

Generally, the only page moves that should be done without discussion are ones where the page content is both out of sync with the old page title and in sync with real usage — in this case it looks like the move to GNU zip is a move that really ought to be undone without discussion! :) --Quuxplusone 01:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Gabriel/Gavin

He's still up to old tricks. He removed his block notices from his user page that you put there and is now insisting that he be able to put something on my talk page (about his ridiculous attempted RfAr against me) when he's not supposed to be bugging me and he knows that editors control their own talk pages. He's also still been doing massive edit warring and personal attacks, but just barely avoided another 3RR violation... so far anyway. But then one article ended up locked so he may have violated it there if not for that. DreamGuy 19:15, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Hes up to his complaining about nothing again. I took things off my user page, and replaced them with happy things, butthe blocked by link is still there. so its fair enough stsill, as for anything else he saiys, hes jjust madthat i have him up for arbitration.Gavin the Chosen 19:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Flying Spaghetti Monster/ism

Hi Ed. I think you're probably right with this page move. My understanding was always that it was incumbent on the mover of any page to sort out the double redirects - is that not right? I'm happy to help out - I know there's a fair few of them. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 15:47, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I took a few minutes to leave a note for the LiveJournal guy who told people to spam the vfd page. Uncle Ed 15:55, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

No problem - wasn't a criticism, I just wanted to make sure I was right that it was supposed to work that way. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 16:03, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Vietnam War

I used "popular" instead of "official" because the publications where I saw the term being used are meant for popular consumption. Undoubtedly, they are tightly controlled by the government, but the level of control is not as tight as "official" government organs, since the editors are not communist cadres. My search for the phrase in government sites (.gov.vn) shows that the old term is still being used more often than the new term. Admittedly, official government publications were never quick for change. At a time when most non-governmental publications use English spellings for foreign names, the official communist party paper Nhân Dân and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs still use the archaic phonetic spellings (ironically because they were meant to be "popular"---accessible to the masses, even for people with no foreign language experience). DHN 19:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

List of admins

Why the partial templatification of the list of admins? You're not doing it manually I hope? If you want me to pull the entire thing through sed just let me know. --fvw* 20:18, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, please pull the entire thing through sed but watch out for custom tags. Uncle Ed 23:22, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Your offer to nominate me for admin

Hey, looks like i was write to ask you not to nominate me for admin because of the amount of people who would complain, Gabriel/Gavin is trying to RfAr me and he managed to get SlimVirgin to write something supporting it, ugh. It'd be nice if you wanted to leave an outside view there. I know you haven;t approved of everything I've done, but I think it's absolutely ridiculous that I am getting this level of constant harassment from not only Gabriel but peoplpe who should know better. DreamGuy 23:55, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I never asked Slimvirgin to add her input, she did that of her own volition. and i would ask you very nicely, ed, not to let such a person have any power here. it would basically make qabout a dozen users leaveGavin the Chosen 23:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

also, if all kinds of people are always "harssing" you, maybe its NOT HARASSMENT, and maybe the problem is not with the others, but with your behaviour.Gavin the Chosen 00:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Please don't move VfDed articles

Please don't move articles that have been listed for VfD, such as you did with Machines Of Desire. As the VfD template says, "You are welcome to edit this article, but please do not blank, merge, or move this article, or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress." KeithD (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that notice was applied by mistake. Uncle Ed 16:44, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Guide_to_Votes_for_deletion#Editing_an_article_nominated_for_deletion. It's made the Machines Of Desire page, and the Damon Lucibello pages and VfD very difficult to follow. KeithD (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Difficult in what way? I merged Machines of Desire into List of small bands, and I said so all over the place. And if [Damon Lucibello]] really is a DJ at WNHU, the user who created it will respond to the note I left on his talk page and flesh it out.

I don't see why a lengthy vote is needed here. Or is there an iron-clad policy that once a stub or other questionable page has been stamped with a vfd tag, no one is allowed to fix it. There MUST be a vote and/or some admin who isn't tryng to fix it must CLOSE the vote first? That doesn't make sense. Not in this case, any way.

I think the burden of proof is on you to show why this matter requires any more action than what I have already done, rather than on me to justify how I've handled this. Uncle Ed 17:00, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Have you read the link I provided you with? It explains the reasons far better than I can. I can expand on it if you want, but I'd pretty much just be explaining what it says there already. KeithD (talk) 17:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course I read it, and it contains a mistake. If you have read it too, perhaps you know what mistake I'm talking about. In any case, if you're sure I'm wrong, please do some or all of the following:

• Undo what I have done.
• Tell me why I am wrong, instead of referring me twice to another page.

I don't know what the mistake is to which you're referring.

The first reason why I feel it's wrong to move VfD articles is that established guidelines say it shouldn't be done. If you feel those guidelines are wrong, you should take it to the talk page of Guide to VfD, and make the case for doing it your way.

I also feel that the VfD process is supposed to be about reaching concensus. If someone is unilaterally moving articles to new headings when the article's merit is being debated by other Wikipedians, that's undermining the ideals of concensus-building. Votes can be cast for redirects, as per the guidelines, and may well achieve concensus. The VfD process should run its natural course though.

This particular case is an excellent example of just that: the article was moved to a new name (List of small bands), which was listed for VfD too. So far, no-one but you has suggested keeping it. Which is to say that (at least at the time of writing) there was no concensus for moving the article.

This particular case also shows up how it can be problematic. Someone looking through the VfD page will follow the link for Machines Of Desire, to see if that article has any merit. Because it's now a redirect, they'll come to a new article, which, in this case, also has a VfD template on it. They may figure out what's going on, and vote on one or both, in the correct place. They may not figure out what's going on, and end up with their vote to, say, delete Machines Of Desire, under the vote for List of small bands, which they might want to keep.

Is that any clearer now? KeithD (talk) 19:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you. Please go ahead and delete the articles. Or let me know when you and your buddies are done "voting" on it, and tell me to delete them.

The only part I don't understand is, if it's so clear that non-notable bands or DJ's shouldn't be in the Wikipedia, why can't I simply delete the article on sight? By the way, I'm not trying to make a point here (or change "established guidelines" as you hint above); I was just trying to help out on RC patrol. Uncle Ed 19:59, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

I would imagine - although I haven't checked the relevant talk pages, so I'm not sure what the concensus amongst the community is - that the reason that non-notable bands aren't deleted on sight is because there isn't a concensus about what makes a band non-notable. I'm going to head over to WP:Music at some stage and see if I can add anything to the discussion. I'm sure you'll have something to add to it too.

I do know that personal vanity pages have recently become eligible for speedy deletions, when previously they had to go through the vfd process. It may be that band vanity goes that way soon too. However, it's not fair on the other members of Wikipedia to just change the rules, when it's perfectly possible to work with them to change the rules. I would class that as the difference between being bold, and being brash. (Not for a second am I suggesting that you acted in bad faith though). KeithD (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why you're still talking about changing the rules. As I said above, I'm not trying to change established guidelines.

Could you explain briefly about speedy deletions? Could I have deleted that DJ page on sight? Or does "speedy" mean after a certain time period has expired?

The reason I'm asking all these questions is that (1) you came to me and told me to stop and (2) the pages you referred me to didn't answer my questions. Once it gets clear to me, maybe you or I could put a brief summary in the intro section of one of the pages, to save time in the future. Uncle Ed 20:22, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

You're the admin, not me. You should know these things already! Wikipedia:Administrators'_reading_list should tell you what you need to know about speedy deletions. If you don't understand still, you might be better off asking on the relevant talk pages, than asking me.

I thought the explanation in the template, and on the guide to VfD was clear enough (hence my re-referring you to it when you didn't understand it). Of course if you don't think it is, then work with the other people at the guideline pages to see if they can be made clearer. KeithD (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

It's hard to believe you're still not understanding my question. Let me start all over. What do I do if I believe a vfd template has been applied in error? Think about it like this. Suppose I had discovered the band vanity or DJ vanity page and wanted to deal with it to uphold WP policy. Would I have been wrong to replace the DJ vanity with the radio station stub? Would I have been wrong to delete the band vanity on sight? Or to try to start a list of 'not quite notable bands'?

What is it about the slapping-on of a vfd label that makes everything grind to a halt? Uncle Ed 20:45, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

If you think a VfD has been applied in error, because it meets the criteria of a speedy keep (such as, say, a bad faith nomination of Tom Cruise), or the criteria of a speedy delete, then you can close the VfD in the regular method, saying that the decision was speedy keep or speedy delete, and if kept, note it on the article's talk page. If, in that case, it turns out that your judgement was incorrect, it's a lot easier for another admin to roll things back to the regular VfD.

Yes, I think it would have been wrong to replace the DJ vanity page with the radio station stub. There was nothing that stopped you writing that radio station stub anyway, and suggesting the redirect, in the VfD. Nothing would have ground to a halt, and everyone would have been allowed to contribute to a concensus. Yes, I think it would have been wrong to delete the band vanity on sight. At the moment, the guidelines don't suggest that band vanity is a candidate for speedy deletion. If you feel they should be, then you could (and should) contribute to the debate about deletion reform. It would have been wrong to speedy delete when the criteria for speedy deletion aren't met, and had you done so, and archived the VfD, I would have hoped that another admin would have re-opened the debate. Although you might feel that's everything grinding to a halt, in fact what it is is everyone being allowed time to have their say about what makes a band notable or not. If you feel that's stagnation, then go and contribute to the discussion about the criteria for speedy deletion. (You keep saying that you don't want to alter the guidelines, when your actions seem to suggest otherwise. You should contribute to the debate). I don't think it was wrong of you to start a list of non-notable bands (although I don't think such a list should have a place on Wikipedia), but I do think it was wrong to move an article that was listed as a VfD to a list of non-notable bands, for all the reasons I've mentioned throughout our whole debate. There's no reason why you couldn't have created a list of non-notable bands without disrupting the course of the VfD. That's not everything grinding to a halt, that's allowing time for a concensus to be reached. You should know all this already! KeithD (talk) 21:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Paul Klenk: help with a dispute

User Imdaking has been ganging up on me with other users. He admits on his user page that Unike is his AKA. I tagged both pages as sock puppets. He has been using Unike as a sock puppet to revert pages, and attack and annoy me. One moment, he says it's an old account, then next moment he's using that account. I'm getting fed up. I also suspect Chriss P. and others to be sock puppets of the same account. Can you please help me take care of this, as several users are not threatening me on my own talk page, and some of them are doing it anonymously. Paul Klenk 05:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I blocked Paul Klenk for 12 hours for vandalising user pages and making personal attacks despite warnings. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Ed, there's really no need to help, I think it's a dispute between the two users which other users accidentally got dragged into, for example he accused User:FreplySpang and me of being socks including putting the sock tag on our pages and I think he went a bit overboard on a sock hunt, I've left a note on his userpage explaining this and also volunteering to answer any questions he might have the subject, I think that will be the end of it. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 05:52, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Ed, Paul Klenk here. I really need your advice on how to handle this situation. Regardless of what Jtkiefer said above, I never accused FreplySpang of being a sock (although I did tag Jtkiefer's page for reasons which I can explain). The incident started after I made edits at Dirty Jobs; the originator of the page, Imdaking, started making rude comments, reverting my edits, and adding my name on his user page under the title "List of Annoying People." He told me to leave his work along and edit my own pages. I tried repeatedly to explain the reasons I was making the changes, which you can see if you read the history of that page. Then, another user, Unike started making changes as well.

I read Imdaking's user page, noticed he was using Unike as a sock puppet, and did some research about the practice. After determining he was sock puppeting for the purpose of hiding his identity from me (as both Unike and 69.227.31.39), I tagged the pages of Imdaking, Unike and Chriss P. (also the same user, logging in and out as different users during the evening) as socks. They immediately started reverting the pages to remove the tags. Then, in almost no time whatsover, Jtkiefer joined in the reverting. As I realized I was dealing with someone using three user names and one or two anonymous IP addresseses, I had no alternative but to assume that Jtkiefer was the same person as the three-in-one user Imdaking, Unike, and Chriss P.

While this was going one, anonymous people were leaving Warnings on my talk page, telling me to "stop harassing users and vandalising their pages". Well, I think you can see that I was harassing no one, and the only changes I made to pages were in good faith, and the users were ADMITTEDLY the same. I was vandalizing no one. If you disagree with this, and think I was vandalizing, please show me where. Well, as I was getting anonymous users posting warnings on my page, Ryan came to Imdaking's rescue, and without telling me who he was, started posting the same warnings as Imdaking was posting. Knowing I was only tagging pages that merited it, and not having any idea who Ryan was, I continued reverting pages when the sock tags were removed.

Then Ryan had me blocked for 12 hours. The "blocked user" page invited me to communicate to Ryan via e-mail, which I did, and he has never replied to me. Further, Jtkiefer has made little effort to answer my questions about this whole affair. I'm a relatively new user and do good work; I take care to make edits to others' work that is appropriate. I would like to discuss this with you, Ed. It is unthinkable to me that Ryan and Jtkiefer have come to the defense of Imdaking, an admitted sock, and blocked me, accusing me of vandalism when it is VERY clear the only changes I made were to add sock tags to the pages of admitted socks. Thanks. Paul Klenk 21:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Paul, I don't know what this is all about. Is there some improvement you'd like to make to this encyclopedia? What specific improvement is being thwarted? Uncle Ed 14:40, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I just told you what it's all about. Did you even read what I wrote? I'd like to create and edit articles without having crackpots complain when I edit "their" articles, and without having them use multiple identities to harass me, vandalise my page, and complain to their buddies, and without getting some absentee, unaccountable admin to block me for 12 hours. This started when I rewrote an article Dirty Jobs that was plagiarized whole-hog from an Internet promotion of the show.

The nineteen-year-old miscreant was sockpuppeting in order to revert my edits and complain to/about me, so I tagged his three identities as socks. Then some admin, who has since refused to explain himself, blocked me for 12 hours. What part of this don't you understand? Afterwards, he vandalised my talk page. Now, last night, another crackpot complained that I improperly tagged for deletion his efforts at 1] creating pages for one single scene in a movie; and 2] creating category tags for "characters who excel at anal sex in the movies". I'd like to improve Wikipedia by creating original new articles, editing existing articles, and tagging patent nonsense for deletion without having teenage bullies round up their friends to gang up on me. If you can do something about it great; if not, let me know so I don't waste your time. Paul Klenk 15:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

It's annoying to have your account blocked. It even happened to *me* once. But you have to give the encyclopedia priority over your personal feelings. Please avoid personal remarks when discussing articles or administrative actions. Rather, focus on what contributions you plan to make to specific articles.

I've marked with strikeout tags a few phrases above which (in my opinion) detract from your argument because they verge on being personal attacks. Uncle Ed 10:17, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Vandal?

This user appears to only use his account for vandalism [5]. WAS 4.250 05:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

No contribs since being warned. Uncle Ed 16:23, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

My talk page

You made a header 'translated' but there was no message... Anything you needed to say? Redwolf24 19:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Must have been an edit conflict. I meant to say that I changed Eum Nang's username (from Korean letters). Uncle Ed 21:07, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Noob comment on user page

well have spent 35 min;not wanting to do this.No other way to incert.10 years ago,this day-wed by Sun Myung Moon,blessed as a pagan-anamist--one of the first non "moonies", even with a history of 1972-hanging out in hopes of understanding. -- N B ODD 2

Commotion in action at Fac page: *Need help* to stabilize anti-bias

RED Alert!

OK, I could be wrong, but I think that the Schiavo article was fixed well by all of our teamwork, and since I recalled Neutrality once making a "featured article" suggestion about Schiavo's article in one peer review, I nominated it, as it my conscience told me it was the right thing to do. There is a flurry of "NO" bias -and while I think I shall minimize my editing participation, I've put the call out to many regular contributors whose work is insulted here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Terri_Schiavo Firesorm here; Need help. Your feedback would be welcome. Thank you for your time.--GordonWattsDotCom 07:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

VFD - Change is in the air.

Lest you feel left out, there is a massively growing discussion about renaming / restructuring VFD going on now. Dragons flight 18:32, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

I don't feel left out. I got the ball rolling, didn't I? Most of my Jarring Unilateral Actions have had a good effect in the long term. It's nice to see that this one is doing so as well. :-) Uncle Ed 21:39, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

Hello, Uncle Ed! I was just wondering about what it's like to be a mediator- how much time you spend on it, if it causes stress, etc. I may be interested in applying to the committee... Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 01:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Please apply! I need help, there's not enough Mediators. Just follow my contribs and you'll see. Uncle Ed 01:08, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

From i_sterbinski

Dear friend

Reading your post, we realise that maybe there was a need of further explanation to be done on our survey. Unfortunatelly, our "final post" was all that we were alowed to reveal.

We would like to point out that this research was more on the issue of the problems that surround Wikipedia, concerning the use that some propagator of certain POV (no matter of which nationality and issue) can gain from the open and free Wikipedia.

Through our report, wikipedia was always kept on the side and we were constantly pointing out that Wikipedia is a free and open project that anyone can edit.

Also, we have to regret that we can not include in solving this problem, no matter concerning Macedonia or some other issue. Our research is over and we are allowed to send only addings to it. Also, we have no right to continue working on this issue for the next 12 months, all in favor of neutrality of our organizations. Our center beleives that involving some members on one issue for longer time can result in them building a certain POV and decrease their awareness of certain improvements that can happen in meantime.

At the end we have to explain that we were unable to contact you or anyone else on this issue, all in favor of keeping our neutrality and protecting our identity.

We beleive that you can get clearer picture of our conclusions in the report by reading the talk page of Macedonia and related issues. Many posts and complaints can be found there and just a little research can help you understand how they usually end.

Concerning your doubts of some competition web page beeing involwed, we would like to point out that our organization is one of the biggest ones in the world. Therefore, our credibility and neutrality are principles that we respect 100%.

We appologise for any inconvinience that we caused.

Thank you once again for your interest.

Best regards,

I sterbinski 01:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

We would like to ask you to allow us to put your accountas potential contact of any possible research in the future of our organizations, concerning this issue. This means that, if you give us your aprovement, we will send a recomendation to our centre to contact you (between the others) if they decided such a contact is necesary.

Also, we would like to point out that we won't reveal publicaly any information or critics towards Wikipedia before first contacting the leaders of this project.

Please, if possible, send us your answer in the next 20 minutes, because that is our timeline that we have to respect.

Thank you once again, I sterbinski 01:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

A legitimate human rights organization would not conceal its identity or give a 20 minute deadline (to an encyclopedia!) for a response. If you want help describing Macedonian disputes neutrally, please realize that Wikipedia:NPOV policy requires its contributors to:

1. avoid taking sides in any controversy
2. describe all points of view accurately and fairly

--Uncle Ed 10:00, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

IRC ban

You've probably ignored me by now, so I'll have to contact you here. What the fuck is your problem? --SPUI (talk) 13:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

George W. Bush - Electoral Challenge reply

Hi, I wanted to let you know I responded to your question on the GWB talk page. Hope it helps. Please keep the challenge info. out of the intro section, and in the presidential elections/campaigns section, where it flows so much better (and is kind of covered already). Please take a look at that section and edit/clarify as you see fit.

I said basically the same thing on the talk page. Take care, --KBecks 14:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Let me return the favor:

There are few things more infuriating than getting harassed, vandalized, bullied and ganged up on for contributing rewrites and reporting sock puppets. Getting unjustly blocked because you made a good faith effort to tag the vandal is one of those things.

But far worse than that, is when you go to someone who is supposed to help, and instead of helping, they ignore the substance of what you're saying and lecture you about your "attitude."

The next time someone comes to you for help, Ed (and it won't be me), please avoid taking a condescending attitude just because their tone is angry (that's normal and even healthy when you've been attacked), and focus on the problem instead. When you fail to do this, it detracts from your credibility as a mediator because it verges on incompetence. It does nothing to solve the problem, it only exasperates the victim, and consequently has negative value -– it makes the situation worse. It is truly galling, and I take it as an insult. I don't know if you're trying to be cute, or deliberately obtuse, or if you really buy what you're dishing out, but I don’t buy it at all. Please put yourself in the shoes of the victim and think about it.

While ignoring the problem I reported, you have twice hinted that I should focus on "what contribution I plan to make" to specific articles. As if I'm not contributing when I'm reporting problem users. Gee, thanks. Maybe in your POV that's not a contribution, but I believe it is. Besides, I cannot write and edit when I am blocked, can I?

This is not an attack on you personally, so please don't take it that way. It is an attack on the way you handled my situation in your role as a mediator. Paul Klenk 14:29, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your animus, but you don't have the clout to "tag" vandals. You gotta be more humble, dude, and ask for help. I let this attack go, since you asked me not to take it personally, but (with respect) chill the heck out! You violated a rule, you paid, get over it already. --Uncle Ed 20:41, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'm chilled now, I promise. If I violated a rule, then I need to take more time to learn them better -- and I promise to. I'm learning every day. But please, allow me to respectfully restate for the record that 1] I did ask for help (several times), 2] I posted a query about puppeting on a help board and waited for an answer, 3] I read and followed the protocol for tagging, having both proof and self-admission (it says nothing about clout) except for using "proven" not "suspected" on one page, and 4] I acted in good faith.

A technical question, if I may, please: Looking back at the tags' text (after being posted), they read, "This user is a sockpuppet of SOCKPUPPETEER, and has been blocked indefinitely." Can a non-admin user actually cause an account to be blocked? If so, I think the instructions for tagging should reflect that, and, if not, I suggest the tag be amended. Many thanks, and no hard feelings, I promise. Paul Klenk 22:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Mediation proposal

See Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Proposed. It's not quite done yet, but let me describe the changes and my ideas for streamlining the process:

1. Every mediator will have an office (similar to the desks used at the cleanup taskforce), at User:MEDIATOR/Office. This is where he will place all the current mediation.
2. Every mediation case will be on a subpage, at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/PARTY 1 and PARTY 2. Thus, we can just put {{Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/...}} on the WP:RfM page and in the mediator's office.
3. Each case must first be approved by a mediator. Both parties MUST have agreed to mediation, as I beleive it's fruitless to mediate if one party is unwilling to settle their differences. Only a brief summary, without diffs or links to pages, will be accepted before the case is approved. The case may also be rejected or referred to the arbcom. In addition, both parties MUST agree to the goals of the mediation. (Again, I feel it's fruitless to mediate if both parties don't know what they are negotiating for)
4. Once approved, the next mediator without a case will take the assignment. The current mediator's task will have to be replaced (I haven't done it yet, will do soon at a proposed template). In other words, the task will automatically move to a open office. If there are several open offices, it will go to the one open the longest. If there are no open offices, it will go to one with the least cases/longest time on a case. Thus, there will be no "picking and choosing" of cases, streamlining the process. (An exception will be made if a mediator is involved).
5. Then the mediator will work with the parties... this is the actual mediation part.
6. The case can then be closed by the mediator- if both parties have met the goals, then the case is successful. Otherwise, the mediator can dismiss the case or recommend it to the arbcom.

I hope that makes sense; the proposed page isn't completely done yet. I'll fix it up when I have time. Let me know what you think. I'll put "apply" for mediatorship soon, and I'll try and garner some "publicity" for the revised RfM, if you agree with my proposed changes. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 00:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea, especially if you can do all the formatting. It looks like hours and hours of work just to tidy up RFM. And I'm sure you'll be a good mediator. Please RFM your self, if no one's done it already. Uncle Ed 01:37, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Gabriel Simon/Gavin the Chosen

Slim, Ed,

I have been following the situation with Gabriel, editing now as Gavin the Chosen, for some time, although I have generally tried to keep my mouth shut about it lately--as far as I can tell, he has never listened to a single piece of advice I have tried to give him. By August 9, the two of you had agreed to take on a kind of mentor/monitor role with respect to Gabriel, giving him carrots and sticks as appropriate.

Let me say that I'm grateful to have veteran administrators here like the two of you; I've learned a lot from your behavior and writings as this episode has unfolded and hope to be able to use those lessons in my future work with the encyclopedia.

That said, however, I think it's time we should all consider whether this arrangement is working. I am going to suggest that it is not.

Gabriel has been blocked six times in less than three weeks. And all of them for the most fundamental things, in particular, violating the 3RR. He continues to make excuses, blame everyone else, and, frankly, shows no sign that I can see of wanting to become a better editor. He wants his changes to stick, sure, and he wants to avoid blocks, but he doesn't want to understand why editors are rejecting his changes and why he is getting in trouble. He is basically doing the same kinds of things today that he was doing months ago.

As I said, I am deeply impressed by the time and effort you have both put in to tutoring Gabriel. But how many last chances is he going to get? Slim, let me remind you of what you said back on August 9: "I've told him this is very much his last chance. He's been given a lot of slack, and I think he deserves a chance to create a new account and a fresh start, but if the old behavior returns, then I would say he's used up all his chances." There are many other editors, and many other readers besides Gabriel. They all deserve consideration as well. If, after all this time, Gabriel can't even learn to hew to the simple letter of 3RR, is there really any hope for his improvement?

At the minimum, I think it is time to say that the August 9 arrangement has failed. Six blocks have to equal one "last chance." I truly think that he should be blocked pending the outcome of his arbitration case--and, given his use of sockpuppets in the past, probably his IP should be blocked as well. If this is too harsh, I think the terms of his "mentorship" should at least be strengthened to include the following: (a) adherence to a one revert rule, (b) no editing at all to a small list of pages where he has gotten into trouble in the past and seems only to cause disruption and waste the time of other editors, and (c) minimum block duration of 72 hours, as the last six 24 or 48 hour blocks have not done the trick.

I am a very new editor at Wikipedia; I understand that I have a lot to learn about the best way to do things around here. I hope you will take the time to discuss with me if you think I am off base here, and I sincerely thank you for your time in reading this message.

Yours,

Craig --Craigkbryant 04:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

It only works if people let me know about problems. I'm not a babysitter. I've asked people to seek out me or SlimVirgin if they have any problems with Gabriel - in case dealing with him directly doesn't work.

This is an experiment in management, and I'm hoping that other editors will abandon the either/or mentality which welcomes all contributions up to a certain point and then seeks a permanent ban when that fails.

Please leave messages here on my user talk page if you see anything which requires my attention. Uncle Ed 15:37, August 29, 2005 (UTC)