User talk:LessHeard vanU

Thank you for the courtesy notice

Anytime. :) It was a pleasure to work with you on this, as well as Natalya and JHunterJ, and I look forward to future discussions with you. And although you might not hear this enough; your help is always appreciated. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

something peculiar happened

During this edit several categories appeared on my talk page (by mistake I presume). Unfortunately I cannot see where they are to edit them out ... also my talk page has been semiprotected which I have no desire for; can you help pls? Abtract (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed it, LHvU used curly brackets instead of square ones, and this transcluded a userpage onto your talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, Dunc. I had intended to use the curly brackets, but have a "|" instead of a colon ({{User|Sesshomaru}} which creates links to the talkpage and contrib histories) but the correction is fine. Ta. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. DuncanHill (talk) 21:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

My comment goes unanswered

(move to Abtract archive)

User JASpencer

(archived to Freemasonry archive)

Help please re Image Licencing

Hi - sorry to bug you but I have just loaded up my first ever 3 images and have been hit by a bot telling me I need to provide some licence details. I've looked at the relevant pages but am hopelessly confused about what licence to use. The 3 images were provided to me by the son of the original owner Ted Blake (who is now dead) to be used in conjunction with documenting his father's personal history and that of trampolining. Any help gratefully received - please post reply here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveK@BTC (talk • contribs) 11:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC) Oops, sorry. DaveK@BTC (talk) 11:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I will take a look this evening (my time) as I am unfamiliar with image policy, and on what basis you are uploading the images. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers - my time too :-) DaveK@BTC (talk) 13:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, "RLI|Real Life Intervened" - will look over this evening.... probably! ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, I've found another page that I thought might help answer but it didn't help although had a useful talk page that sems to be well-manned and I might get a response from them at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy so no panic,(I have a few weeks after all before image is deleted), enjoy some RL. DaveK@BTC (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

76.125.140.46 (talk · contribs)

When this user's 1 week block ended he made the same edit again he kept making before his block. Mathewignash (talk) 00:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

...and gone for another month. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. He made lots of edits in the past that were nonsense, and I had to revert them all, but he won't talk to me when I try to talk. He just changed her user name or uses an anonymous URL. Mathewignash (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Just So You Know

Checkuser confirmed that Flemishboy was Bart Versieck:

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

Sorry to inform.Ryoung122 00:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw, ta. I notice this time the block was not reset. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Abtract, Again

(archiving to Abtract, etc. archive)

another inappropriate Freemasonry related redirect

(move to Freemasonry archive)

Freemasonry

86.154.221.122 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) may be of interest to you. DuncanHill (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh... joy! :~/ LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

And more

(move to Freemasonry archive)

Can I say...

as an editor of Solar System that HarryAlffa was making my life miserable, and the fact that no other admin was willing to see his behaviour as blockable was a sign to me that Wikipedia's disruption policy was broken. I had tried to remain civil and not to sink to his level. Ckatz, for months, attempted to stay above the fray and not block him, but eventually he was left with no choice. Judging from the fact his application for reinstatement was denied, it appears that admins are finally beginning to see things from our point of view. Serendi^podous 10:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

My concerns were over process, and not the genus of the complaint. Generally, WP uses an escalating scale of blocks which are initially measured in hours - this started as a week. I made my concerns known to Ckatz, whose response satisfied my qualms. Providing your POV is the neutral one, then it is fine (and so is clarifying it). LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

An IP you blocked previously

I see you;ve blocked 68.195.25.27 before. I also see this user was reported to you directly by User:Peter Fleet a couple of weeks ago. This IP is the "action metal" genre troll IP. Any chance you can give him another vacation? Thanks. The Real Libs-speak politely 22:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I note that I previously blocked this account for block evasion. Looking over the edits I see that they are the usual genre editions, but need to know why you feel they need blocking. Are they again evading a block, or are they adding genres without discussion and against consensus? Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Red links at WP:AN

Wikipedia:BUTTHEYDIDITTOO,ANDTHEYWEREN'TBLOCKED-IT'SNOTFAIR has been fixed. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 00:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I tagged it {{db-r3}}: redirect from implausible misnomer. (Hope I'm not spoiling anyone's fun! If this merits a reply, I'll see it here.) — Athaenara ✉ 01:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(Wikipedia:BUTTHEYDIDITTOO,ANDTHEYWEREN'TBLOCKED-IT'SNOTFAIR would work.) — Athaenara ✉ 01:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You ani't spolling my fun. As I said to RegentsPark, it's not the first one and I'm surprised that none ever got tagged before. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 06:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this disruptive?

I'm trying to figure out if User:Ed Wood's Wig's actions regarding The Clique novel series is disruptive or just annoying. I prodded the individual books in the series except the first one on September 7, feeling they all failed WP:BK. He immediately deprodded them all with the non-neutral (and incorrect) statement of "this is one of the most popular book series for young people in the united states. deletion is wrong." So I sent to AfD. The AfD closed as a keep, with an opening to discuss merging the individual articles into the series page (a suggestion made during the AfD). So I started the merge discussion at Talk:The Clique series#Merges, which he responded to with "We just had an AfD which did not result in a merge. Stop it already." When discussion died down and I noted that consensus seemed to support a merge, he disagreed again and demanded I "let it go". I requested a 30, and a new discussion is still going there, with him so far limiting his responses to claiming that "no actual need for a merge has been demonstrated".

On the 7th, he also attempted to create an article for the unpublished (and as far as the author's website says, unwritten)) next book in the series called P.S. I Loathe You maybe due in 2009. This was immediately CSDed as it was a recreation of an article deleted via [[1]] (and for which several other versions of the name have been salted). Despite this and his attempted DRV on September 9 resulting in an endorsement of the deletion per WP:BK#Not yet published books, he continues trying to link to it. There is pretty clear consensus on Template talk:Clique that a red, salted link does not belong in the template, but he has readded it 8 times so far, with the links removed by 3-4 different editors. The template ended up protected, and as soon as protection was lifted, he went back to adding it again. He is also continuing to try to add the link The Clique series, claiming its valid under WP:CRYSTAL and pointing to the same "sources" rejected in the DRV.

It seems to me that he is determined to continue ignoring consensus and try to push the article existance and edit war over the links. And his continuing to try to push links to the article despite the AfD and DRV is becoming disruptive, with his edit summaries claiming its "inevitable." Thoughts? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 01:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

First, I would wait for the outcome of the 3O - the opinionator may have some suggestions. This editor does appear to be something of a WP:SPA (there are early edits which may not be in relation to the author or books, but I am not familiar with the subject) and is unwilling to accommodate other viewpoints. I suggest that you attempt to gain a consensus among other editors, possibly from a relevant Project, and edit to that. If Ed Wood's Wig continues to revert, then they can be treated as a disruptive editor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty :) So far the discussion is getting, rather interesting, since it became more of a open discussion instead of 3O. Hopefully if consensus is to merge, he will accept that. On a totally different topic, how does one go about requesting IP range blocks? There is a kid who keeps vandalizing numerous Disney pages and talk pages who has been indef blocked under at least 7 user names, and at least 19 IPs from the same ISP. He's causing problems here and at Simple Wikipedia. I did an AN/I, and I think one of the ranges was blocked, but not the rest. Do I just do another AN/I or is there some other formal process for suggesting range blocks? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 19:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Re range blocks - what you need is an admin who is familiar with the stuff, since you have to understand the how many ip addresses will be effected and how many of them are contributing usefully to WP (i.e. collateral damage - this is not so difficult as was before, because ip's can request block exemption.) I would suggest you contact User:Alison, who seems familiar with this work. She does get a lot of requests (she is also a CheckUser) so I suggest a polite request and a bit of patience. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks again! :) -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 20:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The Cure

Hello, there's a edit problem on The Cure page with user WesleyDodds (talk · contribs). I already had a issue with him for the same reason last may. I contacted you once at that time : here's the link to the post that I wrote you then. [2] So, after that, the issue was solved, until a few days ago. To make it short about this story, I wrote a part on the cure'page in january. It has been accepted by all the people who read it as no one has erased it, (except from time to time Wesley Dodds). These days, this user has been started to constantly erasing it, judging he's now right and all the people who have read the page and have let this part, are wrong. But in this case, the issue should be clearly not to the benefit of the one and only opponent. Could you write him some words? I tried to explain it by inviting him to read the page WP:Own but he refuses to understand. Thank you in advance. carliertwo (talk) 17:40, 24 september 2008 (UTC)

I think the magic word is "consensus". Try to find a few other voices and see who agrees with whom - and why. Once the facts rooted in policy are established, then that is the way the article should be edited. The best way to achieve this is via wide discussion on the talkpage. If this doesn't work then you may need to look at the various avenues for dispute resolution. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

re User talk:Jamal15

It is only needed to advise an editor once that "their" article has been templated. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

If only Twinkle did that automatically. Should I edit his talk page every time I have to re-csd? HalJor (talk) 19:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for feedback

I appreciate your input LessHeard (and your experience as a Wikipedian and admin) but my complaint is a still a work-in-progress and was not ready for submission yet. And to be frank, judging by your diff history you don't appear to be qualified enough on the historical/political issues involved to be claiming at this juncture it is my "interpretation of history".

(btw - Typed text has its limitations so I want to make crystal clear I don't mean to come across patronizing saying that. No doubt you know plenty of things I am ignorant about... especially Wikipedia rules... just not these particular issues)

As for the repeated charge of "POV pusher", it comes almost exclusively by Futper and FYROM nationalists. For any exceptions...perhaps at times where I have placing my comments is inappropriate to Wikipedia conventions (like on my user page) and for those times I sincerely apologize (mostly due to my ignorance). However, the vast majority of my beefs and facts are verifiable with a little effort (and if you can show otherwise please feel free to point out which fact is in error so I may remove it as necessary).

I do ignore Futper though (at least as an admin) but only because I have indepth knowledge of his offensive behavior (via his diffs) and the issues at hand. While I'll debate points with other admins (who aren't above being wrong either), I have shown a pattern of listening to them. When an admin suggested I shouldn't have made a large number of edits... I listened. When another admin suggested my user page was inappropriate for my comments I listened. And if you are now telling me my talk page also isn't appropriate for my current task at hand... I also accept your advice.

If you check my record you'll see Futper is the ONLY admin who keeps blocking me and his focus is on editing on many of the exact same articles I do (and issues with him is the reason I keep getting into trouble with other admins... including you). My complaint-in-progress on Futper is based on verifiable facts and diffs (some of which I've already provided). Futper diffs seem to show he constantly attacks Greek positions on a wide number of topics and on a daily basis. The chances of him doing so to one specific group with such great frequency on pure chance alone are bordering on slim to none. If that's not a conflict-of-interest for an admin I don't know what is. (and this is why I feel the political issues at hand need to be intermingled with the complaint to put his behavior into context)

Let's be realistic here Less. Futper is patrolling the fricken user page of a newb looking to find something to pick on to get rid of me. That has show to you something about where his mind is at. I tried to make peace with him after our first run in but apparently he can't stop involving himself with me. He's left me no choice but to respond.

I'd prefer if I had a page (any page) on Wikipedia to work with the formatting because I am going to write a long report to WI:AN for review. Could point me to a page where I would be free to do so within Wikipedia guidelines? (if such a page exists) It really doesn't matter where I do what I need to do here... that being contribute to Macedonia and Greece related articles free of Futper finding new ways to use his admin access to harass me (and I'm not the first to complain about Futper's incivility. Here's another ).

There is a great deal of hate and propaganda being directed at Greeks these days No doubt I am far from the first Wikipedian to claim persecution but in this instance it's not just me saying it. Last year the US Congress introduced a bill (co-sponsored by Obama in the Senate) condemning the FYROM government for hostile activities and propaganda against Greece. (And I can provide you first hand evidence of it so you can see it for yourself.... if you'll listen for long enough)

Any how... I guess you have a choice here Less. Pull admin rank and go on an angry tirade against me (Lecture? Level 5 warning? Block? Ban?) without spending a moment to review some of my very complex concerns... or consider actually listening to the other side of a dispute.

The former anger angle is extremely easy to do. You don't look irresponsible making your prior comments to me. You don't make an enemy of a fellow admin. You don't rock the boat. You essentially send me on my way. But.... it comes at the potential cost that you just contributed your little bit to spreading propaganda on Wikipedia in lew of your humanity. The latter comes at the cost of you just patiently spending a little time authentically wading through my points one-by-one with me.

I'm willing to work with you here. Are you willing to do the same with me? --Crossthets (talk) 07:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see it as a case of us working together, I view it as an attack on another volunteer - which is not permitted - plus the placing of a particular viewpoint as regards the history and sovereignty of Greece as regards territorial claims by Macedonia. If' it is a work in progress, one which will lead to a Wikipedia:Requests for comment, then I suggest you compile it off-Wiki and present in the complete format when you are ready. In short, if you do not use WP space to host your views regarding a certain admin or the contentious context of a territorial/cultural dispute while compiling some WP process then I have no need to interfere; I have no choice in the matter, my actions are regulated by my understanding of the rules, policy and guidelines of WP. As long as you abide by the practices and procedures of WP, then you are free to contribute to the project as you see fit.

One other point, I really do not care to have my fitness to comment on matters of prejudice and cultural antagonism commented upon. My humanity with regard combating the evils of prejudice and ignorance in matters pertaining to differing histories of cultures, different languages and belief systems, different colour of skin and facial features, is well intact. I reject Greek xenophobia as I do any other nation or peoples or cultures or religions xenophobia - I treat it all with equal contempt. That is why I'm such a fucking wonderful liberal. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I will do my edit offsites as you request. And being a "liberal" doesn't mean you are above potential prejudices. I don't appreciate you singling out Greeks for xenophobia. The remark was completely uncalled for(I am married to someone from Scotland incidentally.) Greeks can be discriminated against just like every other group of people. --209.161.238.156 (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Mark. Here is what I am faced with Futper. A few days ago I posted some points to the Macedonia_naming_dispute talk page (with sources). Other FYROM nationalists responded to them. I just responded back to them.

Now.... Futper just | deleted ALL the points The points in question show verifiable evidence of FYROM irredentism and prominent FYROM officials admitting they AREN'T related to ancient Macedonians... which is something that is certainly worthy of discussion on an article on the talk of the Macedonian naming dispute (For inclusion in the main article)

Here are some one them....

February 26, 1992: FYROM's first President Kiro Gligorov, at an interview by the Foreign Information Service daily report, Eastern Europe, stated:

"We are Slavs, who came to the region in the sixth century. We are not descendants of the ancient Macedonians."

January 22, 1999: FYROM's Ambassador in Washington D.C., Mrs. Ljubica Acevska, gave a speech on the Balkans, where she stated

"We do not claim to be descendants of Alexander the Great. We are Slavs and we speak a Slavic language"

February 24, 1999: The FYROM.'s Ambassador to Canada, Gyordan Veselinov, in an interview with the "Ottawa Citizen" said

"We are not related to the northern Greeks who produced leaders like Philip and Alexander the Great. We are Slavs and our language is closely related to Bulgarian. There is some confusion about our identity."

"Futper doesn't even want to discuss them though. Doesn't even want to see them. He just deletes points from the talk page he doesn't like and threatened me in the subject "purging section. WP:TALK, this is not a forum. Final warning to Crossthets."

Futper isn't the victim here. He's the perp. This is what I'm trying to make you understand. I assume your loyalty is to the articles based on your previous response. I also assume you pride yourself above all else on your humanity. Can you give listening to the other side a chance here? Please.... please... I'm begging you for a little help. --Crossthets (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

A couple of points - Firstly, I don't know about the articles, if I have ever edited them it was to remove vandalism or correct spelling. I allow the principles of consensus editing and use of verifiable sources to produce a fair and comprehensive article. Secondly, I did not single out Greek xenophobia; I included as part of all xenophobia ("I reject Greek xenophobia as I do any other nation or peoples or cultures or religions xenophobia - I treat it all with equal contempt.") sentiment, which I reject.

I have no problem with you bringing up your concerns in the appropriate venues, it is that I do not think it should be permitted to be hosted on your talkpage and certainly not with the language used when regarding Future Perfect at Sunrise. By all means continue to work on your complaint, but within the protocols of WP practice. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

There was no need to add "Greek". You could have just said you are opposed to xenophobia. In addition your use of the word "Macedonia" to describe FYROM shows a bias on the matter (most nations in Europe still call it FYROM... as do most international institutions (including the UN)... as does the US Senate (that just officially referred to it as such just yesterday) And every nation that calls it "Macedonia" agrees to abide whatever agreement Greece/FYROM reach. The primary foreign pusher of the name "Macedonia" was that *expletive* Bush (although Obama strongly supports Greece) who recognized it as such because Greece refused to send troops to Iraq and FYROM did (All 40-50 of them....whereas Greeks only fought WW1, WW2, and the communists with America.. including communists in southern Yugoslavia.. now called "Macedonia") Let me quote you US Secretary of State, E.Stettinius who wrote the following on 26.12.1944

U.S. State Department, Foreign Relations Vol. VIII, 868.014 / 26 Dec. 1944)

The Department has noted increasing propaganda rumors and semi-official statements in favor of an autonomous Macedonia, emanating principally from Bulgaria, but also from Yugoslav Partisan and other sources, with the implication that Greek territory would be included in the projected state. This Government (of USA) considers talk of Macedonian “nation”, Macedonian “Fatherland”, or Macedonian “national consciousness” to be unjustified demagoguery representing no ethnic, nor political reality, and sees in its present revival a possible cloak for aggressive intentions against Greece. The approved policy of this Government is to oppose any revival of the Macedonian issue as related to Greece. The Greek section of Macedonia is largely inhabited by Greeks, and the Greek people are almost unanimously opposed to the creation of a Macedonian state. Allegations of serious Greek participation in any such agitation can be assumed to be false. This Government (of USA) would regard as responsible any Government or group of Governments tolerating or encouraging menacing or aggressive acts of “Macedonian forces” against Greece. STETTINIUS U

However. I've been going through your diffs and you seem like an OK chap. I suspect it's because you are being misinformed that you've made the comments you have. I'm dead serious when I say there is a huge amount of hostility and propaganda being directed against Greeks these days (being pushed primarily by FYROM nationalists wanting to be named "Macedonians" at the cost of Greek ethnicity). Futper definitely appears to be one of them (or is someone somehow related to the region)

To understand how I feel here Mark.... picture if you told someone Jewish to "prove" Moses had perfectly identical DNA to them. Or someone Italian to "prove" that Julius Caaesar is related to them. Or to someone Chinese to do so for Confucius. (etc) Our very ethnicity is under assault by a 17 year old country that is the result of ethnic conflicts They have one of the worse human rights records in Europe (other than the rest of Yugoslavia which seems to be even worse).... and suddenly the bad guys are Greeks and we don't exist ethnically? (Nazi Aryans also tried the same shit and said they were the "real" Greeks... as did some of the communists under Tito who started this mess. Everyone is Greek except Greeks themselves?) As I said... Greeks ARE currently the targets of bigotry. Its not as well known as the more classic examples but it is happening. :(

Any how... a question about appropriate language. On my first exchange I had with Futper I had on Wikipedia (as a newb with no prior history) his second set of comments to me were....

Every sane person with normal adult intelligence can see that your allegations against (removed name). are nonsensical. If you can't see that yourself, it's probably no use me trying to explain it to you. I will simply block you if you continue with this topic, for being either a malicious troll or too clueless for rational discussion

Is Futper implying I am insane, less than adult-intelligence, clueless, irrational, and threatening me with blocking part of Wikipedia civility standards and admin code of conduct? (to a new user with no prior history?) Is it Ok if I call Futper the same?

--Crossthets (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Mark, I'm not sure if you saw my question about Futper's comment above. Does it appear to match Wikipedia civility standards? (I'd like to know before I include it my complaint to ANI.

In addition I just posted some examples of FYROM irredentism on the Macedonia naming dispute (a variation of which was previously deleted by Futper). If you go over the points you'll see what I am saying about FYROM irredentism/propaganda has truth to it. (and no examples are currently in the article... nor any mention of the bills Congress introduced last year condemning FYROM for propaganda... which should say something to you)

The newb soapbox issue you had time to address is trivial compared to the charge of admin bias I'm making. (Please just look read the diff you deleted and pay close attention some of Futper's recent diffs I've provided}. Even incomplete my complaint shows all sorts of information you probably weren't aware about (about Futper and FYROM hostility towards Greeks). If you're against xenophobia as you claim then you must realize Greeks can be the target of bias just like everyone else.

I'm sorry to keep bothering you here Mark but I just don't know where to turn to but other admins (which are much harder for Futper to intimidate). All I ask is for you to carefully review my points before leaving your "level 4" on my talkpage (that you know if left as-is will likely end up with me being later railroaded). Things aren't remotely as black and white as Futper tries to make them out to be and I'd like a little acknowledgment that you see that. (even if it puts you at odds with Futper and your prior comments). --Crossthets (talk) 05:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• To be blunt, I am not involved in the dispute and nor do I care to be. I removed material that violated WP:NPA, and provided my reasons. That was the beginning and the end of my involvement. If you believe you have a case take it through the appropriate venues. Thank you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit disappointed you had the energy to look at one side of the issue (between Futper and I) and not the other (ignoring my question about civility twice now). To be blunt myself, it makes it appear you just don't want to risk offending another admin. However, you are using your own free time so I guess it would be very rude of me to insist. On the bright side another admin did spend a little time with me so I am at least partially satisfied. I thank you for the time you've spent thus far. No worries and no hard feelings. Cheers.--Crossthets (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (154/3/2). I appreciate the community's trust in me, and I will do my best to be sure it won't regret handing me the mop. I am honored by your trust and your support. Again, thank you. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

AIV

Thanks. I've posted to ANI.. believe me I know I'm inviting a shitstorm upon my head. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 21:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand I made a minor error there.. but deliberately flouting policy is why I made the ANI post. I understand that some latitude is given to some people, but WP:POINT is pretty clear. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 22:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I do understand where you're coming from, and I know there are some exceptions... but that, to me, wasn't an exception. If he wanted the page to be better, he should simply have made the page better. Doing what he did was thumbing his nose at the community and nothing more. Oh well. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 22:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: protocols of politeness

Editors complain about anything they can when it comes to being reverted. Some have even argued against my removal of uncited content despite the fact that I sometimes reference WP:OR and WP:VER in my edit summaries. I wouldn't worry about it though. Sooner or later they'll realize what I was conveying. If someone vandalizes or adds nonsense to a page, IMHO there isn't anything wrong with saying "rv vandalism" or "rv nonsense" in the edit summary. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Quick Question

(move to Abtract, etc. archive)

NPA problem...

See Talk:Grande Loge de France. Problem is, the user is a dynamic IP. He doesn't seem to understand that what he claims is not appropriate because a) he is directly involved with the topic, and b) doesn't understand basic WP policies. What can be done about this? MSJapan (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I have redacted the personal attacks and legal threats on the talkpage, and warned the ip on their talkpage. I assume that they will return on a different addy, but the context of my warnings remains on the above talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I also noticed the IP has about a 5 or 6RR on the article. Is it worth reporting a dynamic IP for that? MSJapan (talk) 01:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I think an enquiry of a friendly CheckUser to see if there is any likely collateral damage from a small rangeblock might be best. Give your reasons, and if they concur and there are no other ip editor's that would be effected you might get a result. Give them diffs - especially of the legal threats - of the disruption to make your case, as well as the edit histories to prove the XRR. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Sigh... Peter's personal attacks against me continue. I have tried to be polite and not respond in kind... but it is getting difficult. Blueboar (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

You have extended AGF, and explained your (although I do not acknowledge that your Lodge has any more remit over WP than his, but assume that the references back your Lodges understanding) actions and WP's requirements in respect of content, but the other party has chosen not to use the appropriate venues and practices to resolve their dispute. I don't think you can do anymore. I propose you do on the talkpage what I suggested regarding Lunarian (or whomever), revert and ignore anything that does not move the discussion on. As for the article page edits, revert as vandalism anything that removes sourced content and replaces it with invalidly referenced material. Keep warning them and then take it to AIV. If they ip hop, report it to CU as I suggested to MSJapan. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

RFCU indicated too much collateral damage. MSJapan (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Update: Peter seems to have gone off in a huff, so the attacks have stopped for now ... hopefully if he does follow through with his stated intent to appoint a dedicated "Wikipedia Manager" (see my talk page history) that person will be more civil and will follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Thanks for your advice and support. Blueboar (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Sorry in advance if you just made a simple mis-read of the protection log and I'm being snotty and pedantic. I noticed your protection revison to ANI, and just wanted to make sure you knew about the change in the protection page; you can now specify different expiration times for edit protection and move protection. Hersfold set it so move protection would never expire [3], so you didn't need to do your move protection before his edit protection expired. --barneca (talk) 15:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Autogyro

That's awfully biased. It doesn't matter if they are based IN reality, they are based ON reality. I suggest actually checking out Pilotwings 64 for yourself to see that the design of the autogyros in the game have literally the same design as a real one, so to say it's a completely fictional "fantasy vehicle" on the level of something like the X-Wing from Star Wars for example, is unfair. The section in the article "Autogyro" where I listed a reference to the autogyros in Pilotwings 64 is under "Autogyros in popular culture". I don't ever recall there being some rule that says video games cannot be included in popular culture. They ARE apart of popular culture. Video games fit into the same category as books, films, music, etc. You shouldn't be deleting additions to articles just because you personally believe that video games are childish. Ceejus (talk) 16:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Page protection expiry separated into edit and move protection

Re this summary, it's actually not necessary. With separated expiry, one can have indefinite move protection and the expiry of edit-protection has no effect on it. I tested it recently on my talk page. Cheers.--chaser - t 21:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

<"big grin">I adore the WP habit of telling us slowcoaches of the latest in technological advances moments after one of us poor old duffers has failed to understand the brave new world we now inhabit... It is particularly amusing to be told it again, presumably on the basis that if we didn't know it first time around a little repetition is an insurance that we understand it in future...</"brig gin"> Thank you - and this is why I stay well clear of XfD, where my incompetence will likely result in some real damage! LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops. I guess I should have noticed that.--chaser - t 21:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no worries - everyone (who cares, anyway) knows I am atrocious at formatting my responses... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Customer

Come on, I like "customer".  :) Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Wow...that's gotta be one of the best supports I've gotten. I'm honored...thank you!!!Gladys J Cortez 02:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't "count" any more than the others, but... glad you liked it! LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You got a thank you card!

A Thank You Card!

Dear LessHeard vanU, thank you so much for your words of support, kindness, and your trust in me. My request for Adminship has been closed, and the support the community has shown will be with me forever. I have no way to properly express how grateful I am, and all I can tell you is this: I shall try not to disappoint you nor anyone else with my use of the buttons... and if I mess up, please tell me! :) If you ever need my help, either for admin-related stuff or in any other way, you are welcome to ask, and I shall do my very best. Please take care. G.A.S 16:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

LessHeard vanU, I'd like to thank you for voting in my RFA. Thanks also for expressing your trust in me, and I hope that I live up to your expectations. Don't forget, if you have any questions (or bits of advice), please leave a message on my talk page. Thanks again, Spencer^T♦C 02:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

All is for the best, in this, the best of all possible worlds

One of the advantages of not having many supporters at your RFA is that there are fewer people to thank at the end. Thanks for your support and your willingness to look at my complete record. I'm going to try to interpret this resounding defeat as a statement that I should choose my words more carefully in the future, and remember that every statement I make gets recorded forever, just waiting to get carefully transcribed onto my next RFA. I would go insane if I believed that it was repudiation of what I truly meant: that no editor should consciously and willfully ignore guidelines and policies, and editors that repeatedly do so should not be rewarded for or supported in doing so.

I'm sure I'll get back to full speed editing soon, because, after all, , every day, and in every way, I am getting better and better.—Kww(talk) 05:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Abtract, As Usual

I guess he just couldn't resist stalking and responding to my contribs any longer[4]. He did this despite this guy's talk page being locked after Tree 'uns 5 was INDEF blocked for vandalizing a policy page, but Abtract followed and welcomed him anyway as if he had just gotten "on the wrong side of someone." Now, per my understanding, as part of the agreement, Abtract was supposed to stop stalking me through my contribs and he was not supposed to do this sort of thing. I suspect he will now argue, though, that since I didn't "edit" the user page but only left warnings on the talk page, that its allowed. If it isn't a direct violation of the agreement, its certainly attempting to get around it in his usual fashion. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It has just gone 1:30am here, and I was just whacking a few vandals before turning in... I will properly review this and options over the weekend. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and have a good night. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Succotash

Oh.. I'd never thought of that. It's not something we eat up here in the Great White North, though. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 05:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

151.200.32.170

Many thanks for blocking that user. Dealing with him was giving me a migraine. Thanks for keeping me from getting one :) Take Care and Have a Good Weekend...NeutralHomer • Talk • October 11, 2008 @ 17:28

Our friend has returned...

Check a few of his recent contribs... the genre troll has returned. Utan Vax (talk) 23:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

This would technically count, this, and this. I hope these are okay. Thanks again in advance. Utan Vax (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hello LessHeard vanU. Thank you very much for your support in my recent Request for Adminship, which was successful with 111 supports, 0 opposes, and 0 neutral. I have to say I am more than a little overwhelmed by this result and I greatly appreciate your trust in me. I will do my best to use the tools wisely. Thanks again. Regards. Thingg⊕⊗ 00:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Hubschrauber729

Good evening. Sorry to bother you, but no Wikipedia moderators have made any decision or commented on the issues that I presented in regards to this user and his interpretation of Wikipedia policies. It is getting to be extremely frustrating. -NYC2TLV (talk) 02:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

for your consideration. :) I've given my own summary there of what's happened since I came onto the scene (my evidence, basically) which explains what steps have been taken and why ArbCom is needed - to finish this off for once and for all, hopefully. ;) Garlands and flowers are nice, and we'd be really lucky to get them...although instead, we'll probably end up with 1 long month. :( But on the bright side, NYB sees no ambiguity and has voted to accept already, even before I posted my statement. Hopefully the other arbitrators follow suit. :) Cheers again, Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries. :) Hmm, things are going slower than expected over there - most of the arbs must've been off for the weekend. Just a minor correction; the voluntary restriction was placed by myself (or else, I would have had no reason to be annoyed with J for terminating it) - but J agreed to enforce it, starting with the complete unblock on 20 July. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Rimanda (talk · contribs)

Maybe the vandalism isn't enough for a block, but as the username is similar to another user, and the first edit is vandalism on that user's page, it looks like the account was created for vandalism or harassment. —Snigbrook 12:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi, thank you much for supporting me in my recent RfA. I appreciate the confidence. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 00:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Formatting feedback

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=245063774.
Your formatting seems fine now. :-)

I'll keep an eye on any posts you make in the future to that thread, and sweep my broom if anything needs tidied or fixed.

Anthøny ✉ 20:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, most kind. I would comment that there is one other area which often needs some formatting assistance and the like after I have been posting. It is that area of the encyclopedia that I refer to as... "Wikipedia editing space". I suppose you are a little too busy? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

RfAR about Abtract

I grow quite weary of reading about these trivial matters. What has he done now? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for letting me know. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

plea

Biruitorul seems to want me blocked again. If I get blocked, could you solve that little problem I had last time, please?Xasha (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Two points, LessHeard vanU. First, I'm not concerned what happens to Xasha (contrary to what he says) so long as he respects his topic ban and ceases disruptive editing. Second, I've now seen the case has been referred to AE, probably a more appropriate venue than ANI, and I apologise for any inconvenience caused. Biruitorul ^Talk 01:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

No apology necessary. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Xymmax RfA

I'd like to take a minute to let you know that I appreciate your support in my recently-closed RfA, which passed with a count of 56 in support, 7 in opposition, and 2 neutrals. I'll certainly try to justify your faith by using the tools wisely. Happy editing, and thanks again! Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Uncommunicative editor

Hi. There is an IP editor, currently editing as User talk:68.79.133.27, but previously under User talk:75.41.6.98, User talk:69.218.254.170 -- you blocked them under that address -- and User talk:67.36.58.41, who continues to make problematic and disruptive edits but refuses to talk about them to anyone. I've been unable to get this editor to respond under any of these IPs (there's absolutely no doubt that it's the same person, look at the idiosyncratic use of "over last" in edit summaries, and the nature of the edits), could you see if you could get them to at least discuss their edits, if not stop doing them? Thanks, Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 04:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

LHvU, I see Ed asked for your help too. I left a threat on the IP's latest talk page User talk:68.79.133.27; a threat, because really every attempt to communicate (and Ed has been bending over backwards to try) has met with silence, and I could think of nothing else to try. Another attempt to sweetly beg them to say anything seemed pointless. I suspect (no proof, just a suspicion) we might be dealing with someone with something on the autism spectrum, and communication is just not going to be in the cards; if so, I can think of nothing else except block and revert whenever he reappears. Seems like a pain in the ass, but I don't know of an alternative; this guy edits a lot, and it's too much to expect others to review and fix them half the time.

If you can think of any better solution, feel free to simply remove my comment from their talk page altogether and take whatever approach you think might work better. It's a shame, because looking at a small random sample of their edits, roughly half the time I would agree with them instead of Ed (sorry Ed). I just feel that a willingness to communicate is non-negotiable here. --barneca (talk) 12:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

No, its fine. I would only suggest that you place the same message on the next address that pops up, as the address is dynamic and they may not have seen it. You can then link to it on every subsequent ip addy block. Hopefully it will get through. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abtract-Collectonian

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/Abtract-Collectonian/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/Abtract-Collectonian/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 12:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Just as a suggestion, using links for anons in this way 86.44.28.52, 86.44.20.40 may make it easier to review. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, and so done. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Siouxsie & the Banshees page

Excuse me to bother you once again. :) Well, There's an issue on the SATB. I wrote my arguements against 3 users here[discussion page] : this is about this "editorial problem/ the 1986 picture". Could you read all this chapter and also more important the replies I gave to the 3 users who disagreed with me. As you edited to this article, I'd also like to know your point of view on the subject. I also asked on the Siouxsie board what people thought about this pic and some of them found it "scary". To conclude, it seems to me that there are cure fans that hate siouxsie. One can meet them on forums when one mentions sioux's name and I suspect wesley dodds and Jd554 to be like these cure fans as they try to put down the image of the Banshees. I asked you to join on this issue as jd554 asked his friend wesley dodds to join. see the link [[5]] Carliertwo (talk) 19:52, 15 september 2008 (UTC)

Page Vandalism

Don't worry about it, I assume would you do the same thing for me as well. RockManQ ^(talk) 20:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

I've mentioned your interaction last year with User:Infoart at WP:AN/I#Saatchi Gallery complaints and legal threat. Ty 23:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Howdy-Do, again

I am basically 'living'at the Sarah Palin article and have had a number of run-ins with editor:Collect. We butt heads...often. So...I got curious who this "clown" was and found this [[6]]. I shared it with a couple of other editors that were having trouble with Collect and they said to go to an admin. I came here first. Advice?--Buster7 (talk) 05:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Er.[7] Ty 05:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I can see it was a mistake to show it around town. Is this somebodies idea of a joke? No wonder the Wikipedia community doesnt trust admins. They are alchemists. Not funny, at all! sad really.--Buster7 (talk) 06:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Collect is not an admin. Having seen the kind of collisions he's been in, I assumed it was an attemtp at humor when I read it, also. Dayewalker (talk) 06:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I know that User:Collect is not an admin. If he was I would quit Wikipedia this second. My dissapointment is that Admin:Ty put a goodhumor label on it. This was NOT humor.It displays a mindset that will act against the community. But....Nevermind! what's the point!--Buster7 (talk) 06:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Prepare to despair.[8] Ty 06:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Bah!!! Humbug!!! --Buster7 (talk) 06:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

lol. Ty 07:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm so very happy to have been able to help - and am grateful for the 5 "AdminPower" points I earned whilst not actually doing anything... LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Less...Maybe after the election you could explain to me what this is all about. It is certainly NOT the response that I thought I would get. Shouldn't admins be concerned and actively respond to evidence of questionable editor intent...especially an editor that is so quick to challenge w/ AGF. How can I AGF after discovering.../User:Collect/z--Buster7 (talk) 13:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Election? ...Oh, the US Presidential one. A couple of things, firstly, I'm a Brit so I don't have the investment in the result and therefore the candidates articles (I am for the encyclopedic value of well sourced/NPOV, but am for every article) and secondly I was very recently involved in the Sarah Palin Protection ArbCom after a very busy few days keeping the article clear of partisan editing when her vice candidacy was announced - I was one of the admins who protected it in the very early days, and I have tended to keep away from that area since. I also was immediately struck that the link was to a humourous page, and not even an original one at that. I regret that you do not appreciate my sense of detachment from the partisanship currently vying for dominance on these pages, but it isn't personal. When the furore has died down in a years time, then will be the opportunity to take stock of what was and what wasn't unethical editing of these articles - but until then the twin requirements of keeping the articles open as far as possible to all editing and the assumption of good faith toward all those who do edit means I am not going to investigate the motives of someone based upon their creation of a non-serious page. Sorry. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mind your detachment at all. I know you are much-involved maintaining Wikipedia. I appreciate your position and your response. I didn't expect or request an investigation. I was merely doing what fellow editors had suggested...letting an admin know. Thanks...--Buster7 (talk) 21:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Check with Lar. I think that will answer all your possible questions. Also visit WP:GAMING before whinging that I am a "clown" Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 22:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Saatchi Gallery

Yes, I'll email and copy you in. Do you mind your email address being shown on the email? If so, I'll do a Bcc. Ty 00:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I've emailed you about this. Ty 00:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing private on my part. Only privacy concerns might be relating to the gallery. I think the gallery needs to understand the basis of editing is WP:NPOV based on WP:VERIFY using WP:RS, and the resulting material is not a wiki editorial comment nor necessarily the view of the editor(s) of the article, which they seem at the moment to think it is. Ty 03:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Mixing me up ?

I'm a bit baffled by your comments? are you mixing me with the user Scott McDonald? --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

RfAr/Abtract-Collectonian

Please see my response to your question on the workshop talkpage. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose the following. If you agree, please sign below the second set of +'s. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

+ + + + +

By agreement of a majority of the involved administrators, the restrictions here have been amended in the following way, and come into effect at the conclusion of this arbitration case:

Important Notice: These restrictions are imposed upon the above named editors, and are not subject to further amendment without agreement of a majority of the "involved administrators".

• Matters between Abtract and Collectonian shall be handled according to the restrictions/remedies enacted by the Arbitration Committee.
• Abtract and Sesshomaru are banned from interacting with, or, directly or indirectly, commenting on each other on any page in Wikipedia. Should either account violate their bans, they may be blocked for up to one week. After the fifth such violation, the maximum block length shall be increased to one month. This restriction may only be enforced if violations are reported directly by either Abtract or Sesshomaru - it does not apply if violations are reported by any other editor(s).
• Further remedies concerning Abtract, Collectonian and/or Sesshomaru may be enacted to include banning interactions with any other user, if it is later deemed necessary in the opinion of 3 administrators to prevent harassment.
• The editors are already aware of the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle, and are reminded that edit-warring has a disruptive and detrimental effect on Wikipedia. Should any of these 3 users edit-war in the future, they may be subject to further sanctions (including wider revert limitations, blocks and bans).

Involved administrators are LessHeard vanU (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights), Natalya (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights), and JHunterJ (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) who should act with due notice to all the other parties. Other admins are welcome to add their names to the above, and comments by any other party is welcome.

+ + + + +

Provisional (Bullet 3 needs to have Collectonian removed as a party, see Bullet 1 - and thus Bullet 4 needs to be changed from 3 parties to 2. Also, do we acknowledge A and S's "working agreement" currently being acted upon?) LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with LHvU's question - do they not now have a working arrangment that does involve contact? Or is the working agreement the separation of the disambiguation page. Thanks for the clarification, -- Natalya 21:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Re bullet 3, 1 and 4; the Committee's current proposals handle problems that occur between Abtract and Collectonian. Based on my own (perhaps unfortunate) experiences, even though we think a problem user is handled, another user can emerge (managing to cause the exact same problems for affected users). Should this occur, I don't think Collectonian should have to go through so much trouble again, and I prefer that the community try to enact remedies concerning Collectonian and another user, again with ArbCom as a last resort. That was my rationale for these tweaks. However, if you'd both prefer avoiding it, and going directly to ArbCom, I don't have a problem in changing it accordingly.

Re: working agreement, I'm not sure of the exact details of the arrangement so was reluctant to include it at this point. It's ambiguous; I think it was declared that the restriction between S and A may only be enforced if either of them reported the other, and that otherwise, they can interact with one another? I'm not sure if there's an additional agreement concerning how disambiguation pages are to be separated between them (if at all). Based on arbs comment at workshop/pd page, I also think there's preference for those restrictions stay in place. However, we should probably get on the same page before passing this point. After that, perhaps it can be reworded to note that both parties came to an arrangement at [link] where this restriction may only be enforced if either party reports the other...? Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification; while there was an original attempt to treat all parties equally, it has become the case - supported by ArbCom - that resolution revolves around Abtract. Any problem that recurs for Collectonian (and as a vandal fighter, this may not be infrequent) that is not Abtract related should, IMO, be treated separately. This may include amending these restrictions to include said editor, but maybe we should leave that as a penultimate option rather than having it made - we should not be given reason for not trying less restrictive methods of resolving issues.

As for the "working agreement" - which we need not detail, but revolves around the two editors not reporting each other for violations of these restrictions, I do believe that it needs mentioning so any third party unaware of A & S's circumstances does not needlessly warn or report per these restrictions. As ever, I wish to see all parties contribute usefully to the encyclopedia with as little hinderance as possible. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that less restrictive methods should always be tried. However, I would not ever consider the after-effects of vandal fighting to be a type of harassment that would fall under my explanation above. I'm thinking of something (unfortunately) far more sophisticated. Enacting further remedies will always be an option, hence the word 'may', but I think it needs to be included to confirm that although the Committee have handled what happens between Abtract and Collectonian, this does not mean we cannot enact further remedies involving Collectonian and another user in that manner. If there's no issue for 6 months, we could probably drop that bit altogether. Additionally, the edit-warring concerns were just over a month ago - we concluded that the blame could not be on any one party for mindlessly reverting, with/without harassment. I'd like this caution (intended for the long term, rather than the 1 month short term) to stay for at least 3 months, so bullet 4 needs to include all parties. (I did not add evidence in the case on those edit-warring concerns because that is something we can resolve confidently. The issue was with the harassment and wikilawyering.)

That said, agree completely with the second bit, which I think clears up my doubt. I've amended it, so let me know if that bit is done. Natalya, hopefully that clears your question up too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

With your explanation re the wording regarding the parties and the amendment of the part in respect of Abtract and Sesshomaru I am happy to sign up to this wording. I shall do so as soon as I am logged onto a secure computer under my sysop account. LHvU (talk) 10:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC) (This is my non-admin editing account.)

Thank you for your assistance as always. Seeing you have the agreement below, I won't repaste the notification I've sent - but this is what I put up at WP:AN. [9] Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed amended restriction

+ + + + +

By agreement of a majority of the involved administrators, the restrictions here have been amended in the following way, and come into effect at the conclusion of this arbitration case:

Important Notice: These restrictions are imposed upon the above named editors, and are not subject to further amendment without agreement of a majority of the "involved administrators".

• Matters between Abtract (talk · contribs) and Collectonian (talk · contribs) shall be handled according to the restrictions/remedies enacted by the Arbitration Committee.
• Abtract (talk · contribs) and Sesshomaru (talk · contribs) are banned from interacting with, or, directly or indirectly, commenting on each other on any page in Wikipedia. Should either account violate their bans, they may be blocked for up to one week. After the fifth such violation, the maximum block length shall be increased to one month. This restriction may only be enforced if violations are reported directly by either Abtract or Sesshomaru - it does not apply if violations are reported by any other editor(s).
• Further remedies concerning Abtract, Collectonian and/or Sesshomaru may be enacted to include banning interactions with any other user, if it is later deemed necessary in the opinion of 3 administrators to prevent harassment.
• The editors are already aware of the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle, and are reminded that edit-warring has a disruptive and detrimental effect on Wikipedia. Should any of these 3 users edit-war in the future, they may be subject to further sanctions (including wider revert limitations, blocks and bans).

Involved administrators are LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Natalya (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and JHunterJ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) who should act with due notice to all the other parties. Other admins are welcome to add their names to the above, and comments by any other party is welcome.

+ + + + +

Agreed LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Natalya 11:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Abtract's recent edits

I think the user page comment is directed at Collectonian. I would ask him to change the user page and if not done voluntarily then I would do it. I rarely block, but it you think it is needed to prevent an edit war, do it before. Otherwise, you can wait to see how the situation plays out. You know more about the situation that I do, I trust your judgment. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Inquiry

I got that message again, but there are still things I don't get about the interaction part. Does this suggest that Abtract would be blocked? Or would I be blocked since I edited the page long after Abtract did? Please reply below, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I am assuming the agreement between Sees and me over-rides the restriction ... in other words, if we don't complain, no action will be taken. Abtract (talk) 23:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't mean to complain Abtract, but why did you label that as "accidental" when the edit was intentional? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I was being polite since it was obviously incorrect (only one link per line) I assumed it must have been a mistake. Abtract (talk) 00:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You made that ridiculous assumption because you so chose to, not because it was an honest mistake. Does it not occur to you that it was a red link which met the requirements of MOS:DABRL? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Calm down ... the section you point to refers to the first mention of the term being disambiguated not to subsequent redlinks after a bluelink. But if you want to change it back please do so. Abtract (talk) 01:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)