User talk:Alienus

This is the Talk page for discussing changes by Alienus
Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~), and give comments that start a new topic ==A Descriptive Header==, placing them at the bottom of the page. If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia. You're encouraged to create an account and look at the Tutorial, but feel free to just jump in and be bold, if you don't have any frequently asked questions.	Talk page guidelines Please respect Wikiquette, which means above all assume good faith and be nice, and bear in mind what Wikipedia is not.

Welcome

Welcome to my Talk page. Please feel free to leave me messages here, but understand that I now delete much of what shows up. Al 02:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Attacks

Do not use incivil language to refer to your fellow editors, such as calling them "snippies".[1] Terms like that make editing a hostile activity. You have been blocked for it before repeatedly, and I will block you again if necessary. -Will Beback 18:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Do not delete warnings from the community from this talk page. -Will Beback 20:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

ANI

That was my expectation, but it seemed you were getting a little grr-argh at someone, somewhere, about something. As such, I send you this stupid template to make you feel better:

Hipocrite - «Talk» has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Don't let the bastards grind you down. Take a break, it helps, I know. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

!

I'm not stalking you, Alienus. Really. Curiosity got me here based on a restored warning summary. Anyways... I noticed Hipocrite's edit and it reminded me of an edit I made to Chooserr's talk page. I was berated for it, as I'm sure you remember. Feel free to delete this. :) --Elliskev 20:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

If you visit Hipocrite's talk page, you'll see that it was just that glitch where text gets lost, and I restored it as soon as I found out about the problem. Al 22:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I meant the 'bastards' comment. Very much like my 'jackasses' comment. Anyway... Hope to work with you productively (an olive branch). --Elliskev 23:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't write the bastards comment, but if it offends you, I'll remove it. As for olive branches, there's no need because I do my best not to hold grudges. If you treat me fairly, I will do my best to return the favor. Al 23:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't offend me at all. If it did, I wouldn't have made an almost exact duplicate of that comment on Chooserr's page. Just pointing out the irony and all that weird cosmic convergence stuff.

Re: holding grudges, I do. Hence, my olive branch. It's in preparation for the next time I lose it over something you do. I can point back at it and say, "SEE?!? Who's got a problem with civility?"

Hoping you don't take this for anything other than it is - --Elliskev 23:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, then I'll accept your olive branch and keep it handy so I can thwack you over the head with it the next time you lose it. This violent irony should drive the point home. Al 23:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You mean WP:POINT, right? ;> --Elliskev 01:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

No, an olive branch is a blunt weapon, so there's no point to it. Much like most of Wikipedia. Al 01:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia doesnt have any points. Its just information. I know that trying to create fair and balanced articles is very difficult, but thats the whole problem with information. One persons perspective can seem totally alien to anothers |-). I know personally I like seeing both sides of the debate on wiki no matter how crazy or illogical it may be. I personally think argument over a topic like Ayn Rand is excellent. I have absolutely no idea who she is, and the article gives me alot of information. But the heated debates give me so much more. Its like being in the same room with people when talking about something that are passionate about. Hopefully the wiki admins will see that, and people like yourself will always be there editing.--Dem 04:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe they will, maybe there won't. There are certainly a few admins who'd like me gone, not to mention many users. Then again, I'm not uniformly hated, either, as my Wikistars testify.

In the meantime, I'm glad you're finding all this educational. If Wikipedia had a point, that would be it. Al 05:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS Email list archives

What do you think of this? Regards,--Doright

I think it's too specific and limiting. H-Net might offer particularly reliable mailing lists, but almost all mailing lists are reliable enough for citation. Al 23:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

We pretty much agree on everything. If you recall, I've been trying to avoid narrow focus on "scholars," etc. (e.g., see my "Tiger Woods" analysis), but am trying accomodate others', albeit ill-founded concerns. Please change it to your satisfaction. I'm sure I'll be able to live with it. I'm getting tired of being the only one to revert it from the even less agreeable version. Regards, --Doright 23:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that it's worth compromising this far. Al 23:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

List of major philosophers

Your edit summaries about Rand don't help make it look like you have an open mind. It would be enough to say "Removed Rand - see unresolved discussion on talk page" instead of "removed Rand, and will do so forever". Forever is a long time... GRBerry 23:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

"Forever" is an overstatement caused by trying to fit into the limits of an edit comment. My stated policy is that Rand gets in only if she is in fact a major philosopher as per the criteria we have set up. However, at this rate, that's essentially forever, because she is routinely excluded in encyclopedic 1000+ philosophy surveys that cover all major philosophers and many minor ones. She is, academically speaking, a nothing and a nobody, not a major player. See the Talk history for more on this. Al 23:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Objectivism (Ayn Rand) and such

Indeed, I work for consensus, as you seem to. I can't speak for any of the other Objectivists (sorry, that's the term I'm used to using), although I know GreedyCapitalist from other parts of the web. I think he's an upstanding guy, new to the wiki, and gets frustrated when LGagnon goads him on, etc. The fascism remarks are particularly offensive, as I'm sure you can see. Although we do disagree, you and I seem to be the two coolest heads currently working on this article, so hopefully we can work towards a consensus. Crazynas 06:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be a good thing if we could avoid endless reversion wars, pointless fighting and the inevitable blocks. At this point, things are pretty tense, though. To be frank, creating that new article was not a good idea, and things aren't going to calm down until the issues brought up by that article are settled. Al 14:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

No Personal Attacks

Regarding edits such as these: [2] [3]; Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Paul Cyr 08:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I followed the links, but you must be seeing things there that I don't. In the first, I'm calmly discussing a heated matter, without ever attacking anyone, personally or otherwise. In the second, your boy Nandesuka had been violating WP:NPA by repeatedly calling me a troll, then deleting my warnings, yet my comment was still civil. Looks like a misdiagnosis on your part, so I'm going to politely ignore your warning as erroneous. The funny part is that this all came because I reported Nandesuka for his personal attacks. Apparently, you're trying to punish the innocent for daring to accuse the guilty. Lovely. Al 14:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Those don't appear to be personal attacks at all.Timothy Usher 20:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how I got the first link (wrong paste probably) but from the second link, Clearly, you do not respect the rules you are expected to enforce, is a personal attack. As for your comment, you're trying to punish the innocent for daring to accuse the guilty. Lovely. Please see Wikipedia's policy on civility. Users who are repeatedly incivil may be blocked from editing. Paul Cyr 23:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

He does sound a little prickly in diff 2, and it's arguably incivil, but it appears to be a comment on conduct, not a personal attack. If someone is alleged (rightly or wrongly) to not be respecting rules, that's conduct.Timothy Usher 23:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Saying someone does not respect the rules would be a comment on their character as well as conduct. Saying that someone's actions are not inaccordance with the rules would be fine, but saying they themselves don't care about the rules is a comment on the person. Paul Cyr 04:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't agree with that, and I'm the one who said these words so I'm in a position to know exactly what I meant. Any statement on behavior can be misinterpreted as a statement on character. Contrast this with Nandesuka's clear and repeated violations in the form of calling me a troll. I bet if I called you a troll half a dozen times, I'd be blocked so fast my head would spin. Please, tell me I'm wrong. Tell me there's a single standard that applies equally to admins and regular editors. Al 05:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Nandesuka called me a troll about half a dozen times, then deleted a good-faith warning. This is more than enough reason for me to be annoyed with his behavior, yet my comment still fell well short of incivility. However, all the "troll" accusations were in clear violation of WP:NPA. In fact, the word "troll" is even used in the example of what a personal attack looks like. With all due respect, any attempt to call my comments uncivil or attacking while ignoring the blatant personal attacks by Nandesuka show that you're not looking at this carefully and impartially. Just for a moment, pretend that I'm the admin and Nandesuka was just some editor. Al 04:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

While I grant that Alienus has made personal attacks in the past, I haven't seen them anytime recently, and the diffs don't support it. If the point of previous blocks was to bring him into compliance, mission accomplished. This relentless persecution of Alienus has become unseemly.Timothy Usher 04:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought the policy was that, once you've been blocked, you're fair game for all future blocks. How else do you explain the current block Tony Sidaway? Al 05:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for edit warring and incivility

• Alienus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• LaszloWalrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Chaps, I blocked you both for this once before, and it seems we're back again. I've blocked you both for a period of three days. --Tony Sidaway 15:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

There's definitely an edit war going on, but it's not me versus LaszloWalrus, it's LaszloWalrus and RJII against everyone else. By "everyone else", I don't just mean non-Objectivists such as myself and LGagnon but respectable Objectivists such as Crazynas. It is not a matter of two unreasonable people reverting each other, but rather two unreasonable people -- LaszloWalrus and RJII -- reverting against everyone else.

The edit war itself is over a content issue, which is that these people want to remove a category that, while well-supported, is unflattering. In short, they are intentionally removing content so as to push their POV. If someone needs to be blocked, it's them. Their behavior violates WP:NOR, ignores consensus and is disruptive. LaszloWalrus and RJII have both done this before, and have not learned their lesson.

Given this ugly situation, I have done my best to remain civil and have been careful not to violate WP:3RR, which leaves us with the question of what justification this ban has. I think that my edit comments show my frustration, but do so in a civil manner. I would be interested to see precisely where you think I crossed the line, because I certainly made an effort to avoid doing so.

I would suggest that the block be removed entirely, since it appears to be based on your personal unhappiness with our behavior rather than the violation of any particular rule. With all due respect, it's impossible to know what will make admins unhappy, and there's so many of them, so the most that can be asked is that editors follow the rules. If you block editors despite the fact that they follow the rules, it makes the whole blocking thing arbitrary.

If you wanted to block everyone involved in the edit war, you'd need to take down at least three more people. And if I had been uncivil, then you would be able to specify just where. As neither is the case, this block is in error. The right thing to do would have been to give a warning rather than shooting first and asking questions never.

Fundamentally, this block is wrong because it's counter-productive. Unlike Laszlo, my edits on Objectivism-related topics are a small portion of my overall contributions to Wikipedia, so all you've done is demotivate a valuable contributor by forcing them out of action. This is not wise.

Al 16:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, the block is not based on my "personal unhappiness" but on your behavior. A quick look at Ayn_Rand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) shows that you're both responsible for the bulk of the recent edit warring. There is also an ongoing civility problem between you two, typified by "there is a consensus; you lose, get over it" (LaszloWalrus) and "*sigh* the cult allegation is well-documented; please stop edit-warring against us; we have the consensus and the rules on our side." (Alienus), with both of you shouting at one another in edit summaries.

It's not about making admins unhappy. It's about treating one another, and Wikipedia, with respect. I blocked you for that three months ago, and I block you again for the same reason today. To give Wikipedia a rest, in the hope that the poison will not spread beyond the pair of you, and finally hoping that you will learn not to do this. --Tony Sidaway 16:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I can see how Lazslo's comment could be uncivil, but not mine. While I clearly showed my frustration by sighing, I did not speak in an uncivil manner. My edit comment was in no way "shouting". And, in fact, if you look at the article talk page and Laslo's, you'll see that I brought up this issue repeatedly and tried to get him to stop removing content, all civilly.

Because you have not genuinely shown incivility on my part and because I simply did not break any rules, I cannot imagine what possible lesson I could learn from this except that you block for arbitrary reasons. Al 16:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

You can edit war without "breaking the rules". This is sometimes called "gaming the system." This doesn't mean that someone who blocks you when you do that is acting in an arbitrary way, it just means that you'd better stop looking at the rule book and start taking Wikipedia seriously. Shouting at someone in edit summaries is also very uncivil. I see both of you up to the same disruptive behavior you engaged in three months ago, and so I block you both again. --Tony Sidaway 17:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

For some reason, you keep suggesting that I was shouting, but this is simply not the case. What distinguishes shouting is the extra emphasis, parallel to actually raising your voice. In this medium, it is conveyed by typographical means, including boldface, UPPERCASE or exclamation points!!! Sometimes vulgarities work, too.

Instead, the quote you chose shows a resigned, slightly frustrated editor audibly sighing before patiently reminding an edit warrior that they are violating consensus, WP:NPOV and WP:V. This isn't shouting or unicivil or anything bad. With all due respect, as far as I can tell, you just decided that my comments were uncivil and this ideosyncratic interpretation had no basis in part of reality that we all share. It was, in a word, arbitrary.

Edit wars often have clear agressors: people who make changes regardless of consensus. If you look at the history, you'll see comments by fellow Objectivist Crazynas admitting that "even though I agree with you , you can't do this without consensus", and "although it pains me to do this, LazoWalrus, the cat has to remain until proper consensus is reached". He wrote these while reverting LaszloWalrus' changes.

The fact that a bi-factional group opposed Laszlo and RJII shows clearly that they were violating the consensus and trying to force their view on the article. The only support the two got were from apparent sock puppets, such as Xyz90009, 172.189.140.151, 70.181.156.58, and JToH.

Of course, just because these two and their socks were edit-warring doesn't mean that the rest of us were. Whereas the two ignored consensus, the three of us all participated in building consensus on the talk pages, discussing the evidence that justifies the inclusion of the cult categories, and leaving warnings on talk pages with requests to end the war.

In contrast, neither of the two edit warriors could justify their changes, so they stuck to either repetition or insult, respectively. Despite this, I went out of my way to keep the peace, defusing hostility and avoiding personal attacks and incivility: this is the opposite of being disruptive. I also followed up on some of the socks.

Initially, you accused me of edit warring, and now that I've explained that this is not the case, you've retrofitted the new charge of "gaming the system". However, it turns out that this term actually means something quite specific, which does not apply to me.

The canonical example of gaming is doing 3 reverts in a short period, then waiting until just past the 24th hour from the first before doing another. My own favorite analogy is that it's like have a 100 yard restraining order and managing to remain 101 yards away at all times instead of just going away and leaving them alone. In short, "gaming" is defined is intentionally bordering a rule violation. Alas, I did no such thing, so this charge is just as mistaken as the previous one.

The last time I tried to get your help to avoid an edit war with Objectivists, I was arbitrarily blocked by you for 3 hours, then 21 more, despite not having broken a single rule. This is a pattern with you, Tony: you block too much and for too little reason. You are an officer of the law, not judge, jury and executioner. You shoot from the hip and think with your heart, acting on truthiness and not truth. Think about it from the other side of the table. If blocks do not follow clearly spelled out rules, how are people supposed to avoid getting blocked? You didn't even give a warning before acting, so this came out of nowhere.

Speaking of nowhere and arbitrary, my sole attempt at appeal was rejected by a Pschemp with the informative comment "reviewed block, agree". I think this speaks for itself, showing that you're not the only admin who works on truthiness. Al 22:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I consider this block to be entirely spurious. I do not accept it as legitimate in any way and I hold Tony Sidaway personally accountable for exceeding his powers. Al 04:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I was convinced by the conversation at AN/I that this block was unjustified, and I have unblocked you. -lethe ^{talk +} 13:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Your actions have gone a long way to restoring some confidence in Wikipedia justice. Al 16:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome

It just makes me really upset to see admins abusing their power by acting out grudges, and this seemed to be one such case. Everyone has different ways of dealing with other editors they disagree with, and sometimes it seems like we're all expected to sugar-coat our language at all times just so we don't get in trouble with certain trigger-happy admins. I'm just glad that I was able to help out, both for your sake and for the sake of a more just Wikipedia. romarin [talk ] 18:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

There's something to be said for civility, but also much to be said for genuine respect as opposed to mere lip service. There are certain people who seem careful not to quite cross the line in terms of word choice, but aren't always fair, forgiving or just. Worse, some hold grudges and act out of spite, even weeks after negative interactions.

Anyhow, what concerns me more is that this ban removal might be the exception that proves the rule. Tony Sidaway is still an admin and he's likely to act on his instincts again. Perhaps more disappointing is this and that. Al 18:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Well of all the..... anyway, I restored your original message on Pschemp's talk page. This is all just crazy. romarin [talk ] 18:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't pester her. As unreasonable as her response (or lack thereof) has been, it may well be that she recognizes her error but lacks the integrity to admit to it in public. If so, then shoving it in her face like this will only serve to harden her resolve and make her act just as unreasonably in the future. Al 18:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you're right; I'll just drop it. Got better things to do with my day anyway... :) romarin [talk ] 19:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Your heart was in the right place, regardless, and that matters a lot to me. Al 19:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Pestering User:Pschemp

Pestering other editors as you have done here [4] is not really a good approach. Your edits are bordering on harassment, Pschemp sees your message and doesn't agree with your assessment, as she has said. Please stop, accept that you may not agree, and don't edit tendentiously, or you risk another block. ++Lar: t/c 19:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe I'm pestering. I have yet to undelete a comment that she has deleted, and I've even suggested to Romarin that doing so was not a good idea.

Having said that, I don't believe that admins, as public figures, deserve the same protections that regular editors do from unwanted entries on their talk pages. Their behavior as admins is fair game and any systematic attempt to suppress such corrective feedback is harmful to Wikipedia as a whole. Admins must be prepared to stand behind their decisions.

I have nothing civil to say about your unwarranted threat of an unjustified block, except that you can be sure that I will fight to have any such attacks overturned. Thank you for understanding and feel very free not to post here again. Al 19:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

As an admin I will post on user talk pages as I see fit if the need arises, as it has in this case, your tendentious edits to Pschemp's talk page were bordering on harassment. I don't make unwarranted threats and I don't block unjustifiably, so please temper your words, or you will have completely justified any additional block you receive. Keep that in mind please and don't edit tendentiously in future. ++Lar: t/c 19:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Your recent misrepresentations

On User talk:Paul Cyr, you described Nandesuka as "the only user who spoke out to support the block by Tony Sidaway that has now been removed for lack of basis." [5] That's a bit naughty, because you must know that it's untrue.

As you're aware, the block was also supported by myself and two other administrators, Pschemp (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [6] (whom you have since harassed [7] [8] [9]) and RadioKirk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [10] [11] (whom Romarin had specifically enlisted to review her complaint about my three day block of you [12].

The only admin who supported an unblock was Lethe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), who while continuong to maintain the my block was wrong, has expressed regret at his error in reverting a block without proper discussion and in the face of clear opposition [13]. --Tony Sidaway 00:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

At the time I wrote my comment (and until you brought it up), I was unaware of any review by RadioKirk. However, even they admitted that your ban was excessive. As for Pschemp, they have been singularly unwilling to explain their reasoning, if any, for supporting the block. Frankly, it looks like a typical admin-backing-another-admin rubber stamp, and shows no signs of the sort of evaluation that RadioKirk did. I find their actions unfortunate. Regardless, in no way did I harass her and I resent your contrary implication.

In any case, of the comments I saw on ANI, the only support for you came from Nandesuka, who has a huge grudge against me, while a number of other editors saw your block as inappropriate. Fortunately, one of them was an admin who was willing to do the right thing. Perhaps Lethe did not follow proper procedure, perhaps he did, but that's not my concern because I'm not an admin yet.

Tony, I'm sure you know that you have a reputation for acting before thinking and I'm afraid that this only strengthens it. You're not doing yourself any favors by striking out at me, particularly now that the matter is settled in my favor. In the future, I ask that you assume good faith with regard to my comments and consider that perhaps a warning has all the benefits of a block with few of the harms. Thank you for understanding and I hope our future interactions are less hostile. Al 00:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The view that you did not harrass Pschemp is not at all universally shared. Further I've reviewed the circumstances behind the block (having previously been uninvolved) and agree with Tony about it as well which is not really a rubberstamp, Tony and I often disagree, so I suspect that you'll not find too many admins that think your block was unjustified. With 1000, you might find a few, yes, but I suspect consensus is rather the other way. I think you would find it much more productive to concentrate on editing the encyclopedia instead of making statements, such as the ones Tony provides diffs for, which do not do a good job of representing reality. Lar 00:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, you're simply wrong. Radiokirk allowed that the block might be excessive, and that he might have blocked for forty-eight hours. You accuse Pschemp of being "an admin supporting another admin" and yet this overlooks the fact that Nandesuka and Radiokirk also supported the block. Thus I correctly state that, when he acted, Lethe did so knowing that four other admins, including myself, opposed his action. And he did so without consulting me, the blocking admin or participating in the discussion in any way. Lar has added his voice to ours.

You claim that I have "have a reputation for acting before thinking." This is certainly not the case, and smacks of an extended bid for self-justification.

In the three months between my first and second block on you, you had been blocked five times by four separate administrators, all acting independently of me, mainly for personal attacks. You are on a very, very sticky wicket. Clean up your act and stop blaming the blocking administrators.

• 19:39, 10 May 2006 Will_Beback (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked Alienus with an expiry time of 4 days (remainder of previous block for personal attacks)
• 19:39, 10 May 2006 Will Beback unblocked Alienus (contribs) (changing blocking admin)
• 07:18, 7 May 2006 Jayjg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked Alienus with an expiry time of 1 week (another personal attack in this edit summary: [14])
• 21:07, 24 April 2006 InShaneee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked Alienus with an expiry time of 1 week (continued personal attacks (and threats for more))
• 21:06, 24 April 2006 InShaneee unblocked Alienus (unblocking to extend block per AN:I discussion)
• 20:49, 24 April 2006 InShaneee blocked Alienus with an expiry time of 1 week (continued personal attacks)
• 15:53, 24 April 2006 Nandesuka (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked Alienus with an expiry time of 72 hours (Egregious and ongoing violations of WP:NPA. Example: "Your edits suck and so do you." [15])
• 19:15, 15 March 2006 William_M._Connolley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked Alienus with an expiry time of 48 hours (blatant 3rr on Medical analysis of circumcision)

Time you stopped attacking the messenger. Your propensity for personal attacks keeps getting your into hot water, and you're running out of excuses. --Tony Sidaway 00:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a lot of admins. Some are good at their job, some are not. I've found it entirely counterproductive to spend my time justifying myself to the latter. Thank you for your comments and have a nice day. Al 00:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, are you claiming that all of the administrators who have ever blocked you were bad administrators?

I make the count eight including myself and the above five with the addition of Sceptre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Alai (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) each of whom separately blocked you for Wikipedia:Three revert rule breaches in February.

Do you claim that they were all bad at their job? If so, this does seem a little thin to me. The alternative view is of course that you have a marked propensity for abusive behavior. --Tony Sidaway 01:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

As I've explained above, I'm really not interested in discussing this further with you, as the matter is settled and continuing to chew over it does not appear to be at all productive. Thank you for understanding. Al 01:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The "buddy" problem

I've noticed you using the same turn of phrase twice lately. You refer to someone, of whom you obviously have a negative opinion, as "so-and-so's buddy".

• "Did you know, for example, that there's a pending RFC against me by Jayjg's buddy, JakeW?" [16]
• "Moreover, her buddy, Lar, wrote some nasty things on my talk page and Romarin's, including threats of blocks." [17]

I just wondered whether you were aware of this quirk or oddity in your manner of referring to people. It could have the effect, in the contexts in which you use it, of making a naive reader believe that the two editors were acting as a pair to gang up on you, so it is probably best used sparingly. --Tony Sidaway 03:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes a buddy is just a buddy. Try to assume good faith and not read too much into things. In any case, it's heartening to see you take such interest in each and every line I write. It's almost like you're my guardian angel, or something like that. Alienus 03:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, I will not hesitate to block you for WP:TOE violations if you don't watch it. ;) -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

GT, I love you! I sorry, but I can't hide the truth anymore. Let's run away together. Block me if you must, but don't you ever, ever leave me, you seething hunk of a man! Al 03:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll spell it out, in case you missed my point. You refer to Lar as Pschemp's "buddy" and you are clearly doing so in order to discredit his actions. You refer to JakeW as Jayjg's "buddy", and you are clearly doing so in order to discredit his actions. I suggest that you think extremely carefully about continuing in this vein. --Tony Sidaway 03:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony, Pease do me a favor and don't mess with my signature. I know you have a problem with huge signatures, but mine is about as short and simple as it's going to get, and I use it on the recommendation of an admin who wanted me to make sure I wasn't mistaken for User:Al. Thank you. Al 03:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey Al, can I be your buddy too? romarin [talk ] 03:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

No! I don't know if I'm even allowed to use the nefarious b-word anymore. Just now, I was warned that it had deep meanings that I wasn't aware of and I can expect to be blocked if I mention it again.

I'm starting to become concerned that Tony is going through all the words I commonly use and systematically forbidding them. A moment ago, he took away my pretty cyan "Al", so I'm not sure what's next. Perhaps he'll have me type without the letter 'e'. Al 03:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Gee, that would be a shame. "Alinus" just doesn't have the same ring to it, without that e... romarin [talk ] 03:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

And I can't sign "Al", as it is also on his list. As for now, I am trying to avoid using that thing that's not a "d" or an "f", and I can't mention. It's hard! I don't know how Wright did it. Al 03:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess you're down to "inus" now. So, inus, can I be your-- wait, do I have to stop using the b-word too? romarin [talk ] 03:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. Bttr saf than sorry, though! inus 04:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, RJII, blocked briefly to stop sterile edit war on Randism

You're both being a bit naughty. Please take the time during which you're blocked to take a breather and consider that there are better ways to resolve a difference of opinion than tests of endurance. --Tony Sidaway 04:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Guess I wasn't safe enough, so now I'm sorry! I hate to admit this, but for a little bit, I almost had the crazy feeling that I was being baited or that my every move was being watched. It was almost as if someone were out to get me, ready to use any excuse or even manufacture one. These bouts of paranoia strike me sometimes, but I try to get over them. Fortunately, I assumed good faith, certain that no sane adult could be that petty. Glad to see how right I was.

By coincidence, I was in the process of posting a notice on Ayn Rand and Objectivism (Ayn Rand), asking for more people to come to Randism and weigh in. Now I can't do that, so I'm just going to go to bed.

When I get up, after I take care of the Randism thing, I'm going to briefly note my protest against this block on ANI. I'm sure everyone following the action will want to know what's been going on. Wouldn't want people to get the wrong impression, would we? Al 04:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

We certainly wouldn't. You were unblocked and one of the first things you did was get into yet another stupid edit war. --Tony Sidaway 04:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, and your 3-hour block right before I went to bed was really a great solution. Whatever happened to talking to people, mediating compromises and getting everyone to cooperate? I'm going to bed now. We can discuss it in the morning, unless you extend my block some more. Al 04:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't tempt him, inus... I don't think I could get you out of another one! romarin [talk ] 04:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

H's right inus - h's bing a good <PA rmovd> to you by saying that. Sophia 10:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You know, if an admin really wants to ban you, there's nothing you can do to stop them. Even flawless behavior is irrelevant, as there's always something that can be misinterpreted creatively. And if the ban is so short that it's not worth disputing, the admin can be assured that they won't have to go to any trouble defending their action. Or that's the common wisdom, anyhow. Let's find out how true it is. Al 17:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Al, that may be true, but you can't call your behavior flawless. Tony is right about "sterile edit warring" and about "gaming the system". You identified gaming a couple of sections up as only referring to "bordering on rules", but that's incorrect. Gaming the system is any violation of the spirit of the rules, while staying within the letter. Coming up with excuses to go ahead and revert repeatedly is edit warring, no matter how slowly you do it, or how much "consensus" is on your side — the spirit of the rule is "just don't edit war - leave the article in the wrong version rather than edit warring". I know about RJII, and he's difficult to work with, but there are ways to do it without getting caught out for edit warring. I doubt you'll readily agree with me on this, but please understand that I'm trying to help you keep from getting blocked, because I prefer when you're able to contribute. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Nobody's perfect. But if I'm not perfectly innocent, at least I'm not guilty. Nothing I've done here has warranted a block of any duration. As it happens, I had given up on RJII and went on to plan B, which was to post up adverts on both Ayn Rand and Objectivism (Ayn Rand) to get other editors involved. I think this action is entirely in keeping with the spirit and letter of the rules. Sadly, Tony blocked me and prevented me from defusing the situation myself, which was monumentally counterproductive and demoralizing.

Tony has to stop doing this already, as his actions are counter to the spirit and letter of the rules, and he's supposed to be an admin. Please see my recent post on ANI for more on this. Thank you for your concern. Al 18:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that soliciting broader input at related articles is a very good strategy, entirely in keeping with how I see Wikiedia working. Right now, the sun is shining, birds are singing, and I haven't yet visited AN/I today. I'm sure it will happen eventually, and then I'm certain to get all caught up (in whichever sense of the words). I must the the only person here to think that you and Tony Sidaway are both alright. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a much better strategy than, say, banning people who've broken no rules. Al 20:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

So reading this thread what is more important - the quality of the encyclopedia or the rules? Sophia 20:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sophia, I'm not sure what the drive is of this apparently rhetorical question. Of course the quality of the encyclopedia is more important than the rules. How exactly are those in tension here? I apologize if I'm being dense... -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

See, I don't read this as a purely rhetorical question. To some extent, the existence of consistent rules is vital for the quality of the encyclopedia. Primarily, rules set expectations, which allow people to feel comfortable in the knowledge that they are acting within the constraints of what is acceptable instead of constantly worrying that someone will take offense and punish them. On the flip side, rules guide administrators in how to restrain themselves, inhibiting them from acting arbitrarily and thus sowing chaos.

Having said that, some ends do justify some means sometimes, so there are times when the rules need to be ignored. The rules are a means to an end, not an end in themselves, so when they fail to yield the consequences they were designed for, we must make exceptions. However, as per the associated suggestions, when we ignore a rule, we should err on the side of being more merciful, not less. Al 04:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, I applaud you for endorsing and avowedly adopting a strategy of going to expand the discussion instead of continuing to edit war. I haven't got anything to add to GTBacchus' comments on the nature of the situation. On this matter, I suspect, we are as one. You are still prone to engage in edit warring and this is not acceptable on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 02:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you realize we disagree on this matter. Not the part about bringing in more people to end an edit war; here we happen to agree. Where we disagree is in your suggestion that I edit war too much. In fact, I edit war barely at all, and then only in the short bursts and in defense of Wikipedia.

Consider my very first block, which I "earned" by steadfastly refusing to allow some guy named Loxley to keep reverting to his highly POV version of an article. I put WP:NPOV above WP:3RR, and I'm proud of it. I didn't WP:IAR, but I did prioritize then. Not all rules are equally important, and rules can be in tension with each other, so we have to make judgement calls. I made the right one, in that my persistance paid off. Loxley's long gone and the article in question is in great shape.

These days, I'm not stuck relying on brute force. I have a deeper understanding of the rules, written and otherwise. But what hasn't changed is that I have maintained my sense of priority. Al 04:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Now this is the problem. You thought that edit warring helped Wikipedia, and you still do. --Tony Sidaway 11:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

If I may be so bold, Tony, it really appears as though you are attempting to bait Al here, and that's just not cool. He has remained civil and explained himself thouroughly, and your incessant commenting on what his problems are is going nowhere. As I see it, the only legitimate reason for keeping this conversation going at this point would be if you were genuinely interested in learning about Al's motivations, why he does the things he does. If this is the case, your words do not reflect it. Your unwilingness to leave things alone at this point seems, rather, to reflect a desire to push as many buttons as possible, hoping that eventually he will fly off the handle, at which point you will have the immense pleasure of saying "I told you so". Well, I don't think that's going to happen, and I would suggest that you have told him how you feel about his actions enough already. Thanks, and I hope everyone has a great day. romarin [talk ] 13:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Mmm, wiggly little worm on the hook, how can I resist? Lumbricus terrestrius, most palatable of invertebrates! No bones to get caught between my teeth, but plump with the iron tang of dissolved hemoglobin. Oh, wait, Tony's been baiting me for days, and yet I've resisted. Guess I'm not a trout.

Look, I was merely describing my past actions and their motivations, not endorsing any specific course of action today. The take-home values of my story is that POV insertions are bad and should be resisted using all acceptable means. This Loxley fellow compared Daniel Clement Dennett — a mild-mannered, moderately liberal philosophy professor at Tufts — unfavorably with Hitler. His edits likewise reflected this overwhelming bias, compounded by a staggering ignorance of what positions Dennett actually takes. Loxley's response to any gentle correction was an immediate revert followed by flaming on the Talk page. Yes, I'm sorry I had to get us both blocked to make him stop, but I'm not sorry that he's gone.

We can argue ways and means all day long, but my goals remain the same. Go to my user page to see for yourself. Al 15:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

(Response to Romarin) No I don't think your idea fits the facts. Alienus has twice gotten himself into edit wars for which I've blocked him and the other party. In neither instance did I provoke that behavior. I've given alienus some well meant advice on some of the things that I think he's doing that, in the context of Wikipedia, are mistakes of one kind or another. The first is (obvious) edit warring. Another is his use of popups to do non-vandalism reverts. Another is use of language that might seem to be a personal attack. Alienus also has a history of getting into trouble without my help. He was blocked five times by four separate administrators, including on two separate occasions one-week blocks, between our two encounters in March and June. So no, Alienus doesn't need any provocation from me to get into trouble. And it's possible that by reading my advice and adjusting his behavior he may be able to avoid similar problems.

Not every content dispute is an edit war, not even if there are reverts involved. Sometimes I wonder whether you are too quick to judge and, particularly, to generalize on the basis of inadequate data. For example, you'd find some interesting things if you fully researched those blocks, which would not lend weight to your generalization.

Either way, Romarin is not nuts to think you're baiting me. Ever since your bad block got overturned, you've been living here on my Talk page and following my contributions. Perhaps it might clear the air if you stated your intentions instead of allowing us to draw our own conclusions. Thank you for understanding. Al 17:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're mistaken here, Alienus, about edit warring. We consider repeated reverting to be edit warring, in all cases but simple vandalism, and simple vandalism is defined very narrowly, so as to completely exclude content disputes. Pretty much ever doing the same thing twice is to be avoided. The best Wikipedians follow the zero revert rule. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll also add to GTBacchus' comment, Alienus, that your actual behavior during the four instances in which I have blocked you for engaging in edit wars was very far removed from the ideal that you paint. Perhaps it's time you stopped lecturing and attributing base motives (Assume good faith, remember?) and started examining your behavior with a view to avoiding your habit to date of getting blocked several times per month. You've been blocked by (I seem to recall) seven separate administrators, so far. --Tony Sidaway 23:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This is one of those areas that we disagree on. My actual behavior during the many instances that you blocked me has never been block-worthy. And, as I pointed out earlier, most of those other blocks make yours look justified in comparison. Al 03:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

What makes an edit war is two parties communicating entirely by reverts. This is, to use Tony's term, sterile, in that there is no end in sight except a battle of endurance. Contrast this with cases where a revert comes only after a well-cited, good-faith justification is posted on the talk page, or where the reverted text sprouts a new citation. These are more fecund reverts, which distinguishes them from edit wars. They're disputes, sure, but not characterized by a reliance on force. From the outside, though, it's not immediately obvious whether it's barren or fecund. Al 18:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, your comments on your way of dealing with Loxley are disturbing, but probably not for the reasons you think. --Tony Sidaway 17:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you're disturbed. Do worms freak you out or something? Al 17:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with Tony here. There are so much better (and I mean more effective as well as ethically better) ways to deal with a POV Warrior than by warring against them, and you would do well to find out about them. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Communication would be improved if we all made efforts to address what is actually being said. I did not endorse edits wars as the only or best method, or even an acceptable one. I did suggest that motivation matters and neutrality is more important than rules of thumb that are intended to aid in conflict resolution.

Having said this, I have not experienced good results from mediation, and arbitration has been farcical. Wikipedia has some genuine and serious problems in the area of effective conflict resolution. I believe Dabljuh had some good points to make on this matter, although I don't necessarily agree with all of this conclusions. The point is that the system currently does not work and we need to improve it. Before this latest round of unnecessary and unjustified blocks, I was participating on policy pages to work towards a better system. Perhaps I'll do so again sometime. Al 18:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony, I didn't mean to imply that you had provoked Al's previous behavior (don't try to give youself credit for that), only that you seem to be baiting him at this time, mostly by insisting on repeating yourself again and again on this matter. We already know you don't agree with his actions (particularly as you have blocked him for them, on more than one occasion). Do you really think that beating this thing to death is going to change his ways? Besides, is that what you really want? What would Wikipedia be if everyone went about addressing conflict in the same way? Thinking along the same lines? Following every single rule to the anal retentive extreme?

On another note, I would like to thank you for leaving our signatures alone on this page. It is appreciated. romarin [talk ] 17:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen Tony accused of wanting people to "follow every single rule to the anal retentive extreme" before. Usually the opposite of that. Anyway, Wikipedia's not anywhere close to being in danger of losing itself in a sea of homogeneity, as far as editing behavior goes. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony certainly doesn't feel unduly constrained by the rules, nor does he hesitate to enforce his particular interpretations. Having said that, it's not clear that he's moved beyond the "bad doggy (whap!)" stage to one where he offers helpful advice and positive contributions. It would also be nice if he leaned back and offered people more personal space. Al 18:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Your Practical Joke

Hi-- remember me? we worked together on Cartesian materialism a while back. I just think you should know. Your practical joke has fooled me on at least four separate occasions. You would think I would learn, but I never do. Thank you for the laughs. --Alecmconroy 16:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do remember you. Sorry if my joke is excessively effective and hope you found it amusing, even the fifth time. Al 17:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you got me three times... even now it still gives me a start, but at least I stopped clicking on it! romarin [talk ] 19:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You know, I could be more evil by placing it on THIS page, in addition to my user page. :-) Al 19:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you possibly be more evil? I'm not sure about that... romarin [talk ] 19:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It is one of life's deepest mysteries, but I suspect that, as hard as it might be to imagine, I am capable of even greater evil than I am now known for. For example, consider me as an admin. Al 04:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Let's see: you've accused me of supporting a particular political ideology I do not subscribe to without proof, and you have acted as if my politics have any bearing on the discussion at hand. [18] jgp (T|C) 19:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be wonderful thing if politics had no bearing on how people voted regarding the proposed Objectivism POV fork, but this is simply not the case. As for personal attacks, there don't appear to be any, although I do note that you're failing to assume good faith. In any case, I've removed your mistaken tag. Thank you for understanding. Al 20:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Use of popups to revert non-vandalism edits

Be careful when using "one-click" revert tools such as Popups. Because they don't allow you to enter a proper edit summary, they should only be used to revert Simple vandalism. This revert seems to be a revert of a good faith, if perhaps misguided or tendentious, edit. In such cases it's much better to perform a normal manual revert, and include a polite and informative summary. I also recommend making a point of using the talk page for each revert. Just spend a few minutes explaining why you performed the revert. This is much more effective that just reverting without comment, as you did here, and will almost certainly help you to avoid getting involved in more sterile edit wars. --Tony Sidaway 20:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

An anon IP without a history came in and made a series of changes to the article, none with explanation and none conforming to WP:NPOV. Needless to say, they did not participate on the Talk page or otherwise seek to conform to consensus. When someone doesn't even offer a reason for their clearly negative changes, I have trouble distinguishing them from outright vandalism. In short, there was nothing to comment on except "rvv", which the popup's message is equivalent to. Thank you so much for your concern, though. Al 20:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that you re-read the Vandalism page. And then re-read Please do not bite the newcomers. "rvv" would not have been appropriate since--as you remark yourself--the fellow had no history. We don't know whether he was vandalizing or simply correcting what he saw as bias in the article. Though I'd put good money on the latter. An edit you disagree with is not vandalism.

To keep Wikipedia a reasonably friendly environment, it's very important to avoid treating non-vandalism as vandalism, and to avoid reverts, except for simple vandalism, unless absolutely necessary. In which case it doesn't do any harm to explain why you are performing the revert. Preferably on the talk page. --Tony Sidaway 20:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Remember that Al - we need to keep wikipedia a friendly place. Sophia 20:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Lots of buddies make places more friendly! Romarin 20:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Newbie biting is not good. --Tony Sidaway 20:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's a good thing that we have buddies, and a good thing to recognize their existence. Al 21:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The spoils of research

I thought you might be interested in this: [19] -- LGagnon 21:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but as it happens, I was aware of it. Al 15:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Hey, just to let you know that I appreciate your hard work. :) Hang in there, old friend! It will be all over soon. -- infinity0 14:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I do realize that RJII is an extreme case and may well wind up banned for an extended period. This would, on the whole, be quite just. On the other hand, he is just one of a seething pool of biased editors who will brook no disagreement on Randism. The fight to give the Rand-related articles any semblance of neutrality is ongoing and ultimately futile, at least under the current rules. Al 15:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The attitude seems to be that all people who engage in disputes are bad. But sometimes there is no choice; it is the lesser of the two evils. I am impressed and grateful for your resilience, however. :) But, please, remember that real life is more important that this; if you feel too stressed, take a break. Other people will fill your place. As for RJII, this may give you some comfort. -- infinity0 22:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Engaging in disputes is necessary, given that the alternative is to allow articles to slowly become corrupted by partisanship. It bothers me that little distinction is made between reverting demonstrably bad changes -- those that are nowhere near neutral, are uncited, or go entirely against consensus -- and inserting those bad changes in the first place. Al 01:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding: "Given that the alternative is to allow articles to slowly become corrupted by partisanship" and "...the lesser of two evils". I would suggest that there are far more than two options, and that it's not about a choice between edit warring and allowing articles to go to shit. I actually manage to help defend articles against bias and even improve them - without getting drawn into multiple reversions. The idea that you only have two choices - edit war or give up - is an incorrect idea. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

If you look again, you'll see that I spoke of engaging in disputes, not edit-warring. Edit-warring is not the ideal dispute resolution mechanism. Then again, RFM's have proven to be something of a joke so far. What seems to work is steadfast resistance to partisanship. Al 02:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're right, you didn't say edit-warring. I guess I still had some of your replies to Tony in my mind from further up the page. I don't think anobody on Wikipedia suggests that there's anything remotely wrong with "engaging in disputes". -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Al 02:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we work together?

On the circumcision topic ... I'd like to redo the outline, add sexual effects information, and more informed consent (discord) information.TipPt 22:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

As always, I support efforts to make those articles more neutral and comprehensive. As you can expect significant resistance, I suggest you start by doing some research to turn up reliable sources. Al 01:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Objectivism Cult

I'm confused why you're still arguing about this, Sarge is right and since you seem resonable and rational (I assume good faith). I'm not sure why you don't see it... I understand that you think this is an attempt to POV the article, but it's really not. Like the creation of the new article I created, this isn't ideological, it's administrative. Crazynas 07:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Because I genuinely disagree with Serge. Also, pleease understand that decisions that may be merely administrative for uncontroversial articles tend to be hijacked to inject POV into controversial ones. Al 12:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Persistent and unpenitent edit warring

I tried to warn you about this, but you're not taking it seriously. The following diffs show you edit warring on two different articles.

• Scientology: repeatedly reverting non-vandal edits using popups, which gives no other edit summary than "Revert to revision X dated Y by Z using popups".
  • [20] [21] [22] [23]

• Ayn Rand, more edit warring
  • [24] [25] [26] [27]

As you're a persistent and quite unpenitent edit warrior, I'm blocking you from editing Wikipedia for three days. --Tony Sidaway 02:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, and to think I suspected you of wikistalking me with the intent to block me on any excuse. Good thing I was wrong. Al 02:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Since a recent block imposed on this editor for a repetition of egregious edit warring and incivility with LaszloWalrus was lifted by one administrator without discussion in the face of support by three other administrators, I would appreciate consultation prior to any modification of this new block, which is justified by a particularly shameless repetition of edit warring, in one instance aggravated by the repeated use of popups. about which I had earlier warned Alienus. --Tony Sidaway 03:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

On a side note, it's interesting that you invoke due process, but it doesn't look as if you made a note on ANI admitting to this block. It would be interesting to hear your explanation. Al 13:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, no actual incivility existed outside of Tony's imagination. This is evidenced by his inability to find a diff that supported his claim. Likewise, no rules were violated by me this time around.

Over the course of some time, a small group of people vandalized pages under my protection. I fixed those pages, so Tony is punishing me under the guise of "edit warring". Clearly, he stands in the way of my being able to do my job here.

The big problem appears to be that Tony Sidaway is camping out on my Contributions page, in desperate search of excuses to block me. This is a particularly obvious abuse of admin rights, and I'll be filing an ANI in three days to get a restraining order on Tony. Al 04:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I actually looked at each link. All of them are reverts to damage done by either RJII or LaszloWalrus. Interestingly, Tony did not block either of them, even though both have extensive histories of bad behavior, and are known to be POV-pushers who censor anything vaguely negative about Ayn Rand. In fact, all of my reverts were to their attempts to remove well-cited material. As for RJII, he's in the process of getting a one-year ban. Two rogues in my gallery.

Note how these isolated diffs show changes to the article, but don't include the messages I posted on the talk pages to confirm that I was acting with the consensus of editors. Note also the omission of a case where a new editor came in, deleted a category, but then restored it after I politely asked him to.

It should be obvious from looking at all my edits that he's picking a view out of context to create the false appearance of edit-warring. In reality, I've been protecting the Rand articles from these two people, and now I'm being punished for it. It takes two to edit war, yet neither RJII nor LaszloWalrus has been blocked. From this, I must conclude that there is no edit war at all. In short, I do my job by reverting damage to articles and Tony pretends it's "edit-warring".

At no point was I uncivil. At no point did I violate WP:3RR. In fact, at no point did I do anything block-worthy. As far as I can tell, the main point here is to harass me with blocks until I either run away from Wikipedia or Tony throws me off, like my buddy, Dalbjuh.

Anyhow, I don't expect any admin to stand up to Tony, so I'm writing this for posterity. The truth is too important to let other suppress it. Al 04:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Unblock

{{unblock|Once again, I broke no rules and Tony is wikistalking me.}}

Errr, edit warring repeatedly (Alai, Sceptre and William M Connelley have all blocked you before). POV inserts... I think the block is justified. Sasquatch t|c 04:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Since I've argued with Alienus so much before, I'm probably the last person who should be expected to argue in his favour, but I'll do so anyway. The last case of Alienus being banned for "edit warring", using popups (as Tony noted), was on Scientology, where Alienus was simply reverting edits that were a hybrid of vandalism and POV-pushing. He was doing the same thing that any responsible editor would do. I have issues with Alienus' editing habits, but this is the wrong thing to go after him for. jgp (T|C) 05:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we've had our conflicts, but you're clearly willing to stand up for the truth, regardless of any personal issues. I appreciate your integrity and thank you for your effort. Al 05:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

That's great, except that I wasn't actually edit-warring. Next time, please do me the courtesty of checking the claim before drawing a conclusion. Thank you for your time. It's great that my one appeal was answered by someone unwilling to apply due diligence. Al 04:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and allow me to correct your misconceptions about my "inserting POV".

On Scientology, the Cults category had been there for a while. Only recently, Objectivism (Ayn Rand) had joined Scientology in that category, based on a number of books and articles by notable people who called Objectivism a cult. This is well cited and not the least bit POV.

Of course, RJII is big fan of Rand, so he decided to create a special new category, Alleged Cults, to hide Objectivism in. This would isolate it from all those other cults, so nobody would ever find it while, say, reading about Jim Jones. For verisimilitude, he moved Scientology into the same category, so Rand wouldn't be all alone. I suspect this was inspired by the fact that the Objectivism article mentions Scientology as being a similar sort of cult.

RJII's goal was to damage Wikipedia by removing information. This is not a content dispute: it's vandalism in the form of censorship.

In short, this block is unjustified. Al 05:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Update: the Alleged Cults category has been deleted. Looks like I'm not the only one who noticed RJII's vandalism. Al 05:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I looked at the second set of diffs. The first three were restorations of the Cult Leaders category. As it happens, this is undisputed. We have citations to books and articles by notable people who explicitly call Rand a cult leader. Even the people who are disputing whether the Cults category belongs on Objectivism (Ayn Rand) or Objectivist movement aren't disputing the cult leader category. In short, the removal of the cult leaders category went against consensus, so my restorations were correct.

The last diff in the second set is the restoration of Anton LeVay as a person influenced by Rand. This is likewise well-cited and uncontroversial.

Once again, I fought against vandalism and I'm being punished for it. I should get a reward instead. Oh, wait, I already did. Check out my user page and you'll see that I got a Defender of the Wiki Barnstar for my work on Rand articles. Al 05:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The question isn't whether your edits were justifiable or were with consensus, it's whether you were edit warring. You were undeniably edit warring. You shouldn't do that. You've been blocked so that the articles in question will stand a chance of not being in turmoil now and in future owing to your aggressive and dieruptive editing. --Tony Sidaway 19:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I was not edit warring and your block is invalid. Al 19:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I gave eight diffs showing that your were not just edit warring, but going mad at it, on two separate articles. I accept you criticism that I don't go running after RJII (on whom I've imposed a simultaneous block with you) and LaszloWalrus (on whom I've imposed two simultaneous blocks with you). You're all problem editors. RJII is on probation, so he's under control. LaszloWalrus is as bad as you are but he doesn't moan that he's being hard done-by. You edit war but you think you're helping Wikipedia. I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works. Never mind, I'm here to give you a lesson. --Tony Sidaway 00:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)