If you leave a message here this editor will possibly reply on your talkpage, or here, or on the talkpage of an article concerned, or somewhere else, or any combination of the above. It is probably best for you to suggest the preferred arena for a response... LessHeard vanU00:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you have come to this page to complain about my language in my edit summaries, most likely involving editing in the name of the area and/or nation in articles, then I would like to apologise here, now for any offense caused..... LHvU
Caveat
Should I receive information by private means I shall consider that the sender has waived any claim of copyright or privacy on their part of the message and has obtained such permission on the part of any third parties whose post(s) form part of the message. By communicating with me outside of Wikipedia spaces you are giving me permission to disseminate the content of any message in the manner of my choosing, and you hold yourself liable for any violation of law, Wikipedia policies, service providers Terms of Service, and other consequence of my making public of such information.
Thanks for reviewing my SSP on Fadulj. Took me forever to sift through all that, and it went unaddressed for a month or so, so I'm happy to have it dealt with :) -Freqsh0 (talk) 05:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
sockpuppetry case
I just wanted to left you a comment regarding the following statement "I am reviewing the case for sockpuppetry as part of my WP responsibilities; you are perhaps fortunate that I decided to comment rather than block you for abuse of policy and write up my conclusions."
I know you are an administrator, but should not you first hear the explanation from the accused? You did look on the evidence at hand, and concluded that I am running some ridiculous IP scheme here. If were guilty of sockpuppetry or whatever Koalorka accused me of, I would definitely say so. According to you, I am some sort of master of proxy with ability to use different IP addresses from countries around the globe to vandalize this amazing learning tool... If so, what makes you think that I will not be able to just switch to another IP tomorrow and keep on editing. Also, I would probably not care to respond to your "conclusions." The truth is I am a woman in 50s and know very little about IT. Definitely, I am not some phantom hacker or computer wizard.
As an administrator on this encyclopedia you have responsibility and you should act in the best interest of Wikipedia. There is NO sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry here. I certainly hope that any decision made will be to the benefit of Wikipedia and not some ridiculous ego trip! Best Maria Mariaflores1955 (talk) 14:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence, that you have "colleagues" who support your viewpoint per your own admission and that there are more than the one ip that is your non-logged in address whose only contributions are to remove the image you object to, is to me overwhelming. Since these other ip's are possibly your colleagues then perhaps one or more of them are able to use proxies, and we are both of an era (I am in my 50th year) where being female is not recognised as being a reason for having a lack of knowledge was at the forefront of our formative years. All I can do is look at the evidence presented and, as I said, it appears to me to be conclusive. I would point out that, in this matter, I was content to merely comment and not to act to see if another sysop more experienced agrees with me or not. I was content to leave my impressions for another to judge, so I do not think that my ego is any danger of unbalancing the encyclopedia in this matter, and only responded to your comments in turn. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I shall agree to disagree with you conclusions. I have no control over my friend and in the end it was him who contacted me not the other way around. If he has elected not to log in to make revisions that is also his choice. Also to clarify, by no means I believe that women are not brilliant IT operatives, my point is that I am not one... that is all. I appreciate your response and the time you invested in this matter. I still hope that another administrator will see the petty and petulant nature of Koalorka's complaint and that this matter will end up well for me. In closing, allow me to wish you many more productive years at Wikipedia. Maria Mariaflores1955 (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the tone of the above, it may help your case to link to it at the SSP page. I don't mind agreeing to disagree, and I think you may be wise to advise your friend how their help has been interpreted in this matter and request that they do not do so again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, the tone of THIS voice reflects your own actions and quality of judgemen (or should I say: Lack of same).
You have managed to fill me with contempt and I am generelly a very tolerant person.
How can you concider adding ONE line to an article vandalism?!!
Don't you think that you should look into the matter? Especially since the deletion is done by the by the anonymous Dapi89.
I am not in the habit of throwing myself on my knees to people who has corruptet their own authority by tyranni, so I am gonna make this short and sweet: Revoke your blocking of the users HenrikHansenDK1631 (me) and my college mate WW2historyBuff WITHOUT FURTER DELAY!!
Different people are using this the IP address 80.160.207.18 besides us, and even if the accusation of vandalism is true (which it is not) you can not block them all.
I have now looked in to the matter, and what has apparently triggered Dapi89 is that others besides us is disagreeing with him (80.198.48.60 not ours 80.160.207.18 (the 80.xxx.xxx.xxx segment is the main Danish ISP provider)), which is obviuosly a problem to him.
I asked him to argue for how a simple observation can qualify to be an "Original Research", and you know the rest. The log reflects the entry "reporting what is now blatant vandalism". I have deleted nothing. I am the victing of his deletions. So block him!!!
If you look in to the history of the page it is clearly reflected that he concider himself the supreme ruler of what is relevant, and what is not for this page.
Keep in mind, that in the end the blocking procedures of Wikipedia is at mercy of the users having the same IP address, and it can be changed within 24 hours. A lot faster than going through the rehabilitation procedures at Wikipedia as I have read them.
In the hope that you take a different course of action so I can return to my normal tone of voice!!
Er.... Thank you but no. Read WP:EDIT WAR, WP:MEAT and WP:SOCK before committing your charmingly inept English to prosperity. Having the Stuka's "Jericho Trumpet" referenced in later popular culture is as important as the fact that WWII broadcasts by the BBC to the French Resistance used the first five bars of Beethoven's 5th Symphony would be in that article; true, but of very little importance with regard to the notability of the subject and something perhaps to be inserted into the later parts of the article - and not the opening paragraph. However, arguing semitics is pointless with someone or a group that is prepared to violate WP policy to place such an inane "fact" into the article. The named accounts will not be unblocked by me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Happy New Year!
Not late by the Julian calendar
May your year be a pleasant one, or at least may you forget quickly any unpleasantness, and may the sands of time never get in your shoes. And when you get to be this guy's age, may some young thing snuggle up to you and may you then understand that somewhat mysterious look in his eyes, and may that be a good thing, too. And watch out for the sand. -- Noroton (talk) 20:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there. I apologize for not leaving a note on your talk page. It was my impression that you were acting as a non-involved party (member of the body of admins) rather than as an involved admin, so I didn't see it as reducing your block, but rather reducing the block, which is why I didn't see it necessary to drop you a line. (Plus I figured you'd see it on Beta's talk page or AN.) Regardless, I was mistaken, and I apologize for that.
Moving beyond all of that, there seems to be a very mistaken impression that I was moving for an unblock of Beta. I wasn't, and I don't particularly know how this impression spread, but it did, and there's no reversing that. What I'm asking of you is to not unblock, but to reblock using a specified duration (45 days seems perfectly reasonable to me). My hope is that this time off will allow cooler heads to prevail and in a month and a half, Beta will be able to re-enter the community. I really see you as the only person able to change this block without a massive shitstorm. Thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted, since you provided it even if there was no burning requirement. I was involved in so much that it was my finger, but I tried to keep out of the subsequent arguments other than opposing the proposed ban. My position has been and remains that an indef block is the appropriate sanction for knowing disregard of policy (or, in this matter, restrictions) until as such time as the disputed action/position is retracted - and then it becomes null and void, and should be lifted. Once Betacommand acknowledges the priority of the restrictions and his past intransience then I am for lifting the block, whereas when a block is for a definite period all Betacommand needs do (if it isn't too long) is wait out the block and try not to get caught next time. There is no acknowledgement of past poor behaviour, and it is possible they will still maintain the line that policy outweighs restrictions if they get brought up again - and I don't think that that is good enough. Notwithstanding my views, I would of course unblock Betacommand should consensus arise that that is the agreed course of action and would be pleased to do so if it was regarded as appropriate, being the blocking admin. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It appears Beta has acknowledged past wrongdoings and has committed to seeking approval for any and all automated editing in the future here. Had you seen this? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet, I am crawling chronologically through my watchlist and am still reviewing stuff from a couple of hours back - ANI (yes, I have seen BC's talkpage) is usually one of the last so I will get there soonest... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, the relationship between PediaPress and the Foundation - and what or where is the most appropriate way they can define and notify the relationship (I agree with Jimbo that a userpage that looks like an advert is likely not the best). I also did not realise that the links provided in the original comment - which I only reviewed when this matter was brought up yesterday - should have provided an obvious link between PediaPress and WP (in fact, the original poster must have not either since they brought up the matter at WP:UAA originally). I don't really understand the technical links either (I don't use the js.notebook facility owing to lack of clue) but that doesn't mean I am unable to follow simple guidance notes - and I found a distinct lack of same in this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is PediaPress agreed with the Foundation to develop software that sites which use mediawiki stuff can add. This software can be used to export articles as pdf or get printed books. The software has been added to some other Foundation sites already (such as Wikibooks), and is also used by Commonwealth of Learning, who run WikiEducator. When someone buys a printed book from them, some of the money goes to the Foundation (hopefully leading to Jimbo having to write fewer irritating personal messages to each and every one of the millions of people who read Wikipedia). I do agree that it would be better to have a page in Wikipedia space to explain it, rather than a userpage, but communication with editors is not one of the Foundation's strong points, alas. The press release was in 2007, and this is the first I had heard of it.
As to using the thing, just copy the code to your monobook.js, empty your cache, and "add article" and "my collection" appear at the top right of any page. When you click "add article", the article is added to your collection. Clicking "your collection" brings up the list of articles you have selected, and you can then change the order of them, give the collection a title, and get them exported as a pdf file (for free) or get it printed and bound (for a price, seems slightly less than other print-on-demand services). The instructions could be clearer, but considering they have been written by a German they aren't too horrendous (I understood them!)
On sites such as Wikibooks you don't have to bother with the monobook.js, because the software has been enabled already (this is the "collection extension" that PediaPress mentions on his userpage). You get a nice clickable link in your toolbox at the left.
So to sum up - useful thing, Foundation needs to communicate with us about it better than they have been, and clearer user instructions would be nice. Basically the same as the rest of Wikipedia then :) DuncanHill (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
... Well, are you going to write the (NPOV/non COI) article in mainspace? I suppose if there were the appropriate links then that would be the best place for it to sit. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SSP follow up request
You were recently involved in issuing blocks at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Oxyman42 (2nd) and advised of being notified for follow ups. I have identified a number of unblocked IPs you might want to look at, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Oxyman42, based mainly on harassment of User:Abd. However, I just came across a difficult one (not interacting with Abd as far as I can see). It is a registered user, Railwayfan2005 (talk·contribs), registered on 17 November 2006. (Oxyman42 was created in April 2006 ). But the signs are:
has the same cat image on their user page as Oxyman24 [4]
interested in railways and images, specifically London (Railwayfan recently added this commonscat [5], which contains images taken by Oxyman on Commons)
Judging by a conversation about a recent revert on my talk page, the above is probably just a conincidence. He certainly doesn't talk or act like Oxyman. MickMacNee (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that there is a few people with very similar interests, and they are going to inhabit the same pages and ask the same questions - and railway spotters are notorious for "flocking"; it is very likely to be a false positive. As for ip addresses, I don't think blocking them after such a period is going to do anything, they have been abandoned and it is more likely for the sanction to catch an innocent editor than the returning block evader. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder why you have indefinitely blocked this Wikipedian, CosmicAnthropologist, who created and contributed on, among many other useful and technical articles, Moufang polygons? That's the surest way to drive an intelligent guy away from contributing. If he is to be punished for sockpuppetry or vandalism, an indefinite block is too harsh. I've seen worse vandals in the past in Wikipedia getting only 3-month suspension! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.111.86.73 (talk) 09:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are a block evading sockpuppet, created to circumvent the sanction of the master account, and as such are blocked indefinitely upon detection. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, what is that supposed to mean? I am an anarchist myself, and I can assure you that Marvinst does not resemble anything to do with anarchism. Or are you one of those people who think anarchism is some nihilistic philosophy of just doing whatever you want, screw everyone else? Please read our article on anarchism.
I apologize if I seem abrasive; this just really gets to me. Two in one week! Zazaban (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2009
Did you click the link (I have re-imposed it within the header)? Nevertheless, I would comment that I am sufficiently familiar with Anarchism to know that many adherents reject imposed structures (conformism) and sometimes appear wilfully obtuse in their interactions with others in some situations - which I was referring to in regard to that particular editor. I would say that it pains me say it, being a bleeding heart liberal who acknowledges everyone's right to follow their own lifestyle choices, but I have never known an anarchist with a sense of humour... except perhaps the chaps I once saw at the Free Nelson Mandela concert in Hyde Park standing under a "Federation of Anarchist Movements" banner. Ah, well... Nevermind. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I usually do, but I had somebody claiming that the article on anarchism was factually inaccurate because it did not agree with him, even though everything was sourced and he refused to even read it. Aw well, I've actually made similar jokes in the past myself, I was just caught on a bad day- damn it, I've made an ass of myself, haven't I? :P Zazaban (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I shouldn't worry about it - anyone who commits enough time and content to this space will fall upon their ass eventually; but if you can acknowledge it and carry on with a rueful smile it will stand you in good stead. Look where that philosophy has got Lar!!
I am uncertain to which individual or account you are referring to - the most active/recent one that crops up in your contrib history is one that I have not commented upon (that I recall). Can you give me a further hint? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm...I don't want to mention any names. I have not directly interacted with this person. Let's just say that this "relatively new" user has a surprising knowledge of Wikipedia combined with a rather curious collection of userboxes. Keepscases (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not enough for me to go on, I'm afraid. Should the situation change, or your concerns are heightened, or someone else queries the situation, come back to me and I will take a look. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy LHvU, I'mcoming to you because you initially protected the TOTSE article against IPs posting their new forums in the wake of the old one shutting down. Since the semi-pro lapsed, they've come back. I reverted a few of them and asked them to take it to the talk page, but I don't want to edit war over it. My initial thoughts were that since the information is all unsourced and several different places popped up, we should wait until for some kind of official source before letting the new forums essentially advertise on wikipedia. I thought I'd see what you thought, since the IPs are posting the info again and won't discuss it on the talk page. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any indication that you are aware of as to when there might be "official" news about a successor site? If there is, then I would be open to sprotecting up to such an announcement. In the absence of any statement I would rather sprotect for a few days, and then do so again if the ip activity resumes - and if after a while of sprotect, lapse, cleanup, resprotect then hit the indefinite length option. I shall resprotect to cover the weekend pending receipt of your thoughts. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None that I know of, but I'm not familiar with the original site and only know what I've read. Until there's an official notice of a new board (and that new board is shown to be independently notable), I don't think we should be posting random boards on the page. Is the spin-off of a notable board automatically notable?
Just being rhetorical here, I don't actually know one way or the other. I just know there were several boards that popped up as alternatives as soon as the main site went down, and I don't know if any of them have a notable connection to the original. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 01:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is a spin-off notable? If it is created by the same people for the same purpose, then... perhaps. After sprotecting I went to the article talkpage to request feedback regarding further protection, so you may wish to join in (if there is anything to join) there. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, after the semi-pro expired an IP added the new site [7], which was then stricken (on-wiki) a few hours later [8] and redirected to another site. I deleted both of them and again asked the editors to explain on the talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See how it goes; if there is no discussion but only revert warring then it can be indefinitely sprotected until folk start talking - it may be worthwhile putting in a invisible message in the contested area saying that non-discussed sites will be reverted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(OD)I appreciate your attempt to try and get some discussion going on this page, but there's still several IPs adding one of three different successor sites. I've asked on numerous occasions for them to discuss it on the talk page and try and show notability for the new sites, but except for a couple of "It is because Jeff said it was" comments, nobody's talking. The IPs are assuming their new sites deserve mention. Any ideas on how to handle it? I've been trying to get a discussion goin, but I certainly don't want to edit war over whatever this site was. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 09:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of dialogue I suppose we have to consider how to protect the article in its previous incarnation. It is either long term sprotection, or whacking the ip editors with short blocks. If the ip addys are stable then the latter is the best option, since it allows ip editing from editors who are not pushing their site. If the ip's regularly change, but not the editing intent (or the only ip editing is to promote successor sites), then long term sprotect of the article is best - any new ip can request edits on the article talkpage. As you are more familiar than I with the ip editing makeup I will await your consideration. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have sprotected the article, noted my reasons on the article talkpage, and dropped a 31 hour edit war block on the above ip with reasons again. Let me know if I can be of further assistance. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See User talk:Codechief. He says all the right things, and he can easily be reblocked should he start spamming again. As he is a completely new user, and likely did not understand our polices, would you support an unblock, if I keep an eye on him? --Jayron32.talk.contribs04:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a term I understood was used by the police or blackmailers in the use of a seduction person of the opposite (or not, depending on the blackmail/sting) sex to entrap an individual. I thought it came from bear hunting, and the use of real honey to lure out the animal...? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, see the first few entries on Honeypot (disambig). Never heard it used as "honeytrap" though, not saying it's not, but I think honeypot is the more common usage. –xeno (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know - this is a band I have not heard of (FWIW) but people didn't seem to recognise my understanding of the term... I think a disambig page for two fairly obscure meanings would be best, but I am also a little perplexed as to how to create a hatnote or a disambig page straight to a redirect. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: This anon user does not appear to be blocked; s/he is continuing to commit vandalism, although it's on his/her own talk page. Specifically, the user has vandalized the block notification and later, it was removed. I recommend more stringent action. This anon user appears to be little more than a vandalism-only account. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked users can almost always edit their "own" userpages - if they want to make an unblock request, etc. If they vandalise/blank it, then they can be stopped but the best option is to ignore it. In a couple of days there might be a different person editing from that address, and there is no point in punishing them for someone elses stupidity. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
75.108.73.219
Thought I would "loop" you in on this one...this anon user that you blocked a month ago is back at his ol' vandalism tricks again. Not sure if you want to handle this or let another admin take care of it, but I thought I would keep you informed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 29, 2009 @ 23:46
I noticed your note :) I will keep an eye on his/her contribs in the coming days and if anything starts up, I will let you know. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 31, 2009 @ 03:10
Of course you may! It wasn't even sarcastic, since the invention and humour of the now deleted article might have a home there - and it would keep them off the WP pages too. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Please note it points to a redlink, but I suppose you can sort that out. I would also comment that I shall be retiring for the night soon, so you may need the services of another sysop. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for hitting the "report" button on the wrong talk page. It was a well meaning, but still stupid thing to do. I've tried to smooth things over with Martin451 since he obviously was completely blameless. I also apologize for any difficulties this caused for you or other admins. Rest assured that it is not a mistake I will repeat any time soon. Monkey Bounce (talk) 02:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - You recently blocked User:124.179.79.34 and I just wanted to let you know he:she is now editing as Folau111, an account used in the last few weeks for adding the same & similar nationality edits to rugby league articles. Not sure if you can help or if I need to report this elsewhere. Could you advise me, please? •Florrie•waltz a matilda•05:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From a quick look at a random sample, I am not sure this is the same editor - Folau11 appears to concentrate on a British superleague side and there is not the ethnicity issues as with the ip. If I have missed the edits that particularly concern you, it may be best if you can supply me with a diff. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked for a month - this will force them to use their underlying ip to edit, and if that is the same as previously (and they continue to edit war to their preferred version) then I or another admin will be able to apply a longer sanction. Thanks for the diffs; they are the best evidence when requesting admin help. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes during the day (I just woke up) anon user 75.108.73.219 continued his "can figure out what I am doing" style of editing to multiple television station pages. I wanted to let you know first, I will be reverted posthaste. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 1, 2009 @ 23:33
I reported the anon user to AIV (standard OP) and User:Kralizec! blocked him/her for 3 months. If you want to up that, you are more than welcome....I don't think anyone will dispute it with you. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • February 2, 2009 @ 00:20
3 months is fine, it is the next step up from a 1 month block - not sure why A.train only blocked for 48 hours in the meantime, but it isn't important - and if it continues after 13 weeks then we can look at a 6 month block. I am happy for a steady escalation of sanctions rather than sticking them on a years time out on the 3rd violation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I inadvertently stepped on your toes with the Kinomakoto (talk·contribs) block! Had I seen your AIV comment, I would have happily waited for a subject matter expert to weigh in regarding the edits in question. Sorry! --Kralizec! (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, if they continue after the block expires then they will get increasing sanctions whether or not the reviewer considers that it is all hoaxes or not - and if they don't continue (and even better, make useful contributions) then the short block has served its purpose. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Noticeboards and Palin
I stand behind every action I take, a message you seem to not have taken from my post at WP:AN/I. Which is fairly ironic given that it was the central point of the rant. Editors and admins are judged by the actions they take: their contribution history and their logs.
I stand by my actions with regard to the Sarah Palin article. How do I know it was the Right Thing to do? 'cause smart people told me so. Not (just) on IRC, but at the Arbitration case as well. And while consensus is important on a collaborative project like this, so is doing the right thing and sticking to the principles of the site.
Do I have a problem with transparency? Not at all. In fact I regularly argue for as much of it as possible (especially with regard to page histories and logs). The Arbitration Committee has both private mailing lists and a private wiki. Both of these things reduce transparency, but by your logic, we should be arguing against the use of both. Because of somebody misuses a medium of communication, obviously it's the medium's fault.
As a final note, it has the shortcut WP:DRAMA for a reason. So when you call others "drama mongers," remember that you do so with over 1300 edits to that page, more edits to it by you than any other page in the Wikipedia: namespace. Don't like drama? Don't involve yourself with it. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Intransigence is not generally considered a positive attribute, and it is even less appealing when it comes with a dose of arrogance - and while IRC does have voices speaking there whose opinions I respect and even sometimes share there are those there I emphatically do not, and yet have no recourse against because of a lack of accountability for what was said. I would also strongly argue that there is no more better informed opinion on the IRC channels than might be found on the Wiki space, and anyone who believes that IRC offers more profound consideration than may be found elsewhere has my disdain (and continued contempt when they feel that "per IRC discussion" is sufficient commentary when reversing on-Wiki consensus). Per the Sarah Palin instance, it was wrong and especially when one is convinced one is "Right" it needs to be measured against the consensus it is wrong and put aside; Admins are the instruments of consensus, not its judges.
I do argue for greater transparency of ArbCom, and consider that the private wiki to be a necessary evil that should be utilised as sparingly as possible and as much detail provided after the event as can be achieved without infringing upon its purpose - and again with the private mailing list I accept that the purpose outweighs the drawbacks - and have been consistent in that regard with my dealings with ArbCom.
Oh, yes, I am a regular at the AN boards and frequently comment at various ArbComs to which I am not a party - so much so that my article space contributions are a decreasing percentage of my contributions, but I would hope that a review of my interactions indicate that I am a responder rather than an instigator of various topics and while possibly some of my comments have not served to diminish the temperature that it would be in areas where opinion is already divided (of course, others may take a different view of my contributions there - but I can only speak of my intent). If I get involved in drama, previously or presently, it is not likely to be of my own instigation and I certainly won't be withdrawing from it now or in the future. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Admins are the instruments of consensus, not its judges. Do you practice this really!!!???. In the case of Naadapriya related to Carnatic Music' you hastily acted as a judge to support your close acquaintance user 'Ncm' I am not him but share system with him. Do some soul searching whether you acted on your own or to help out a buddy. Your action has led to a disastrous effect on the article living control to one user. Your deliberate ad-hoc biased support to 'Ncm' has discouraged many senior editors from actively editing the article which is in a bad shape under the control by one language group. See if you can undo the damage. By a Vagabond from a Multi-User System76.212.3.119 (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... I have not protected the article, even though it has been protected many times by different admins, and I have not blocked Srkris (talk·contribs) who has also been blocked by many differing admins for edit warring involving Ncmvocalist (talk·contribs) (who, by remaining unblocked in this matter either edits to consensus or is extremely popular with a huge number of the admin community) or Sarvagnya (talk·contribs) although I did block Naadapriya(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) for 48 hours - the shortest block on that account, which is now indef blocked for edit warring - back in September. Is this the account you refer to or is it even further back, since it appears from my block comment that this was the result of an ANI discussion; which means I was prompted by consensus, as I averred above. Please let me know to which account you refer, since it appears that several have edit warred against the consensus that Ncmvocalist appears to edit to - although it does not necessarily mean that there is more than one editor utilising new accounts as the old ones are blocked. It seems that the matter weighs more heavily upon your mind than it does mine, since I have had to review the article thoroughly to September last year to find my most recent if not only intervention. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I note the following message was left on my userpage
I do not believe in blocking and recalling blah blah just for the the sake doing so. However I have seen your hasty action on 'Naadapriya' related to 'Carnatic Music'. I am not him but share system with him. Do some soul searching whether you acted on your own or to help out a buddy. Your action has led to a disastrous effect on the article living a monopoly to one user. Your deliberate biased support to 'Ncm' has discouraged many like me to actively edit the article which is in a bad shape under the control by one language group. By a Vagabond from a Multi-User System.76.212.2.204 (talk) 07:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
and it does appear that you refer to the September sanction. As mentioned, I acted in accordance to a conclusion to a discussion (although I do not recall the basis of the consensus) so it would be inaccurate to either claim it to be hasty or done on the behest of one person. It further seems that you are willing, or you condone it of someone with whom you "share a system" only, to violate policy in pursuance of your own POV rather than test it against the arguments of others to attempt to change consensus, so your accusations of my improper use of the tools - which I refute - ring rather hollow. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ncmvocalist (talk · contribs) (who, by remaining unblocked in this matter either edits to consensus or is extremely popular with a huge number of the admin community)
Almost all Sr. editors have quit in frustration. There is no consensus issue at all in the article
For sure he/she appears to be popular among some (mostly with same language background) and others buddy Admins like you.
As I understand Wikipedia is not against the use of shared system. Many of us use public libraries. However no one is using the shared system to solicit support for their views. Never gang-up on other editors like so-called community-ban gangs that has successfully executed 'hyenas attack on lone cub'
Your hasty (without reading the comments and ignoring the correct action by another Admin) action of unjustified block to support your close acquaintance Ncm POV has made a major negative impact on the article. Almost all 'bold' editors have either quit or forced to quit. Your block is cited often to force an editor out. Now the article is an orphan under the control of a specific language based group. After your wrong action only Ncm has managed to make unilaterally 99.999% edits to the article. It does not speak well about an important wikipedia article. Though it may not be practical to undo all wrong things happened since then, as a responsible Admin one should revisit and see if any correction can be made.76.212.3.119 (talk) 08:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked according to consensus following a discussion at an admin noticeboard, so I reject the claim that it was hasty or ill considered - if you object to the consensus, then change it. The "bold" editors to which you refer are certainly bold in their belief that policies do not need following, and it is a stretch of AGF that only a group of disparate individual who happen to share the same public or educational computer system coincidentally follow the same viewpoints and methodology and no one else of that "language group" - which incidentally I find an extremely offensive comment, that there may be racist overtones in the pov being expressed. I shall not be responding further to this subject, since I do not care for my actions and those of differing editors and admins to be questioned by xenophobic sock/meatpuppets. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response
'I blocked according to consensus following a discussion at an admin noticeboard,'!!!??? you spontaneously responded to unfounded compliant by a single editor who had reverted the edits same or more than the editor whom you blocked. There was no consensus at ANI.
Except for one minor incidence that happened almost 2 years back which was immediately corrected, absolutely there were no violations of wikipedia guide lines from this system.
From the explicit information posted on the users page and type of edits one can conclude that majority of supporters of 'NCM' belonged to a particular language group. Nothing wrong about it if they support about a particular language based on their expertise. However ganging-up to attack an editor (e.g acts by Mspraveen) is a violation of wikipedia ethics.
I would also rest this argument for now noting it is big wound to be healed on wikipedia and try to bring it up again at appropriate environment. Hope responsible Admin take care of it.
They are also editing individual player articles to insert their unreferenced claims, such as this [12]. Not sure what they are doing - rifling through player's family trees' for references to origins of great-grannies?
I have enacted a fortnight block on the ip. I suppose the response needs to be WP:RBI as the list of target articles is too large to consider semi-protecting without consequences to good faith ip editors. Keep letting me know when a new ip pops up, although you might wish to find another sysop so we can share the "joy" a little (or should I not be available for a day or so). Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it was on a user talk page about the discussion I posted, then undid to your talk page.[13] I'm not inviting you to the discussion, nor do I think you were a particularly excellent example, just the first one I came across, so I am informing you. --21:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, not my finest moment - but I guess you can lift an example of near anyone and cry "ZOMG, abusive admin". I think you may have chosen a more disinterested party than MZMcBride - see a few sections above - but since this is your party I am not interested in responding further. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to pick on you in particular, though. This note was just to let you know I had. And that I had picked you out of laziness on my part, not that you were the best example or even a particularly good example. Yeah, I did run through MZMcBride's edit history. --KP Botany (talk) 03:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did at the time, else I would not have written it (and it was very heavily amended from the caustic and sarcastic rant that it was originally), and when I am calmer I will look again and see if it serves any further purpose. Presently, I am still furious that a professional can make such a "mistake" (and when The Sunday Times was still a newspaper of record and thus integrity, such misunderstandings would have resulted in dismissal) and Jimbo penalises the volunteer that responded in such a manner that he departs. As for BLP; I suppose it is right that the lazy, lame and stupid should be protected as well as the great and the good, but the article I have seen was properly referenced and provided the reason for notability in clearly NPOV language - far more so than the current state of British journalism could aspire to generally... Whatever, while I am angry I suppose I am not depressed.
I am a relatively inexperienced minor contributor to Wikipedia. I recently rewrote the (hoplessy garbled) intro (leader) to the "Action (physics)" article. This was immediately "corrected" by user JRSpriggs. Since this "correction" resulted in a (in my opinion) broken article (see Talk:Action (physics)#Intro), I reverted the edit (with an appropriate explanation to JRSpriggs personal talk page – more courtesy than he gave me!). Predictably (in retrospect) he re-reverted, pulling "superior knowledge" rank on the talk page (his own talk page suggests a history of rather confontational editing). While I guess you are a busy man, I would be grateful if you could glance at Talk:Action (physics)#Intro, and advise me whether it is (a) desirable (from the point of view of Wikipedia), and (b) advisable (from the point of view of my own time and effort), to pursue this further (and if so, how?).(suggest you reply here)FredV (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am content to allow Fredvanner the opportunity to expand or otherwise more fully respond to your request, say another 48 hours. I will then ask if there is a reason for not providing either an answer to a direction to where an answer may be found. I have to say that physics is not an area that I am comfortable in claiming any understanding, but I can follow that there is a discrepancy in having concepts particular to quantum physics in the intro which are not part of the article body - a matter that requires addressing (clarity without simplification is a prime concern for any general encyclopedia). However, it would be best to allow all parties the opportunity to allow discourse to develop in the immediate future. Drop me a reminder in a couple of days should there have been no further reply. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I gathered as much, but I have notified all of the opposer's prior to the introduction of the new section as a matter of courtesy (much like your kind comment here). LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
re Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Removal of advanced permissions (proposed)#Neutral
(Answering this[15] comment left on my talk page): No, thank you, I think the entire policy is a badly-written disaster, and I focused in on the part of it that was most specifically detrimental to the Wikipedia project in making my !vote. But thank you for letting me know. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I gathered as much, but I have notified all of the opposer's prior to the introduction of the new section as a matter of courtesy (much like your kind comment here). LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sock
You're absolutely right. RBI and all that. But it's time for the B part (this particular excursion was made to make a backhanded insult against me; no problems really, as im probably the only one who would notice). Whatever this guys madness is, it must be an odd one. He created dozens of socks going back years for no particular purpose. He would make one, make 10 or so edits, then make another one, and carry on. So it's a big farm, but its bound to reach bottom eventually.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find a current User:Lex Luthor to block, and the sockmaster is long since sanctioned. If you can point me a currently editing sock I will willingly smite them, but in that absence it is the I criteria that is to be followed. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He's a sock of Manhattan Samurai, whose socks charecteristically edited one article for a brief time. Samurai has a deep interest in the Bakshi article, a deep interest in the Monahan article. and here's the latest socks contributions: [[16]]. Notice in the AN/I report this user doesn't mention what user account contacted him, his swipe at me in precisely the same language that all his socks use. Also note that this sock is actively editing, and the editor behind it has declared his intent to fill the encyclopedia with fictional information, if given a chance. It's a duck. But i'll bring it up with other admins if you're not interested. Best Bali ultimate (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lex Luthor is what MS calls himself. So, my contention is that DFW tragedy = Manhattan Samurai. It's only edits are on one of his articles and GA discussion he was interested in. This is also sort of a classic MS edit summary: [[17]]. It's possible im wrong -- maybe the overlap is that this user was canvassed off line by MS and acted on his behalf in good faith. I'll drop it now, but wanted to be crystal clear about what i was getting at.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
you were kind enough to offer feedback on my attempt at creating a page for the above mentioned organisation. For this I am grateful, and I hope I am approaching acceptability with the ongoing work on the page. Your advice and assistance on this would be much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anguslambkin (talk • contribs) 13:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted that G1 page just before my FiOS connection even started loading the page. And I saw it after three seconds. M1N (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is your dissision and what every but I know personally with schools that you will permentally get people editing from it so you may want to consider completely banning the, as if they want to edit the wiki for legitimate reasons (may have spelt that wrong sorry) they can create an account some where else so if they vandalise under a created account they are easier to track. Just a thought, but if you do reply please do at my talk page. Cheers matey, arrrr! 'The Ninjalemming''20:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Banning
Hi Less, thank you for taking action against the vandal I reported. But, honestly, what does it take to get a person banned? How many times must a person be blocked? (p.s. is the block just for editing, or reading too? Obviously, I don't think people should be banned from READING wiki, just editing it). You can reply on my talk page. Thanks :) Beansandveggies (talk) 11:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are very welcome. I was glad to be of service the other day... it looks like you've stirred something up, or maybe multiple somthings, eh? Good luck. — John Cardinal (talk) 02:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and another one
Thank you for reverting the vandalism to my user talk page! The vandal's back as 59.96.11.176, but you would have noticed that anyway, because it now loves you too :-) --Bonadea (talk) 09:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help
Thanks for your help with the person (Journalist1983) who undid my additions to the Nancy Jacobson article. Unfortunately, they or one of their sock puppets keeps returning to undo your changes (my additions). I'm new to Wikipedia editing and really not sure how to handle this. What will keep them from continually reverting the changes? --Nacl11 (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have warned the ip on their talkpage, and also undid their edit. Since removing referenced content is considered vandalism then you are permitted to revert them without penalty. If they continue to remove the paragraph revert them and issue a warning, and then report them to WP:AIV. The ip is a dedicated address, so they can be blocked for some length of time without risk of affecting innocent anonymous editors. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And still more thanks.
I support a permanent block of that account 100%. Doggone it, you try and assume good faith and the guy turns right around and sticks it to you. In the meantime, I salted the title and if a variation ever appears, I'll salt it as well. Thanks for the update. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for your addition to the talk page is not the issue and I fully accept the first point you make in your addition. The problem is that your comment goes on to provide your own personal analysis of an alleged serious crime, when the article itself specifically says that was not proven to have occurred. So your statement could be seen to be libellous and should not be on Wikipedia. Your addition then goes own to present what it admits itself to be a rant on a related subject.
If you feel I have changed the meaning of what you said then please explain what exactly you did mean by these comments in relation to improving the article and I'll be happy to replace it. --Escape Orbit(Talk)21:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that a policeman struck the blow that resulted in Blairs death is noted in the reference in the article - and I would draw your attention to the article Special Patrol Group, where there is mention of police brutality. If necessary, I can provide references (reliable, from good sources) for both articles regarding allegations of racism, extracurricular attacks on political supporters, illegal weapon holding and suchlike. Therefore what I am repeating as said by others is not libel. I regretably have some experience of the behaviour of the SPG, and am not inclined to have their history whitewashed. I would point out, however, that on this and another occasion I have - despite my personal distaste for the subject - amended edits to a more neutral tone in accordance to WP policy. If you wish me to remove the comment about SPG members being thick racist thugs I shall do so, once you restore the comments I had made. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Facts are the article does not say his death was caused by the SPG, it specifically cites that this allegation was rejected as unproven. If you have good cites that say otherwise please add them to the article. Unfortunately your opinions and experiences aren't notable, and the circumstantial details of other cases involving the SPG don't belong on this article. However, if you wish to amend your comment to be in line with talk page guidelines I'm happy to re-instate it. --Escape Orbit(Talk)23:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Verifiability, not Truth" is the WP requirement; and I can find plenty of references for the allegations that Peach was killed by a policeman - and the article can reflect the quantity and quality of the quotes, and the absence of any other reasonable explanation. While the Met and the SPG may have avoided a finding by not volunteering information (and there was no enquiry, so there was no requirement to make statements) does not mean that good sources cannot be used on Wikipedia to explain why this individual in notable (and Peach's notability is directly related to the allegations that he died following the use of inappropriate force by a police officer. Not to refer to that negates the question of Peach's notability.) When the allegation, substantive and persistant, is established then my referring to same is not libel, but fair comment. I do not hold much hope of your being able to see this however, so I shall edit the article - despite not wishing to previously - in accordance with WP requirement for cited sources to reflect the unrefuted allegations of police brutality. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello LessHeard van. Back in December you blocked Fadulj based on this case. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind reviewing the new case in the header, and consider extending the block length. Once this is done, would you mind posting that you have done so to the case, so I or another clerk may close it. Thank you for your time. Synergy00:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recently the discussion with [User:Harry the Dirty Dog|Harry the Dirty Dog]] reported by Are you ready for IPv6? went from the Edit warring noticeboard to a parallel Incident noticeboard. Would it not be possible to keep everything on one page? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]
As you can see I have a static IP and have demonstrated I am not vandal by my edit history. You should look at THP's edit history and see what he does when he gets bored. 94.192.38.247 (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This edit summary does not give me any confidence you are acting in good faith, as is referring to THF as a vandal when they have a long history of contributing to the encyclopedia. I shall not block for the present, but if THF reports any further bad faith edits by you I shall do so; I suggest you consider your next few edits very carefully. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know of any Wikipedia editors that speak French? A Quebec news show has done a broadcast on USANA and I'd like to know if there is anything meaningful in it which could update the Wikipedia entry.
I shall not be participating - I am not keen on the fellows tone nor modus operandi, and especially trying to deprecate WP:ANI while maintaining that IRC discussions are impactable upon WP actions, but I believe he does things in good faith and is likely to be a net benefit to the community. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Noyce in the cotext of early 20C analytic philosophy.
Hello Mark,
I did not realise that my edit to Jonathan Noyce constituted vandalism, the subject matter is very important to Jon, who happens to be a friend of mine, and is crucially involved in his approach to composition. However if the edit was inappropriate then I can only apologise. Regards Ross. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.239.199 (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find independent reliable sources with which to reference the philosophical concerns of Mr Noyce, then they might be deemed suitable for inclusion in the article. Without cites, however, the content will be removed as seemingly gibberish of no connection to Mr Noyces primary notability, that of being a bassist for Jethro Tull. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there; are you sure about the indefblock of this editor? I see a number of text revisions, where an initial talkpage discussion would have been helpful, but they give the impression of being good-faith. And I see some removal of spam, but no insertion. I may be being naive, and do not hesitate to say so if I am; you would not be the first! --Anthony.bradbury"talk"19:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are right; I was completely wrong to block this editor - I got one of the good guys instead of the vandal. I have unblocked the account, removed the autoblocks, noted the acceptance of the unblock with apologies... You may or may not be naive, but you were on the money in this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the ip criticising your use of "dose" instead of "does" - I was commenting that in pointing out the mistakes of others it behoves the pointer that their own script should be perfect; I pointed out some obvious grammar mistakes... Now, I shouldn't do that but since another admin had already responded to your noticeboard complaint by suggesting you ignore and move on I thought I would give an ip a taste of their own medicine. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your assesment; they were notified clearly and specifically why their edits were wrong, and they were warned of the consequences of continuing to disrupt the article/encyclopedia over the course of four separate messages - failure to heed courteous notices of the effect of their actions indicates an intent to continue violating policies and therefore disrupt the encyclopedia and that constitutes vandalism (in my book, YMMV.) One may in pursuit of "the truth" spraypaint ones message regarding the decline of democracy upon the walls of the local political parties office walls in all good faith, but you are still vandalising the property. Same here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
75%? As I regard nonsense and personal attacks vandalism of itself I should say near 95% (the remainder being the one time he reverted himself). Under the circumstances I have indefinitely blocked the account. I would, however, suggest that in future such requests be made to WP:ANI; obvious cases like this will be dealt with by the first sysop that responds, and matters which are less straight forward need to be shown as being enacted upon consensus - it may take a little longer but the result will likely stick. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, thanks! Re: 75%. I wasn't sure about the Boer War stuff; it didn't look right. I forgot the proceedure and so I went to you, but in the future I'll go to WP:ANI. I hope I don't need to do that, of course! — John Cardinal (talk) 01:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see. This is not a question of your judgment but does involve a user that you blocked. I wish to focus only on that user and the length of the block. I believe a standard unblock template would be unnecessary in this case. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tarsky
If you haven't seen this yet, I would suggest you do. I do not feel that this legitimizes the block as they are for two different things. I am sure it ends the matter, at least as Tarysky is concerned. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
hi LessHeard, thanks for the welcome. I take your points on the fact that Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a promotional tool, however should this preclude one from monitoring accuracy and updating Wikipedia articles in arenas one is involved with? (Seanessy1980 (talk) 14:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Thanks for Blocking
Just a quick note to say thanks for blocking anon 90.197.239.74, as you may have been able to tell that was rather a *hem hem* personal issue for me. In all seriousness though, I know admins don't get thanked for things like this much, so just quickly letting you know all your work is much appreciated, cheers SpitfireTally-ho!22:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. However, you might be interested in the addition I made to my userpage after you, and others, kindly removed some vandalism from it. If you are not offended by the phrase it loses its ability to hurt you if used pejoratively (and you don't even have to be gay). It won't stop the really stupid vandals - which is a point worth raising of itself. Cheers, old bean - take the old kite up for a spin, what? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm, that is twice this week - which doubles my "block in error" stats over the last two years. I may need to take a break. Thanks for the heads up, I have unblocked and apologised on the ip's talkpage. I will check if the vandal ip has edited since, I am not going to risk a block on an inactive account under the circumstances. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...for your advice and support. We'll see how things go in a few months. ArbCom, you say? So is that path any easier? Or do you just want to watch me fending off more arrows. :) :) :) Hmmm... Truth to tell, what I'd really like to do is to be a checkuser. That area seems to be really backlogged, and vandal-and-sock hunting is something I sort of like to do. However, aside from what it might take to pass the fire-and-bullets test to get that job, I gather that it requires a level of technical sophistication that I lack. Anyway, this RfA (Request for Arrows) was a good learning experience (learning experiences often come hard), and I'll tone down some things but I won't turn them off totally. When that one guy accused me of "trolling" the ANI page, after having done what I thought was productive work with minimal drama, my suspicions that they just want me off their playground were upheld. So I won't stop, I'll just be a little more discreet and a little less ubiquitous (how many 13 1/2 year olds know that word?) Now I have to go do some work on my user page, for the benefit of the humor-impaired. :) Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?01:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom was a joke suggestion; if you think RfA can be a bit fraying... Glad you are intending to keep providing input at the Noticeboards, all the same. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I figured. :) So, what general types of technical know-how are required to be a checkuser? Also, if you could take a second to look at my user page and talk page, I haven't made huge changes, but I took away the simulated official templates as the one guy griped about; added warnings at the top not to take it all seriously; also put put the little rollbacker icon up top as rollbackers tend to do (as with admins also) - unless there's concern someone might confuse it with the admin icon. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots14:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re CU technical knowhow, I think the ability to understand WHOIS and ip ranges and be able to determine the likelihood of two ip addresses as being used by one editor (CU's are given the ability, among other things, to see the underlying ip of an account - so being able to tally two ip addresses takes on new significance when you can see user accounts ip) as well as recognising editing similarities. The best place is to look over the CU's noticeboard and see if there is any help you can give, as well as the WP:SPI pages.
As regards your pages, I think you should have them as you see fit - some people will never be happy anyway, and they serve to reflect the user and not some third party's beliefs how they should look like. Cutting down on the jokes is fine, since you are serious about editing WP, but removing them totally would not be indicative of the... er... non serious dialogue you sometimes indulge in. Mind you, you are asking someone with what is in some quarters considered a disturbing piccy on their own userpage - so take the my comments under advisement. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made some changes to address their specific complaints. I had seen others raise concerns, maybe at the AN page (not ANI) about screen features that imitate "official" wikipedia templates, so I got rid of those and added a plain-as-day disclaimer that not everything here is to be taken seriously. One way to look at it is that I "dumbed it down" for the humor-challenged. I hadn't really even noticed your user page. I don't pay much attention to user pages. It's your user page, and unless you post something advocating violence or extreme viewpoints, it's really none of my concern. I'm tempted to post a quote from Alan King at the top of my page, but it might be viewed as confrontational: "The world is full of little dictators trying to run your life." Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots17:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes a little "reaction" is all that is needed to indicate that you have listened; it is difficult to prove that you listened, weighed the arguments carefully, and determined you were right all along and therefore left it as it was... LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for the advice
I shall keep that in mind hereafter. He issues personal threats and abuses. I guess seeing all this another editor emailed me. If you are an admin, I can forward the email to you. I was asked not to go on edit war with him any more. So I stopped doing it. But he seems very interested in posting abuses and threats to me. --Radhakrishnansk (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You will need the permission of the other editor, who emailed you, to pass it on. However, it doesn't matter who the editor is personally, providing that their account adheres to Wikipedia policy and guideline (as do you). It is better to deal with the matter transparently, such as is hopefully happening at WP:ANI. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed personal information regarding the User: Kuntan as per your direction; I appologise for doing so. I though I could share that information as it was yet another wiki editor who email me. Personally I had not clue of who this IP address is. I traced the IP to a city called Kottayam in Kerala but means of the IP trace tool.--Radhakrishnansk (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tendentious?
At Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC one side, mine, provided a ton of evidence, detailed citations of WP policy and reasonable argument, then got 2/3 support in an RfC, and Wikidemon, on the other side, simply refused to recognize that, and didn't provide anything like the evidence or argumentation, then derailed the results by refusing to recognize that clear consensus on each of the article pages where the attempt was made to implement it. That's what tendentiousness is. Trying to get the best sources and follow WP policy is an indication of trying to be fair. That episode with Wikidemon derailing the RfC results what enraged me about Wikidemon months ago. My mistake. If you're going to call anyone tendentious, don't rely on past AN/I comments from lazy, biased editors. Rely on the facts. -- Noroton (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is a complete misstatement of what happened. But I will not re-argue the past. Part of the problem here is that we should not be re-arguing the past. The decision was made to give Noroton two long blocks, and the administrators were pretty adamant about the need to stop. It's started again. Very simple. Can we please find a way to urge Noroton to stop attacking me on Wikipedia? Wikidemon (talk) 06:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disney Vandal?
Thanks for your help dealing with that pesky IP. I've been with WP for a couple of years now, but I don't think I've heard of the "Disney Vandal," even though I frequent many of the Disney articles. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 21:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. If you wish to learn more, and frequenting the articles you do I suspect you might, go to either WP:AN or WP:ANI and type in "Disney vandal" in the archive search field near the top of the page. You may wish to make yourself a drink and plump up the cushion before you start reading, though... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should they have searched the noticeboard archives they will have hopefully found that page, but only after finding out that there are admins who are dealing with the case. It might be a bit daunting to suddenly see how vast the sockfarm is without knowing if it is being combated. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Third party RfC/U? That way both editors conduct can be looked at, with a view to diminishing future problems with other parties over the same issues. If Sephiroth BCR - the obvious current involved editor - wishes to file it I will certainly certify. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have a winner; it fits nicely within what's specified as RfC/U minimum requirements, so it will definitely work. :D :D :D I'll point Sephiroth BCR to this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gillian Hiscott
Re: Gillian Hiscott
Hello, I note you blocked and prevent me from re-creating my article. Please advise as I am not very adept on wikipaedia and do not want to risk my reputation on the net.
Regards the deletion - although I understand that being the partner of a print firm is irrelevant as far as notability is concerned, and that The Library Theatre is unimportant, The article was initially created in order to provide general information on me, as a playwright, for professional individuals who work with me in the theatre industry, and always look up everyone else on a team. I have no great knowledge on what is required, nor the patience to learn and no doubt worded things wrongly. However it has been there for over a year and some administrators had kindly contributed to get it in better shape.
I understood, that authors have a placing on the site, so long as they are not self published, or published by vanity publishers.
I have plays published with play publishers Cressrelles and Jasper Publishing who are not in the least connected to me in business nor vanity publishers . A few of these are adaptations of classic novels which have been used by professional companies. Therefore companies who are considering performing the plays may wish to look me up, as did recently a professional theatre in Budapest who are currently adapting one of my plays for performance.
I have a novel published by small publishing company Seventh Wave Publiscations, which was initially in the top 20s list for it’s genre (fiction WW2) by major British book retailer Waterstones. It’s dropped down the list a little because there aren’t any left. There is shortly to be a re-print and re-sales of the first edition are at on sale at Amazon, they range from $30 – 60
Maybe a simple list of my publications would be acceptable, but cannot risk re-creating the article if administrators automatically believe it should be deleted. I feel a little hard done by as people with less achievements still have articles.
Thanks for your advice. I understand a little more now, and that my article was exposed because of a lack of citations etc., which I am able to do.
I note you said previously that you would be able to retrieve the page into my useraccount for me to work on. Is this still possible? I am only thinking that if I create a new page then the old one still exists as a deletion, which may not be a good idea. If I re-work the deleted one, is that better than creating a new one or doesn't it make any difference? I am only concerned that the deleted one still being in existance means that I would just be blocked again. Thank you. I note you live in Cornwall - so do I. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gillhiscott (talk • contribs) 17:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Less, you might want to check Gillian's contribs. She's been harassing the users who said delete in the AfD, continuing to spam other articles, and removing notices on her talk page trying to explain to her why her edits were inappropriate, COI, etc. -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 22:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed. I also noticed that she was temporarily blocked for having a username that was an advert - which, if it is her real name as I AGF it is, would make it extremely difficult for someone like, say, Jimbo Wales to edit WP on the same basis. How is your own name an advert, if it is suggested you are not notable? I don't think anyone was coming out of this particularly well, so I am hoping that getting an encyclopedic stub of an article will diffuse the situation - and I note that my comments and suggestions are not being summarily removed, so it may be the manner of the communication (we are also both old farts, which may also help) - and that in doing so she will come to understand better how to use the processes. Not every editor has the smoothest of starts, and sometimes they have to be given time to get the right understanding. If they do not learn, then that is something to be dealt with in the future.
Thank you that's great. I will have a go but my main wish is that the deletion log and discussion left open will close down, and that the present google entry on me for wikipaedia will disappear as it goes straight to the deletion log. Will this happen automatically in due time or is there anyway of closing down the log so it will disappear from the net? (Gillhiscott (talk) 14:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Gillian Hiscott
No - the ISBNs I have mentioned don't relate to the original novels but to my published adaptations, which in turn have their own ISBN number and are listed at the ISBN Agency. I put the ISBN numbers back in together with the Publisher's names where the plays can be found. They can also be found at the British Cataloguing Library or ISBN Agency.
With regards the listing at Waterstones. The situation of a publisher being able to call a book a bestseller stems from it having reached a certain level on a reliable list. Hence there being so many apparent "bestsellers" around. The book is still listed but dropped down the list from it's original placing, which was in the 20s and so qualified. The list keeps shifting as books are added and no copy has been kept, my book I think is now about 60 out of 810, mainly because the book is on a re-print. I guess I'll just have to wait and see if it goes up again and make sure a copy is saved. All these things are usually done by a writer's agent and I don't yet have one.
I have written down a few of the papers I have been reviewed in but have yet to add the dates. Still a work in progress. But the wiki listing on the net has dropped away so I'm not so wound up about it. Should be writing anyway not worryhing about this stuff! Best wishes (Gillhiscott (talk) 11:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I apologise for misunderstanding the ISBN situation. I will review the section to see if it is readily apparent. I do not know if the Waterstones website has an archive, to be able to find a "top 20" listing - or if your local library has a database which might be accessed. Per your last comment, in respect of the review sources, it is often the case that WP is found to take up much more time than it at first appeared would - you may have to restrict yourself to only working on it for a certain percentage of a time period... (says the guy who logs on every lunchtime and workday evening and most of the weekend...) LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for helping to close the conflict of interest discussion. I've finished editing and adding information in my archives onto the page User_talk:Gillhiscott/Gillian_Hiscott and it has been a very useful and enjoyable exercise not only in providing a record, which has never been done, but learning more how to use the site and edit. I'd like the page to go the mainpage again but don't know how to transfer it. Please could you check it and do anything or let me know what else is necessary. I tried having a go at providing exetrnal links to the Cressrelles and Jaspers sites and some of the (better) reviews in newspapers but gave up on that one. It seems to me that this can be construed as advertising though. Anyow I was able to trace some of the books through the ISBN links mentioned. With regards the bestselling thing, someone else pointed out to me, as I did, how difficult it is to pin down links to a bestseller list, because of their volatile nature - next week it can be so far down the list as to be totally irrelevant so have refrained from using the term "bestseller", which in the commercial world is used so freely and difficult to prove. Also if it goes on the main page, is there a way of ensuring that other adminstrators don't simply delete again as an already deleted item? Thanks (Gillhiscott (talk) 14:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Of course I should be concentrating on my career but am hanging around waiting for things to happen, i.e. a re-print and encountering a writer's block so this is diverting me. I can still log into Exeter, but yesterday I did find links to the books through these pages, and located several of the reviews but was just not skilled enough to make them happen properly on the article. I was turning to you because you are local and English whilst some of the others seemed US based, but the gordonofcartoon guy seems very knowledgable about books and he might be the one to consult. I'm sure the article will go back up eventually - The original one was on the site for over a year, nurtured and edited probably by Marie Corelli fans who also took care of the listing about my efforts on her behalf, created a legacy heading, which originaly was entirely about me of Marie Corelli, now callously deleted by nuttah, who seems to me to be less than reputable in his editing. This is one of the main reasons why I wanted to give myself creditability. I note the comment about the use of my real name for a username. This was an entirely innocent action - not in any way an attempt at self promotion. I did it because I wanted to be honest about who I was. Best wishes (Gillhiscott (talk) 10:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC))
Left a message on my user page. Never know where to leave them! (Gillhiscott (talk) 10:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
You ae spectacularly right! WP guidelines or no. I've been hanging around with too many highly strung actors. Anyhow the I've linked up the publications as far as I can and won't be doing any more with the reviews some have fallen into the newspapers archives and some I wouldn't want seen anyway!. Could you have a quick look please and let me know if it's OK for the main page and how to get it there. Didn't know I could just so easily link up the the publisher's page, but this is by far the best way to trace them since playbooks don't behave on the market like normal books. Hope this is acceptable. Thanks [[[User:Gillhiscott|Gillhiscott]] (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)][reply]
You blocked 216.25.247.247 for a week, but they have come back and done the same format-breaking vandalism on WinMX. They (and .245 and .246) keep removing line feeds from apparently random articles. - Ttwaring (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should allow them to provide themselves with a little more rope, and then I can block all three addresses for a longer period (3 months?). One post block edit, even if it is the same as the previous edits, is not sufficient to be sanctioned again. Thanks for bringing it to my notice, though, and do let me know if there are further examples. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a few...um,...interesting names going through the protection log. You're not going to scare Uncle Halfy and tell me they're all attributed to one guy, are you? HalfShadow02:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Protection Question
When you mass-protect articles (as you are doing now in terms of those BLP-violating redirects) do you think up redirects that haven't been used that and block them too? Would that help or no in the long run? Just curious. And off topic, I've seen your picture on your page and I must say I've always pictured you as having a big thick beard for some reason. D: -WarthogDemon03:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not pre-guessing terms of abuse with a view to protecting - I have been playing catch up this last many minutes, simply by going through (deleted) contributions. You might notice that I am placing a few titles under semi-protection; in case some rap artists decides to "own" a term of abuse (like they have with nigger/nigga) and release a record and an established editor needs to create an article on it... LessHeard vanU (talk) 03:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About totse.com there is an official successor that is zoklet.net/bbs/ Zok was a long time moderator on the site and most of the community went to his site. There is also a number of spammers trying to start up clones of totse, they constantly spam zoklet trying to get the community to come to a copy of totse and start back up again. But the official place where most of the community left to is Zoklet.net/bbs/if you could add that to the totse.com page that would be cool. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.153.120.152 (talk) 05:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a courtesy notice to all parties who had more than a one word comment in the previous discussion. I think it is a problem that won't go away, and I hope that you will be part of the solution, whether or not you and I have agreed previously. I hope that we can at least clarify the problem, if not immediately agree upon a solution. If anyone thinks this is inappropriate canvassing, I am sure they will express that. I don't anticipate too many separated discussions on this topic, but if this one is closed and a new one opens, I'll probably notify you again, unless you ask me not to. doncram (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Problematic Article
Dear Mr.Slater,
I am writing you in order to ask you for help. In the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darko_Trifunovic the group of Wikipadia vandals posted lies and not supported quotation. I can't expose evidence regardless of fact that I invited all interesting parties to work together in order to improve the quality of the article. Please help. Preceding was posted to my userpage by Darko Trifunovic (talk·contribs)
Mr Trifunovic, I have already advised you that you need to contact WP:OFFICE regarding your concerns. My (brief) review of the article is that the claims are verified (which does not mean they are true necessarily, but have been reported in reputable sources) and meet the standards for inclusion. Since this is an editorial matter I cannot intervene as an administrator, and therefore the Office is the only venue open to you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request for arbitration - Unjustified ban of users
I have filed a request for arbitration regarding recent bans of user accounts from which no activities could be found that dispupt Wikipedia. The arbitration request can be found here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Block of editors related to sockpuppet Jvolkblum You are not mentioned as an involved party, I send you this message as a courtesy for your information, and I hope that your opinion there can contribute to solve the issue. Thank you! doxTxob \ talk23:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This editor popped up at Talk:Bob Ross to voice his view on the removal of the trivia/pop culture section from 2007 by leading off with a personal attack calling me a wikinazi. After it was removed and he was warned several times, he finally stopped adding the personal attack and stuck to just adding his view that the section should be retained. He left one final note on my talk page claiming I was "harrassing" him for not allowing his personal attack to stand and for warning him.[18] However, I feel his notification of 7 editors,[19][20][21][22][23][24][25] those who had at one time said they also liked the section, is a gross violation of WP:CANVASS, but am unsure where to go from here. Obviously I'm no longer neutral due to the initial skirmish there and on my talk page. Thoughts? -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 22:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Admins Barnstar
The Admin's Barnstar
Dear LessHeard vanU, I present this barnstar to you, in personal recognition of the work you do behind the scenes, no doubt tedious, but needed. My support, thanks, and good luck wishes are with you!
@LessHeard vanU: You can certainly count on my assistance, although I guess that your desysop case will only be an issue after a woman has become Pope of the Catholics...
Sorry LessHeard, but given the amount of rubbish that has been directed towards this editor in the past, WP:OUTING and WP:HARRASS are entirely relevant. Please don't justify the past rubbish by editors. Additionally, User_talk:Alex_Bakharev/Archive23#Tomb_of_the_unknown_rapist demonstrates the attempts at WP:OUTING and WP:HARRASS dating back to December 2008 (and probably before that, given the people involved). This has to be taken into account with the current crusade. So again, please do not justify harrassment of other editors, regardless of current issues. I will also note, I was blocked for 2 weeks for placing a COI template on another editor's talk page, yet nothing happens here. Take note of that. --RussaviaDialogue22:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The account edits under a specific name, which is also a name relevant to the article they edit. I re-iterate, WP:OUTING is not relevant when an editor is requested they confirm or otherwise that the publicly seen username is that of their real life identity. If it is, then they have released that information already (even if it isn't the person involved within the subject matter) and if it isn't then no personal information is released - there a few other millions of English speaking net savvy people they could be - but they should be aware of the possibilities of being seen to impersonate that individual. As for harassment, what are you referring to? This specific matter appears clear cut enough, it is a COI enquiry. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
::I guess you are not well-versed in the bullshit of the Eastern European areas of WP. You have the link from the talk page above. The basic calling other people of writing hate speech (off-wiki). This is all part of a long-period of harrassment by various editors against this person. You may want to check WP:DIGWUREN to see exactly what I am talking about. Additionally, User:Petri Krohn at no time has tried to emulate "Petri Krohn", the non-notable individual who has a few lines in a media report.Hence why I have said to Petri on his talk page, he is under no obligation to fulfill demands. Particularly when the editor demanding it, states "Is this the same Petri Krohn who was banned from english Wikipedia for inciting ethnic hatred against Estonian editors?". There is no reason to doubt that this is User:Martintg is there? But it's offwiki, so it stays off-wiki. And given that there are no major WP:NPOV problems with the edits of User:Petri Krohn, it's about time that people saw harrassment for what it is, rather than making excuses for it. --RussaviaDialogue23:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me just say this LessHeard, given the past history of interactions between these editors, Martintg asking these questions is somewhat inappropriate. As I said, this can be construed as outting or harrasment, given WP:DIGWUREN and the bullshit contained therein. If it were someone uninvolved who approached him, it looks completely different than what it does "from the inside" of this area of dispute. As you are aware, what people say offwiki stays offwiki. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, and the internet allows for this. If you believe that User:Petri Krohn needs to declare his identify under WP:REALNAME, then I will encourage him to do this. But I will ask, would you take action if Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Editors_warned and Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Discretionary_sanctions were breached. For instance, on Finnish Anti-Fascist Committee there was an IP editor editing who some believed (but not confirmed) was Johan Bäckman. For example, comments such as what are at Talk:Finnish_Anti-Fascist_Committee#Allegation_of_neo-stalinismn are inappropriate, and the editor has been reminded of this (and I am not asking for action on that). But if User:Petri Krohn confirms that he is Petri Krohn, so long as he complies with core policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:NOT, etc, (and that Arbcom) there is no reason that he can not edit WP. And he is entitled to do this in peace. Let's just say that knowing this area, it would not be long until all sort of incivility would be taking place in regards to this editor and that can not allowed to be acceptable behaviour. We can not place expectations on Petri Krohn that we do not place upon other editors, for that is not how Wikipedia does, or should, operate. Your comments on that are welcomed. --RussaviaDialogue00:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good choice in section name. All that is being asked here is clarification of name, per WP:REALNAME, for COI reasons in regard to a particular article. Petri has been well behaved here since his return from his ban, you are not doing him any favours with this wiki-drama. Martintg (talk) 00:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no wikidrama here. It is acknowledging that this area of editting has a lot of bad blood in it, which unfortunately even I have been dragged into at times, and my questions to LessHeard are asking him whether he will be willing to look at any issues, if and when they arise. It isn't purely WP:REALNAME and WP:COI in play here, but a long history of crap in this area of editting, and knowledge of how editors operate. That is it, pure and simple. --RussaviaDialogue01:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are a relative new comer to the issues of Eastern Europe, which have been covered in several ArbCom cases. I don't recall you being involved in any of these cases so you really do not know what the full history is or what the real problems are. No one dragged you into this particular issue, you injected yourself into it. You like to wiki-link policies in your responses, how about you check out the wiki-link WP:AGF. Martintg (talk) 01:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, I am a new comer. I may have injected myself into this area of editing, but I most definitely have been dragged into the masses of bullshit in this area, because you mention there have been several Arbcom cases which I have not been party too. Now, I am assuming good faith with what I write, so I would appreciate the same. But as you, yourself have stated, there have been several Arbcom cases in this area of editing, which means the bullshit in this area just keeps on going on. And that is unacceptable, and because there have been several Arbcom cases, that is reason enough to know that problems with arise in the future, and this is what I am trying to discuss with LessHeard. --RussaviaDialogue04:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notwithstanding any history, the request for clarification in respect of this matter is well made and appropriate - references to other, perhaps related, matters helps not at all. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats on the barnstar! And sorry for the edit conflicts. I think the incivility is pretty clear, but blocking without warning first might warrant a reprieve. Cheerios. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It happens (ec's - not barnstars!). I would gently point out that the block rationale is violation of NPA - which also seems problematic to my review of the policy. Ironically, a block under incivility may have been less arguable. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
a questionable question
You and I have made peace, I hope. I posted a peace to you and you accepted. That was long ago. My negative feelings toward you arose because you blocked me without warning. So I am surprised to see a statement from you that you have never heard of such a thing. What gives? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Context - for comments made during an Request for Adminship; an area where passions are known to be raised and injudicious language employed, and taken into account. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. So blocking without warning is done, I take it, in other contexts. An admin said he should have blocked me without warning for a joking comment made on my own talk page, even though the "victim" acknowledged my comment was a joke at the time it was made. That was a close call for me! —Mattisse (Talk) 22:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It can be done, yes, if the situation warrants it - and it is advisable that it is reviewed promptly by third parties if in any doubt. It is something of the reason why Admins need to demonstrate knowledge of the policies, but more particularly the trust of the community in acquiring and continuing to keep the mop. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are the kinds of uncivil comments Giano II regularly makes to people, including me, OK? For example, he calls me a troll and other unflattering names and ridicules me, and I am told to ignore the comments. Now I avoid areas of Wikipedia like FAR because of the stress these remarks cause. It seems to me that the more outrageous an editor is, and I am thinking of another recent case, the more that editor is allowed to call people liars, sock puppets, trolls, idiots etc. It almost seems like it is better to build up a reputation as a discourteous editor, as that way more will be tolerated. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Giano is a good example - for he will provide a rationale for why he uses phrases (see the current block discussion) which may appear uncivil. You will see that I am pussyfooting around by using the term "falsehood", whereas Giano will bluntly say "lie" and refer to the matter in hand. He may be mistaken, and he may be excessive, but he is operating within the bounds of WP:NPA. You, of course, take issue with both the implication and the terminology, but you have also been known to speak plainly in what you see are mistruths and misrepresentations. The only difference is in whose perception of truth and mistaken understandings one perceives to be based in a defendable reality. In most issues (but not all) I have tended to side with Giano. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I hope you would stand up for me as you do for Giano. I don't call people names. I don't make it impossible for someone to post in areas of Wikipedia. I don't have a clique of people who harass others into submission so that an article cannot be improved, to Wikipedia standards. I don't own articles. If you put me in the same category as Giano, then I have some serious thinking to do about whether I should be participating in Wikipedia. If I am any where never that much of a negative influence, then I ought not to be posting anywhere. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I am not altogether in agreement with your assessment- I refer to the ArbCom related to Zearaph (sp? close enough!) and the more recent matter involving Sandy Georgia. While I don't get involved I am not unfamiliar with some of the issues regarding your interactions with some editors. Nobodies perfect, and no-one is always the innocent victim of circumstance, but - yes - if I consider you to be the wronged party (as I did with Cyborg Ninja) then I will act in your interests if requested. Not, however, if I didn't. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had nothing to do with Zearaph, other than that editor stalked me and SandyGeorgia defended me; after SlimVirgin unblocked Zearaph, SandyGeorgia and she got into it. I was not involved in the Arbitration, except to make one comment supporting SandyGeorgia. Later SandyGeorgia turned on me and initiated an RFC against me, at which I received mostly support because of the lack of evidence. It seemed vindictive. I did go overboard at the RFC as I was taken aback at it, since no one had tried to solve anything prior to filing it; I did lose respect for those that filed it. I should have not responded. Before it was even over, SandyGeorgia invited me back to work on FAC, but I will never do work there again. I am appreciated at other places at Wikipedia. There are people for whom I will copy edit an FAC, but only a few. I just copy edited Murray Chotiner to FA status for an editor. But I don't do the workhorse bit anymore. I don't feel any responsibility like I did before to help out there. So if that puts me in Giano's category, then I will think about whether I will even continue doing what I do.
It does seem better to be a bad ass here. I finally put a warning on Giano's page, after a series of attacks. I received a flock of comments on my page, telling me to be nice and to just disregard Giano as nothing could be done about him from important admins. I was enormously rude to those people. I should not have done that. But if I had tolerated their posts on my page, just think how I would feel now, with everyone tiptoeing around Giano! I would feel sick! I feel much better, now that I stand up for myself then I did in the days when I was trying to be a nice, likable editor. That got me no where. Heck, you blocked me. I think you were the last time I was blocked for real. Haven't been blocked since and don't expect to be. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Giano II
Hi. Since you raised the issue of the reasons that I gave for my block, I think on consideration that I should have noted as well that Giano II's conduct violated WP:BATTLE, which provides in pertinent part:
"Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion. If another user behaves in an uncivil, uncooperative, or insulting manner, or even tries to harass or intimidate you, this does not give you an excuse to respond in kind."
On the whole, I thought it would have been self-evident to any established user, let alone administrator, that the repeated edits at issue are in tone and substance so entirely at odds with the polite civility that all users are required to display on this project that we cannot countenance them in any forum from any user, no matter what dispute triggered them. If Giano II thinks that Neurolysis is deluded and a liar, I expect him to put such criticism in much more polite terms in an RfA of all places, where the editor at issue is not expected to defend himself with strong language, if at all. Best, Sandstein 20:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BATTLE? That is pertinent to Giano's tone, I suppose, but was not the logged reason and nor is style to be mistaken for content when judging if a policy violation is made. A personal attack is one which, as I said elsewhere, either contains falsehoods of itself or uses irrelevant truths in a manner to malign an editor or their reputation. This was neither, it was an opinion over a matter of fact that was made forcefully (yet without profanity) with the use of plain speaking. I may use an increased vocabulary than Giano, yet I do not see why my references to the issuing of falsehoods and referring to another contributor as a purveyor of untruths should shield me from accusations of making personal attacks if they are uttered without evidence to their veracity. What is so acceptable in making exactly the same qualified claim by adopting more flowery terminology - apart from the fact the recipient may not understand the depth of feeling of anger/frustration/contempt/whatever because it is couched in such neutral language? That is nonsense, since it is the content and not the commentator (or their style) that is important.
That latter, indeed, I would comment upon in your response above; I do not care for the implication of "...self-evident to any established user, let alone administrator..." that anyone who does not see matters as you do is not as fit as you to make these judgements. In this matter particularly I have made great efforts to have conducted myself - despite my self declared and otherwise obvious support for Giano's robust manner in representing his opinions - in a respectful and thoughtful manner, ensuring that the other parties are kept informed and are able to have their opinions heard and considered. I recognise your right to voice your opinion, to hold views that are contrary to mine, to act as you see is appropriate and within your understanding of the rules and policies, and to act in accordance with them when I see that I do not have consensus to change or vary them - such as closing the ANI thread as staying with the status quo. I do not have to agree with you to be treated as you would prefer that others treat you, as another valued volunteer working for the benefit of the encylopedia. I should like to be shown the same respect, although I do not require it - acknowledging the right of another contributor to behave as they see fit (within policy, naturally).
I think we are done here; Giano's block has stuck, and we have explained ourselves at each other at some length. We may yet take some understanding from this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um... Are you familiar with British food culture? If I say that my preference is for Indian food, it should be realised that most of the dishes would be unfamiliar with the inhabitants of the sub-continent; UK Indian cuisine is that adapted for the tastes of the population. Once that is understood... Chicken tikka masala (medium hot), with pilau rice, onion bhaji, peshwari naan, and perhaps some chat (the bread, although I find conversation enhances any meal) would be my usual choice, although if dining out in style I would likely choose a pasta house. Why? Do I win a prize? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why hide the truth behind a smokescreen of civility?
Because incivility distracts people from the matter at hand. We will spend ever more time on arguing whether Giano was justified than say, establishing a community norm about trying to represent Wikipedia to the media, and the consequences of flouting it. Sadly, this dysfunction is not unique to Wikipedia, but is amplified by its nature.
Thank you. I found it while looking through the block log as part of my review - I wasn't aware it had been Orlady, although I instantly remembered it upon seeing it. It was a positive experience for me; I made a mistake (within my first dozen blocks), corrected it, apologised, and was pleasantly surprised by the generosity of the response; once I remembered it I knew she would make a good admin, because she has been on the end of a bad sysop action and had taken it in good grace when it was explained. Kudos to her. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
