User talk:Finnegans wake

Ignatieff

I too have been sporadic lately about monitoring the Ignatieff article (distracted by thesis revisions and life), so I'm not clear on all the details. Someone started making personal attacks and an administrator, Tyrenius, stepped in and took command, inviting anyone who disputed any section to raise their questions for discussion. Ottawaman has made liberal use of that invitation, and now everything, even mundane details like Ignatieff's nationality and marital status, needs outside corroboration; if Ignatieff's own people say it, it can't be trusted.
I removed that bit about the Augustine reference -- how earlier it was so vital to the article's neutrality that changing it smacked of pro-Iggy censorship and now it's a piece of pro-Iggy puff -- because Tyrenius has threatened to banish the first person who gets snippy. I'm inclined to take him seriously: I already received a grim warning and had a comment removed when I asked whether it was absolutely necessary to delete large swaths of discussion from the article talk page just because they questioned the administrator's methods.
As a result of Tyrenius' intervention, it seems we are finally able to get some consensus (that may have more to do with the restriction against anonymous editing than the administrator's careful management of the discussion, I don't know), but there's an atmosphere of fear (not to be too melodramatic) and I'm walking very carefully to avoid inviting punishment.
In fact, it's probably best if you delete this comment after you've read it. Hahaha. —Joel Bastedo 06:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Ignatieff Article

Thanks for your kind comments. After the abuse I copped, I really appreciate it. :) He actually used sockpuppets to file a spurious request for comment against me, claiming I had abused my admin tools. When it was deleted by another admin (with 100% consensus on the admin noticeboard) as an abusive RfC filed by sockpuppets, he spent the next couple of weeks vandalising my userpages by dynamic IP.
I will check out the page and try to keep a closer eye on it now that he's back. He is currently under an indefinite block, so he's really not allowed to be posting at all, however, he uses a dynamic IP which makes it very difficult enforce. Sarah Ewart 15:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I really enjoyed the Norman Mailer quote on your userpage. :) Sarah Ewart 17:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for seconding Scobell's award. I really appreciate it and I shall be sure to put the Vandal Whacking Stick to good use! All the best, Sarah Ewart 18:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know, Canuckster has been indefinitely blocked as a sock of Ottawaman (a checkuser came back as "probable") and a community ban has been proposed on WP:ANI, if you're interested in commenting. Cheers, Sarah Ewart 01:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well a lot of Wikipedians don't have lives. =) This guy is just a, um, well you know. The worst thing, like I said, is that he's actually hurting our ability to balance the article to his liking in my opinion. --JGGardiner 09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I guess I'll see you at the Michael Ignatieff Wikipedia Editing Office Christmas party. =) --JGGardiner 00:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your excellent comment on ANI. He has now been community banned. Once talk turned to reporting him to his ISP, he promised to leave voluntarily (we'll see). I left a note on the talk page for Michael Ignatieff so all the regs know that if he comes back they can revert his edits without regard for 3RR. Thanks for your help, I really appreciate it. I hope you have a very happy Christmas. :) Sarah Ewart 01:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I did think he would just reappear with a new name and I was concerned that he would migrate to a different Wikimedia project and start the whole cycle again there, as he did when he came here after being community banned from Wikinews. But he was really very frightened that I would submit the abuse report to his ISP. He said he would lose his job if I sent it and pleaded for the chance to walk away without being reported. He knows that an abuse report has been prepared and if he does come back, I will send it straight to his ISP. As back-up, we've got range blocks in place on the five IP ranges that he used, so he is unable to create new accounts or edit anonymously from his regular ISP. He also gave up a sockpuppet that we knew nothing about, which I think is a good sign. But really, as you say, all we can do is keep our fingers crossed and wait and see what happens. Sarah Ewart 02:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Sarah Ewart

I tried to email you but you don't have email set up. Can you email me? Kla'quot 05:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]