User talk:Musical Linguist/Archive21

Archive One Archive Two Archive Three Archive Four Archive Five Archive Six Archive Seven Archive Eight Archive Nine Archive Ten Archive Eleven Archive Twelve Archive Thirteen Archive Fourteen Archive Fifteen Archive Sixteen Archive Seventeen Archive Eighteen Archive Nineteen Archive Twenty

User: Tdalal pornboy

Hi AnnH, Please say something to User: Tdalal pornboy, because I find his user page extremely offensive, weird, perverted, inappropriate, and down-right creepy!!!! Just look at his user page, and I think you'll agree with me! Thanks! Psdubow 20:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for blocking him, I really appreciate it! Psdubow 20:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There might be more to this then we thought... Tdalal pornboy's user page was edited a lot by this IP address, 66.198.34.52, also this IP address is a vandal, it has been warned many times and I think it was even blocked once (See User talk: 66.198.34.52). Maybe Tdalal pornboy is 66.198.34.52! Tdalal pornboy could be using that IP address as a front so he can vandalize and still edit his user page when blocked. You'd should maybe talk to some of the other users and admins who have warned and blocked 66.198.34.52. I'll try and investagate it some more myself. Psdubow 21:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the kind words, your trust and support. Crum375 00:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Answer to Question

Thank you for speedy answer to that question. Should the article be nominated for deletion or a merge at this point? --Ozgod 00:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Gordon Watts, again

Gordon is back, and is going to ridiculous -- even disruptive -- lengths to justify the return of links to his personal Geocities/AOL Homepage sites at Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case. The insanely long Wikilawyering comparison of his site and the New York Times as somehow being equivalent (found at the Talk page) has to be read to be believed. He seems incapable of taking a hint from literally everyone who's commented (with the exception of Patsw (talk · contribs), who briefly resurfaced but doesn't seem to have returned after his initial foray).

Given Gordon's complete inability to understand basic guidelines, policies, or consensus, and his unflagging persistence, I have NO idea what would work, but perhaps you can take a shot at it. --Calton | Talk 07:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: I'm going to leave a message a few other admins' pages, and maybe they can try figuring something out, too. --Calton | Talk 07:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've had reached my limit of his foolishness, so your input is requested at Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard#Community_ban_request_on_User:GordonWatts. Thank you. --Calton | Talk 13:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for the considerate explanation you left on my talk page. It is most sincerely appreciated. Vassyana 22:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, too, Ann. While, as you know, we don't share a similar POV on many matters, I must say my respect for you as an admirably fair and honest administrator has remained undiminished. I know things can get a bit heated with content disputes over controversial subjects (alas we are all human), you have always been conducted yourself with the utmost professionalism, which is the kind of quality that makes you one of my favorites admins, despite our seemingly diametrically opposed pov's. :) I hope you are feeling better, btw.Giovanni33 22:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

A.J.A

The posts on Talk:Christianity have turned pretty sour. I guess you've avoided the vote (lots of people have by the look of it) as we all got fed up with them last year but if you could have a word with A.J.A. and remind him to show good faith I would appreciate it. It's pointless me approaching him as he's declared that I "hate Christians" [1] and that is all that motivates my editing. You have quite a way with people so hopefully he will listen to you. Sophia 22:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments at Christianity - I wish I'd kept out of the vote too now as I can see it's not going to help the issue at hand or the article. Thanks also for the encouraging words - I must admit that when I posted here my thoughts were for Storm who does not deserve such disrespect as he is a dedicated and caring editor. Hopefully your good advice will be heeded. Sophia 06:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I've also just seen your request to Str1977 and will abide by it too as I think it's a very good idea. Sophia 07:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

User talk:170.161.64.16

Hi,

Please check out User talk:170.161.64.16.

Thanks,

Psdubow 21:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Calton

Actually, my last 3 messages were just about the WP:CN on Gordon Watts. Nothing rude, nothing unacceptable. My posts were only letting him know that his posts using someone elses words were hearsay and not helpful to the conversation ongoing. I am not trying to fight with Calton anymore, it wasn't getting anywhere. I am fighting his rudeness and incivility with my politeness and professionalism in my posts. I am not going to fight with him and I am not going to respond by flipping out, that got me nowhere. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 02:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I was responding to something he said "Butch, it's what you're good at.", which I think we know what the first word was supposed to be. But you all want me to leave him alone, fine. Honestly, it seems like Calton's actions are being defended and the people who call him on them are punished. The "commenting on everything he does" is because I, often, defend myself against his comments that are made to encite a response....and I have the WP:CN on my watchlist. But, I will let him be, he can make any comment he wants about me or anyone on anyone's talk page and I hope then he is punished, cause he sure as hell ain't now. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 18:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that I am a self-imposed Wikibreak and am only adding/editing pages. Am adding to talk pages as necessary. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 20:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...I appericate that you said that I was not being rude. I seen the prod2 tag and was trying to figure out why it was there without involving (or messaging) Calton in anyway. Salad Days was going to give him a barnstar but someone beat him to it and he didn't know how to give someone a barnstar that had already been given (which regardless of Calton and I's problems, he does deserve). Salad Days made his own barnstar and replaced the prod2 tag right quick and the "problem" was taken care of. At no time was there any ill-will involved. I was only trying to help. I apologize if this has caused further problems. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 02:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Your promise to Gio

More to the point, you assumed that everyone you were speaking for agreed to let you make promises on their behalf or were even aware such a promise had been made; I certainly hadn't heard of it. A.J.A. 21:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Orangemonster2k1

Don't you think, under the circumstances, that it would have been better for you not to have responded to them

Given that he a) lied about "staying away", and, b) was completely misinterpreting what I wrote: no.

Also, do you have to go after him so aggressively? While I would certainly advise him gently that it would be healthier not to keep your page on his watchlist, he is not prohibited from doing so, and his recent posts to User talk:Salad Days were not in any way abusive towards you...

"Advising him gently" seenms to have done wonders for his behavior, hasn't it? Oh, wait. So what part of the word "stalking" is giving you trouble? How, exactly, is enabling stalking the least bit helpful -- especially from one who has promised -- multiple times -- to leave me alone? How, exactly, is his monitoring of my Talk page and leaping in to react to messages there "leaving me alone"? ([2] [3] [4] [5]) How, exactly, am I incapable of dealing with amusing tags left on my Talk page?

(I had also seen and wondered about that prod tag)

And yet you did nothing. Why was that?

...so you really do not have the right to be so aggressive, demanding that he take your page off his watchlist now...

What part of the word "stalking" is giving you trouble? How, exactly, is enabling stalking the least bit helpful? He needs to stop, exactly as he's claimed to have done multiple times but has completely failed to do.

...and replacing your message on his page after he had removed it (something that is generally considered harassment)

It's called "context" when adding new messages.

You're dealing with a vulnerable user, who suffers from Aspergers and gets upset easily...

So? Wikipedia is not personal therapy, and if he can't edit without the stalking behavior, he needs a new hobby.

Your recent behaviour has been rather Gordon-ish...

Save the insulting comparisons.

But an important difference is that Gordon's posts, while they annoy a lot of people, do not show a lack of kindness.

No, they show a continued disconnect from reality and inability to understand plain English explained to him -- witness his self-serving reinterpretation of SaraEwarts comments. Again, Wikipedia is not personal therapy. And perhaps you need to have a look at this before making claims about "lack of kindness".

...and I often [emphasis mine] see evidence that you are working to improve the encyclopaedia....

Gee, thanks for the qualifier there.

If you can't control your anger, a wiki-break would be appropriate.

If you can't control the dysfunctional behavior of the wikistalker you're enabling, expect anger from its victim. He's been doing this for weeks, and it's long past the point of being acceptable. --Calton | Talk 02:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

A "disconnect from reality", an "inability to understand plain English", and pretty much calling me a liar without checking your own talk page history to see that I am right....ya know what, I'm done. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 02:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You know what? I didn't use the first two phrases to describe Orangemonster2k1 (hint: is your name "Gordon", Orangemonster2k1?), but, ironically enough, he's demonstrating that they seem to apply to him, as well. --Calton | Talk 05:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The above, while yeah, probably not necessary, is the frustration coming out. I tried to be nice, I didn't talk to Calton, talked to Salad Days, all I was trying to do was keep his talk page from being erased. That was done in good-faith and his reaction to it brought the above comment out. I apologize for it, but you can see where my frustration is coming from. I was honestly trying to help and to be nice. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 05:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

That was done in good-faith Here's the thing: I don't believe you. Notwithstanding, what part of your phrase "staying away" are you having trouble understanding? Hint: it involves actually staying away. --Calton | Talk 05:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's helpful to use the word "lied" without very good evidence. It is possible for someone to say that he'll stay away, and then change his mind.

It's entirely helpful (as in "accurate") given the four times (now five, I see) he's made the claim and yet failed to do so. What's your threshold, then? Double digits? Triple digits? Never?

I am not enabling stalking in any way. I have already asked Orangemonster to stay away from you.

And that worked so well, didn't it?

Orangemonster tried to do something, and you were extremely abusive to him as a result.

You seem unclear on the concept of "staying away" if you're approving of him not actually staying away. See note about "enabling".

Calton, may I point out that I know a lot about what stalking means, probably a great deal more than you will ever know. And I can tell you that to use that word about Orangemonster's at worst irritating behaviour is quite frankly insulting to victims of real stalking.

I'm sorry for whatever things have happened to you, but playing the victim card in some sort of game of moral oneupmanship -- especially as it's completely unrelated -- as a way of minimizing Orangemonster's actions and telling me I'm not entitled to resent his stalking -- isn't impressing me. So you think what he does is okay, or at least tolerable? See note about "enabling".

The question is, can you edit without the aggressive behaviour?

No, the actual issue I actually raised was "Wikipedia is not personal therapy, and if he can't edit without the stalking behavior, he needs a new hobby" -- which I notice that you didn't actually address.

I don't see that the Passive-aggressive article has to do with my point that you need to try being kinder to people who annoy you.

No, it has everything to do with your claims regarding GordonWatts so-called kindness.

And how much politeness and respect did you show before it went past that stage?

Is that an attempt at justifying his actions? Because that's what it certainly sounds like. See note about "enabling". --Calton | Talk 05:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Calton....if you would please, click here. Thanks. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 05:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for removing vandalism off my page! --Nevhood 22:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Your gender

Hi, Musical Linguist. Sorry about referring to you as "he". I see on your user page that you're in a category of female Wikipedians. By the way, I hope you don't mind me saying this, but your user page looks horrible in Mozilla Firefox. It's as if I have double vision. I see half the word beside the full word. What browser are you using? Thanks for trying to calm things down at the Christianity talk page the other day. Regards. ElinorD (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm using SeaMonkey (same rendering engine as Firefox) and her user page looks fine to me. —Psychonaut 01:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry ElinorD, I am guilty of calling Musical "he" also. Sorry Musical! - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 01:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Ann. Yes, Str1977's user page looks horrible in Firefox as well, at least on my computer. I might try downloading SeaMonkey, which I admit I had never heard of. By the way, when I look at it in Internet Explorer, it's fine. I don't intend to get frightened off by squabbles at the Christianity talk page, and anyway, they seem to have stopped for now. I am quite interested in Patrick Holford; he occasionally gives talks quite near to where I live, although I've never heard him. But the page seems to be locked at the moment. Regards. ElinorD (talk) 23:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Your message

Hi Musical, thank you for your message and all you have done. I owe you extra thanks for your support and trust, since you put your reputation on the line by nominating me. I'll do my best not to disappoint. Thanks again, Crum375 01:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions?

You've been very helpful and kind to me, and with the Christianity article, so I thought I would solicit you for suggestions. What would be the best way to go about spurring activity on the question of the Nicene Creed? Would it be appropriate etiquette to hit up the talk pages of the active parties and politely ask them to join in the conversation to help move towards consensus? Would a RfC on the matter be the appropriate action to take? I am looking to move the discussion forward so we can reach a consensus and move on with editing/improving the article. However, I do not wish to take actions which might be considered rude, impatient or otherwise undesirable. Any suggestions you have to offer would be greatly appreciated. Vassyana 02:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi there!

Hi there! I noticed that we have been indirectly communicating with each other recently with regards to Mongo's actions and my subsequent reation. I wasn't sure if you wanted me to contact you directly or anything, so I figured I'd drop you a line to let you know that I'm always available on my talk page. Cheers gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 03:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a mad, mad, mad, mad world

Well, as you mentioned, my block log now states I made some kind of veiled threat and that I was intimidating. Then, (not that it matters at this point and no need for you to address it) Lovelight came to my talkpage and posted that he is going to whoop my ass...I played around with that a bit. But since we live in a land of double standards where some admins who have clearly abused their admin tools, reliquish them knowing an arbcom case is coming and now get treated with kid gloves by arbcom while I am desysopped for far less and arbcom makes no polite overtures at all to me...I think I am about done with this nuthouse. To be honest, I have been on borrowed time on Wiki. I loathe the POV pushing trolls on the 9/11 articles. I lack direction for my typical stub work, finding myself working here and there but not really adding much of merit...no FA's are likely to come soon, though I did write over 30 stubs in the past month. Were it not for the clear vision of yourself and editors like SlimVirgin, I think I might go insane if I lingered here much longer. Quite obviously, Tyrenius and I do have a history...his capricious email to Jimbo which misrepresented that myself and a few other editors were abusing BLP policy is still fresh as far as I am concerned. Basboll knew that Tyrenius would be likely to get a rib in on me...regardless that Basboll has been told by me previously to not bring content disputes to my talkpage...yet does so anyway and goads me with his usual barrage of subtle insults. Then he proceeds crying about the injustice he has faced at the hands of the terrible MONGO...even though he is the one leaving subtle inconsiderations to begin with.--MONGO 08:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Revert

Thanks very much. Guettarda 21:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Advice requested

Ann, I hate to bother you, but if you can spare the time I'd much appreciate your input. See this dif. So far SlimVirgin, I, Jim62sch (with a very polite "I think perhaps that you are unaware just how aggressive your writing style is.") as well as others have tried to discuss civility and working with others with this editor, who persists in misdirection, mocking (Andrew c, one of the nicest editors I've ever worked with, used a not-the-best-choice example, and instead of answering Andrew's very valid concern, this editor's entire response was tearing that example to shreds.) Quite frankly, I don't know how to get through to this editor that verbally (textually?) abusing people is not acceptable here, he calls my every effort "name calling and accusations" - but doesn't amend his behavior nor concede that there is any possibility he has been less than civil. In short, he's been acting like a troll. In addition, he's a bit of an edit-warrior. This has become very disruptive, causing two editors to either avoid this editor or take multiple breaks due to the stress of trying to work with him. Ideas and advice would be most appreciated. If you want further details on the stress caused, I can email you. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for butting in. I noticed your vote at the embryo page, so I just thought I'd take a peek. I stumbled across this comment by accident. By the way, of course, your embryology vote is fine with me. Everyone is entitled to their opinions (and I've made clear that this is not a huge deal since factual accuracy is not involved).

I would like to mention that the abuse KillerChihuahua mentions has been going more than one way. If you do decide to get involved, Ann, I very much hope you will try to honestly look at all sides fairly. KillerChihuahua omits a few details, such as Jim62sch calling me "unctuous", Andrew C. calling me a "plagiarist" and "a bully", and KillerChihuahua has done her share too (calling me a "nitpicker", a "troll", a "dick", and much else). It's fine to criticize me for my edits and my comments, but I hope they will not be viewed in isolation. Thx.Ferrylodge 03:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I assure you, one of the reasons I requested Ann's input is that she is thorough and honest. If I have erred, she will tell me: that is to my benefit, as I cannot modify or correct errors unless I am aware of them. For the record, I have indeed said you were "generally acting like a dick" - with a link to the essay on meta and a request you read it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 05:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

And for the record, I did read it. And since I last commented here, KillerChihuahua has called me a "bitch." You can't make this stuff up.Ferrylodge 05:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I said you were bitching, which you are, given the common colloquial meaning of "bitching" as "complaining". Don't twist my words. KillerChihuahua^?!? 05:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You said that I "bitch that [people] are attacking you." And what did you come to this talk page to do, KillerChihuahua?Ferrylodge 05:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

read the sectionheader. KillerChihuahua^?!? 05:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope we both get good advice, if Ann is willing to wade into it.Ferrylodge 06:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I do hope as well that reading lessons are provided. One will note that I stated that "you remind me of..."; surely Ferrylodge, being a lawyer you're familiar with semantics and parsing, no? Ah, but perhaps that's what you pretending to do -- albeit with disingenuousness aforethought. ;)

Come to think of it, the above attempt to parse "bitching", knowing full-well that its primary meaning, as well as the only semantic inference that could be drawn from its usage in the sentence in question, was kvetching, complaining, bellyaching, grumbling, etc., indicates that you seek not to present the truth of any interaction, but rather to cast yourself (or, as a lawyer, your client) in the role of victim by twisting rather than parsing words. Alas, I've seen that movie, too. •Jim62sch• 16:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Jim, it is not civil or acceptable for you to say that another editor "reminds me" of an unctuous person, or "reminds me" of a bitch, et cetera. It should be obvious that the words "reminds me" do not give you license to then hurl whatever profanities you may please.Ferrylodge 19:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Squirmy

Thanks for the revert :) Will ^{(Speak to Me/Breathe)}_{(Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash)} 02:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks from me as well. Jkelly 21:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI/3RR#User:Proabivouac reported by User:ALM_scientist (Result:)

Dear Ann, I strongly believe I did not violate 3RR here. Perhaps you agree, or disagree, but either way, you seem to me somewhat of an expert on this policy, and your input will be both instructive and appreciated.Proabivouac 12:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your time and insight. Your comments on the first two diffs were particular helpful - if I understand you correctly, it matters not if they are related to one another, or whether they are reverts in some technical sense, but whether they are part of an edit war. This seems to me a very wise way to apply the spirit of the law without being unduly subjective.Proabivouac 01:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP issue at Jim Nobles

Could use some help. Jkelly 23:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yet again.

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Yet again, I am struck by your ability to enunciate exactly the right course of action to be followed in a contentious situation, and by kindness you consistently employ. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you - Comments

I do not relish the idea of responding to the RfBan comments, regarding myself, Ann, because they seem to provoke a negative response, but so long as lies are posted, I feel that I reserve the right to defend myself. Also, I parsed the voting section (the 2 subsections with polls), and I was, by far, less in total word-count than my opponents, so this is objective proof that my opponents are lying about me when they allege I am too verbose and talkative. I feel that Wikipedia, as a project, is failing, due to the slacking and low morals of those editors who would perpetuate obvious lies and falsehoods -even when confronted with the objective facts. (I have not only posted less than them -since others had asked me to not post too much -but also have accepted consensus on selected issues, whether or not to my liking, so I feel I am doing my part to be a good neighbor -and then some.) I hope to ignore them -as I have, by and large, done in the last several days. Thank you once again for your objective (and truthful) analysis, not bent to the will of others, but tempered in actual truth, no matter who it offends. My feeling is that these arguments on the notice board are not only a waste of time (for all parties involved!), but it seems some are violating the rules regarding voting -not that I totally agree with this rule, but it is the rule at present.--GordonWatts 09:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Here ya go....

		The Sparky Barnstar
		For your helpfulness, for answering questions that others would just ignore, and for being there for users...I present to you the Sparky Barnstar. Congrats! - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 23:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Per this admin's request, I am notifying you of WP:RFAR action

Per this admin's request, I am notifying you of WP:RFAR action.

Even though I am not seeking the action against you, nonethheless, you are a party, and rules require that I notify you. Observe:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#GordonWatts

--GordonWatts 07:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Your comment on Gordon's RfAr

Hi. I read your comment on Gordon's RfAr and I agree with much of what you wrote. However, I was curious about the final line of your post: "I’d also like the "result" to allow Gordon to edit Schiavo articles, while restricting his talk page posts, but I will bring that back to the community if this case is rejected, as I do not think that anyone who voted to allow one talk page post per day also voted to allow no article edits."

There were two remedies that dealt with restricting Gordon's editing to Schiavo-related articles.

The first remedy was "Limit to one post per day on Schiavo-related talk pages" and did not mention restricting his editing to the article page. It was supported by 12 editors (I'm not including Gordon since he imposed conditions), including yourself.

The second remedy was "Community ban from articles and talk pages related to Terri Schiavo". From my interpretation, this would prevent Gordon from editing the Schiavo-reltaed articles and talk pages entirely (not just a one edit limit). It was supported by 14 editors, including 8 who also supported the first remedy.

I was just wondering how you interpreted these remedies and their support, since it seems relevant to whether the community restrictions should be revisited should the ArbCom case be rejected. Thanks! ChazBeckett 00:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

We'll find out that of which ArbCom is made -or "We'll find out what they're made of."--GordonWatts 03:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Gordon

I appreciate that you're trying to help Gordon, because I've personally been quite shocked at some of the attempts to belittle him, but he really is making it very difficult for everyone who wants to help him. I'm sure if he had stayed out of the discussion at the community noticeboard, or had just posted a few brief, calm replies, without telling people to "chill out", arguing with them, trying to pick holes in their arguments, and then accusing them of lying, there would not have been an outcome that bans him from Schiavo articles, since all the "Gordy-boy" and "not-very-bright troll" insults would have been more visible to the community if he hadn't filled up the noticeboard with thousands of words of attempted rebuttals. I think it's also possible that the Committee might have accepted the case (though there was no reason why they would have to) if he hadn't made the evidence of other people's bad behaviour get lost in a in a forest of lengthy posts which showed no signs of wanting not to annoy people, and which showed what would be in store for them if they did accept the case! I see that you have tried to defend him. Is there any way that you could try to get him to see that his lengthy arguments are making it more not less likely that he'll be banned? I really don't think he's acting with malice, but he's making his defenders look rather foolish. ElinorD (talk) 13:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I will try to talk less -and delete MORE of my posts (one of the clerks has asked me to reduce my replies in size, and I shall do so -and replace them with links). HOWEVER, with all due respect, I DID remain silent for approximately 2 days during the community discussion at one point, and it only allowed lies to be posted about me. People who don't know me, don't know anything about me, never met me, etc. said a lot of things that were out-and-out false lies -and they probably did so because they liked to repeat rumours. Yes, being silent MIGHT have helped, but I had tried that for a period of about two (2) days (rough approximation, I don't remember exactly) -and it DIDN'T help, so I've been there and done that -and it did not work. Nonetheless, I WILL tentatively reduce (delete) much of my post replies in the RfArbCom -as you imply would be good.--GordonWatts 02:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ann. Calton is very upset by some of your remarks at WP:AN/I. Please take care in the future to describe other editors' actions – providing context where appropriate – without attributing specific motives to those actions. It's best to avoid any comments that can be interpreted as mindreading. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

(Cross-posted from User talk:TenOfAllTrades) Hi, TenOfAllTrades. Thanks for your note. I confess to being somewhat puzzled by your request to describe actions (with context) but not ascribe motives, or to "make comments that can be interpreted as mindreading". I presume you are referring to this post, which is the only one I made, though I also posted on the ArbCom page, at the Community noticeboard, and at Gordon's page — all about the same matter. I described what happened — that Calton abused him, sneered at him, reverted him with popups (which should be kept for vandalism reverts, called him Gordy boy, accused him falsely of lying. I made absolutely no implication about Calton's motives. Nor would I wish to do so. I don't know why he treats Gordon that way. I simply know that he does, and I find it very objectionable. Calton has said, in the post above this one, that my charges are "ridiculous", "bad-faith", "wildly out-of-proportion", and "occasionally outright false". Let's have a look at some of these charges, one by one, and see if any of them can justly be called "ridiculous", "bad-faith", "wildly out-of-proportion", or "outright false".

1. I said that Calton called him Gordy boy.[6]
2. I said that Calton falsely accused him of "sneaking in" something, and of lying. [7] [8] [9] (They're diffs to show that he made the accusation. I'll provide diffs to show it was false below.)
3. I said that Calton put "revert not-very-bright troll" in an edit summary.[10]
4. I said that Calton reverted Gordon with popups.[11] [12]
5. I said that Calton abused and belittled him, and shouted at him )(with capitals).[13] [14] [15]
6. I said that Calton posted a link to a blog that ridiculed Gordon.[16]
7. I say now that Calton gloated when Gordon was blocked.[17] [18]

Okay, I think I've shown that Calton did call him Gordy-boy, did call him a "not-very-bright troll", did shout at him, abuse him, and belittle him, and did accuse Gordon of trying to sneak in a link and of lying. What I have not shown is that his accusation of Gordon trying to sneak in a link and of lying was false. So, let's have a look.

Let's imagine that User:A wants the Pope Benedict article to have a link arguing that the pope was a Nazi, and User:B wants the article not to have such a link. If the link is not in the article, and someone makes several changes, one of which is to remove the link, and User:A reverts all of those changes, right back to your last version, explaining in the edit summary that he is reverting to your last version, in that case, User:A's edit will involve restoring the link. His edit will show in the diff as being identical to yours. It will not be an attempt to sneak in the link, but one of the results of the edit will be that the link is there again.

However, if the link is not in the article, and another user makes several changes, and User:A opens your last version from the history, opens the edit box, inserts the link, writes in the edit summary that he is reverting to your last version, and presses save, the diff will show that his version is identical to yours, except that it has the link in it. In that case, it will be an attempt to "sneak it in", and it will be a lie to deny it. Is that what happened here?

The link was added to the article on 3 January, by Zenger, not by Gordon.[19] It is not a link to Gordon's site, but is to a site that he approves of. (Gordon did revert the person who reverted Zenger.[20])

On 28 January, User:71.141.252.50 made a lot of edits, including one which inserted a link to the North Country Gazette.[21] (Keep in mind that it's not Gordon's site, though it's one he likes, and that Calton doesn't. I have to agree with Calton on that.) On 29 January, Superm401 reverted to last version by Nut-meg.[22] Then Gordon reverted , saying that he was reverting to the last version from 71.141.252.50.[23] If Calton is correct in saying that Gordon was "sneaking in" the link (his "umpteenth attempt" to sneak it it),[24] then the diff will show that Gordon's version is idential to the anons except that it has the link in it. So, here is the diff. You can see for yourself. Gordon said he was reverting to the 71.141.252.50 version. And he was. The versions are identical.

Now, Calton says in his post above that I have called him a liar. I have never called him that. Nor have I even accused him of lying. I have said, and I say again, that he made a false accusation against Gordon. I do not speculate as to his motives. He accused Gordon of attempting to sneak in the link, and of dishonesty, and told him not to lie.[25] [26] [27] If you look at those diffs, I'm sure you'll agree that he did say all those things to Gordon. I hope that if you look at my arguments above, you will agree that reverting to another user's version, which happens to have a link you approve of, while stating in the edit summary that you are reverting to that version is not sneaking or dishonest, and that in that case, Calton's accusations against Gordon were false. (Of course, it's more than possible that Gordon was quite happy to be restoring to a version that had that link, but that does not justify the accusations that Calton made.)

If you can show me that Gordon did lie, and that Calton was justified in accusing him of "dishonesty" or "sneaking", or that any of the things I said that Calton did to Gordon (reverting him with popups, calling him Gordy boy, calling him a not-very-bright troll, shouting at him), he did not, in fact, do, then of course, I'll withdraw it. I repeat that I am not aware of having stated any opinion as to his motives, and I do not intend to do so. If you think I have done so, then please feel free to show me where.

As I sincerely believe that Gordon's behaviour is in part due to his being upset by Calton's behaviour towards him, and as I believe that Calton made false accusations, and as I believe that a judgment from the community which does not take these things into account would be unjust, I think it would be irresponsible for me to refrain from stating these matters clearly, on the grounds that Calton would be "very upset". I don't know if he's upset or not. It's obvious he's angry, but he has a record of being angry when people question his right to abuse problem editors. I can supply further details, if you wish. I do not believe that anything I said was unfair, and I don't believe that I have been aggressive about it. Certainly, I feel very calm :-), even though Calton has accused me on your page of "bad-faith" "attacks",[28] and has questioned my motives for trying to partially defend Gordon.[29] I'm open to suggestions as to how I could have worded my post more carefully. But I cannot accept that it would be right not to point out how badly Calton has behaved in this matter, just because it might upset him. One might just as easily say that Gordon's behaviour should not be discussed because it might upset him. Both editors have behaved badly, and it would be utterly inappropriate for the community discuss Gordon without mentioning the abuse that he has received. I believe that I am one of at least five administrators who have criticized Calton's behaviour to Gordon. For the record, the other four are yourself, Proto, Marskell, and Sarah Ewart. Anyway, although I disagree with you, I appreciate that you're trying to calm things down, and also to be fair to Gordon. Cheers. Musical Linguist 19:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, you may be thinking "Oh no, I post a brief paragraph to Ann, and I get back a dissertation! This reminds me of Gordon!" Don't think of all this as a response to you. I think that sooner or later, this matter will have to be investigated more fully, and therefore, I've spent some time sourcing my statements and finding links, etc. So I'm sorry to inflict it all on you! The noticeboard has been archived. And I won't be around much in the next few days. I just want it all down somewhere, for the record. Musical Linguist 19:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the only bit that might qualify as ascribing motives would be the bit where you state "As could be predicted, Gordon overreacted and behaved very badly, so now Calton is vindicated, and can continue to assert that he doesn't need to treat such editors with respect, because when they get banned, they prove that he's right about them." While Calton has a history of treating troubled editors rudely (link) and his response to a query about the appropriateness of his gloating ([30]) appeared to show a lack of respect, as far as I know he hasn't actually explicitly stated that he has employed the line of reasoning you described. I'd prefer to see everyone take the high road, here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If I can chime in, I'm another admin who has criticized Calton's behavior toward Gordon (if only as part of an RfC criticizing his behavior toward people he disagrees with in general). I've also been at the receiving end of a few of Gordon's angry rants, so I don't have a particular fondness for either of them. My take on this situation is that Gordon has an extremely short fuse and would have managed to be disruptive no matter who he interacted with, but Calton certainly didn't help anything by lighting that fuse. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Oath versus Vow

I noticed your old comments at Talk:Vow opposing a merge here; I put the tag back thinking this was a no-brainer; the first sentence says "a vow is... an oath". Can to come back and elucidate? -- Kendrick7^talk 17:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Lazarus and Dives

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lazarus_and_Dives#Request_for_Comment:_Jesus_Seminar

Ann, as someone who worked on the Lazarus and Dives article, you might like to see the mess that has broken out on its talk page about how relevant a link to Jesus Seminar is. Geogre 21:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Gordon...

I read your latest at Gordon's talk. Very very very well spoken. If that does not get through to him, nothing will. Best of luck. I'll be happy to support reducing to a month or even a week if there is some sign of significant behavioural improvement. ++Lar: t/c 21:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 01:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}

Amorrow

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stacy_Schiff&diff=106203767&oldid=106195413

As far as I can tell, there's nothing in the content of the edit itself to suggest it's Amorrow. Assigning undue weight to self-references is a mistake that many users make. So if someone's going to be presumed to be a banned user based on their IP alone, why not just indefblock the range? Or is there something going on I don't know about? --Random832 22:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Requesting your input

The other day, I reverted an edit on Vaccine controversy, an article which is on my watchlist, but not an article I contribute to frequently. I thought it was pretty clear-cut, as the edit had been reverted twice before (not by me), but the user who'd made the edit, User:80.4.39.7, asked that I explain my reversion repeatedly. I was busy tying up the loose ends on an article overhaul I'd started earlier at the time.

I replied to 80.4.39.7, but, then, User:Ferrylodge turned up on the anon's talk page, although my dispute with 80.4.39.7 had nothing to do with Ferrylodge, nor did Ferrylodge have a history of editing the article Vaccine controversy. This is what I meant by "gate-crashing." I'm having a hard time accepting that Ferrylodge isn't trying to be confrontational, by showing up somewhere and trying to escalate a situation that doesn't involve him, but does involve me. Content disputes, I can deal with, but this, to me, has gone too far. I've tried to resolve content disputes to the best of my ability, but now I feel at my wit's end, because it's taken a distinct turn for the personal. I would greatly appreciate whatever advice you could lend or insight you could bring to the situation if you've got the time. I know this is asking a lot, so thanks in advance. -Severa (!!!) 04:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Also requesting input

Please see this discussion. Thx.Ferrylodge 05:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The requested favour

But... but... <yikes>. I don't have the tact for such a job! <help> Well, OK, sure, I've watchlisted the page, but you may end up sorry you asked! <weeps> As a precaution, if I feel, uh, a great wave of, hmm, impatience <why me> engulfing me I'll just hand over to the gentler twin, OK? <kill me now> Btw, you were so great on ANI! (The Worldtraveller thing.) Bishonen | talk 15:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Acts of kindness

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		You are continually civil, kind and helpful to many editors. Please know this is noticed and truly appreciated. You help make Wikipedia a better place to be. Vassyana 10:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well wishes

I see you haven't been around much and I just wanted to say *hug* I hope you are well. Vassyana 11:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I second that. Things just aren't the same around here without either you or KillerChihuahua. I hope that you are well, or, if not, that you are well again soon. :-) -Severa (!!!) 03:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Loved your User Page

Hi, I am a new Wiki editor and was wondering if you don't mind my using your User Page template? And if it's okay, how can I get rid of the Admin Notes icon? Thanks:) Zondi

Institute for Optimum Nutrition

Hi, Ann. You mentioned Patrick Holford to me a while ago, and I put it on my watchlist. The article has recently been edited by User:Patrick James Holford. I have no idea if it's the same person, or even if his middle name is James, but he's certainly claiming in edit summaries to be the same person. In this edit, he changed the name of "Institute of Optimum Nutrition" to "Institute for Optimum Nutrition". Since it was wiki-linked, it made the link turn red, as there was no article with the title that he had changed it to. I looked at the article under the old title, and it gave an external link to the website. From that, I saw that the institute is indeed called Institute FOR Optimum Nutrition, so I've moved the article. I'm letting you know, because I see that you started the article. I don't know very much about it, so I don't know if it did have "of" in the title and then change its name, or if you just made a mistake. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 16:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

TU + HE

Ann, I don't agree with someone utilizing a sockpuppet and commenting on a case for community banning and thus avoiding scrutiny of other editors of his biases. You're welcome to adjust my commentary if you would like though I would prefer if you didn't. TU's behavior angers me. If he's going to be gunning for blood then he should damn well put his name to such commentary that correlates with that. As you may recall TU defended FairNBalanced's display of the hateful Allah-pig image that FnB uploaded and displayed prominently. He should own up to having done that instead of relying upon the right to vanish to hide while remaining involved through the usage of sockpuppets to cyber-lynch someone. (→Netscott) 02:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Ann, I still don't agree with the usage of sockpuppetry to make commentary on a case where an editor is looking at being indefinitely banned. Here is the original FairNBalanced thread where TU defended FnB's hateful display with strawman arguments, etc. The right to vanish is accorded to those who've left the project. Obviously TU hasn't left the project. If he uses sockpuppets again to reinvolve himself in this nonsense and does not abide to his agreement he made with me to rely upon admins as necessary then I will make efforts to see that all of his sockpuppets are properly tagged as such and that they are indefinitely blocked with the tags prominently displaying. Policy does not allow for such puppetry. True those who are familiar with who he is are going to recognize him but other editors aren't and his biases are effectively hidden and thereby not up for scrutiny (which is very wrong). Please forgive my harsh tone but just thinking about the whole FnB case tends to rile me up. Thanks. (→Netscott) 02:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ann, if this individual is going to make single purpose accounts to attack me (User:Nedlington9) then how am I not in my rights to identify this person? (→Netscott) 19:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Tom Harrison is suggesting I ask for a checkuser. I would rather do that than go through ArbCom. How do you suggest I pursue this through checkuser. I honestly don't see where the "Right to vanish" applies if this user is going to continue in his old patterns (as I believe he is)... it is just logical that their persona is going to be evident and the individual will be self-exposing. If I am being attacked I think I have the right to know who's attacking me. (→Netscott) 14:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)