Archives

"won" "too" three "fore" "fie've" "sicks" "'S 'eaven!" "ate" "Nein!" "'TEN...shun!" "eel 'eaven"

I know you said you were tired of dealing with him... but now he is making threats of retaliation against me on his talk page see this dif. He seems to think it was my fault that you blocked him. I am not going to respond to him. All I want is to back out of this mess. Please help. Blueboar 02:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh...I agree with Bluebore. This small issue has once again been blown out of proportion by Cyborg Ninja and the success she has achieved by being th messenger between Bluebore and PalanceGuard and the support, as they saw it, by your taking sides. If they will just stop talking about it I am more than happy to do so. It is a petty issue. I long ago conceded their copy/paste tactics worked despite policy. I is clear there is nothing I can do. I do not expect fairness. Lets drop it. I have been given a long list of anti-wikipedia links, and I think I will take my energies there. I have head those links are much more rewarding that these small minded preoccupations incouraged by admins who love wielding power. --Mattisse 03:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please ask him to just drop it. No one else beside you, Cyborg Ninja, Blueboar and PalacGuard008 is interested.

I have asked you to clarify exactly what I did wrong, as PlalaceGuard008 and Blueboar are prolonging this and continuing it. Since I do not know what I did wrong I would appreciate an explanation. When Cyborg Ninja gets back in the ring (it is she who filled the mediation) then it is likely to escalate further. Please explain specifically what I did wrong (not diffs of long paragraphs where I cannot tell if you are saying if anything I said was O.K. in your eyes or only certain portions. I need specifics. If a do not understand, then a real mess has been created, the outcome of your actions is waiting in the wings. Surely you will get involved in the mediation as you are a major factor now, due to your taking sides. Perhaps there you will provide the specifics, as the links you have given so far will not be considered helpful.

I will also explain that I spent one year on Wikipedia as a "nice" person always being polite and doing the right thing. That netted me pobably 15 t0 20 ANI complaints, got me labeled as a proven sock puppet (rediculous) and had me banned several times. This year, after the sock puppet ring after me returned and I realized that I would not get any help, I decided on the nasty approach. Unfortunately, the nasty approach works better. This is my first ban this year, and I do not think it is well substantiated. You still have not pointed out specific examples. Giving diffs to very long paragraphs is not helpful. Are you meaning every word I wrote in those long paragraphs were uncivil. Perhaps if I knew what you meant I would be in a better situation regarding understanding this. Now, I have no idea what you are talking about, as so much uncivil and personal attacks have been directed a me that do not count in you eyes. How can I tell the difference?

Please do clarify or I will never understand. Mattisse 03:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)}}[reply]

Hi. You might recall the business between myself and G2bambino, back in August, and my consequent making of a user sub-page as a means of dealing with talk-page harassment. That sub-page has just been nominated for deletion. Whereas you were a witness to its making, and to the circumstances of and reasons for that making, I hope that you will comment at the deletion discussion. You seemed, at the time, to understand the page's worth and usefulness. If so, and if that remains your opinion, I hope you will support its keeping. So far, it seems to have discouraged further spiteful posts on my talk-page, and I wish that to carry on, as the least troublesome ways of handling such nuisances. Thanks.
-- Lonewolf BC 20:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'm discussing the case in here. I'll remove his msg on Jimbo's talk after he get blocked. Thanks --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 15:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't remove the msg, whether my account is blocked or not. If you want to remove the msg on Jimbo's talk, discuss with User :LessHeard vanU as a separate issue.Kelbaster 15:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal should usually be done by an uninvolved party, per discussion elsewhere or not. As an involved party you should only act to refute the accusation and draw attention to any relevant discussion - unless you gain consensus at sockpuppet discussion for removal. Cheers. LessHeard vanU 15:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to become involved in issues over Mattisse whenever she notifies you, though I and you yourself have noted that because of your previous involvement over the drapetomania article, you may have a conflict of interest. As for the supposed "personal attack," Mattisse was talking about herself and I commented on how I didn't know they let "old ladies" on oil rigs. Mattisse referred to herself as a grandmother in the past. Calling someone "old" and a "lady" is inoffensive. If I called someone a "hag" or "on their death bed," then you would have a point. But unfortunately, nothing occurred here except your inability to properly manage your job at Wikipedia. Your ignorance of my attempts at mediating the arguments over the Caisson (Asian architecture) article and past attempts in helping Mattisse over drapetomania and psychiatry is disappointing. I would hope that someone of your position would accumulate a background of knowledge before taking such drastic attempts of warning and blocking other members. Also, your arbitrary decisions while ignoring evidence of the other party's violations is repulsive for me to see on a site such as Wikipedia. I hope that a formal review of your conduct will be undertaken, and in the meantime I will assemble evidence of improper conduct on both your part and Mattisse's on behalf of the populous of Wikipedians. - Cyborg Ninja 23:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. You do what you think is right. LessHeard vanU 23:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my SSP backlog note at AN, the brand new admin's response and my retort there and on his talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think your actions and comments are sufficient, nothing more needs doing for now. Cheers. LessHeard vanU 12:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there's a mediation request pending at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Caisson (Asian architecture) concerning Caisson (Asian architecture), following the collapse of informal mediation after Mattisse stormed out. I have notified Mattisse on his talk page, but the notice seems to have been removed in one of the big deletions in recent days.

I wonder if you could remind Mattisse of the mediation request? I'm afraid she may not have noticed it when it got deleted, and I don't want to post again on her talk page, lest it provokes a reaction like the last time I posted. Thanks in advance, --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Thank you for voicing your opinion in my RfA, which passed with 54 supports, 2 opposes and 3 neutrals. Thanks for your support, I really appreciate it. I hope to exceed expectations, If you have any advice please feel free to let me know. Thanks again!. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤

God bless Pal. Vera, Chuck & Dave 23:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 04:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 3 November you temporarily blocked User Talk:216.79.155.1 from editing, due to repeated removals of material. It now appears that he/she is at it again, only three days later. A large portion of the Controversy section of False Memory Syndrome Foundation was removed by 216.79.155.1, with no explanation. I left yet another warning on his/her Talk page, but I am skeptical that it will be read by the individual in question. No response necessary — please just do whatever you think appropriate. Cheers! —Aetheling 22:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will take to WP:SSP, thank you. Bmg916^Speak 00:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether Wikipedia values supercentenarians or no, you can find them here:

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/

Are you a member yet?Ryoung122 20:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whippersnapper! ;~) LessHeard vanU 21:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deal? I've switched it on! I'll make an effort to make edit summaries from now on :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 01:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done! ;~) LessHeard vanU 01:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a look at User:Hereinindy to see if that user is a sockpuppet? All the edits by that user are recent and vandalism. What's interesting, however, is that the edits were done with an obvious knowledge of WP. He/she uses templates, uses WP terminology (i.e., dab), includes misleading edit summaries, etc. The editor is almost certainly an experienced WP editor but the short edit history indicates the user was created for the purposes of vandalism.

If you are not available or not the right person, can you point me somewhere? John Cardinal 05:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun a thread on Haizum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) at WP:ANI#Haizum_-_request_for_further_admin_action, whom you blocked today. • Lawrence Cohen 18:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I considered not spamming talk pages but not saying "thanks" just isn't me. The support was remarkable and appreciated. I only hope that I am able to help a little on here. Please let me know if I can help you or equally if you find any of my actions questionable. Thanks & regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just reset his block due to socks. Just to let you know. Kwsn (Ni!) 15:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For your ability to think against the flow, which led the Privatemusings case to an amicable solution. — Sebastian 19:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...it was who altered my sig so my talkpage is appended. I had been meaning to do it since forever. -- LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fellow keeps re-creating that page. I CSD'd it and you deleted it and he's done it again. Scarian^Talk 13:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no worries. Thank you for the delete(s). Have a nice day! Scarian^Talk 13:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, of course. Thank you for your time :-) Scarian^Talk 13:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Four years ago this day, a foreigner was voted by the community to serve a land that he loved. Today, a new foreigner humbly accepts the charge and support of serving a community that he loves. Hopefully, he won't disappoint. Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a vote of (47/0/1). The trust bestowed upon me by the community is one of the most touching honours that I have ever received, and I vow not to let you down. Whether you have suggestions for ways in which I could improve, a request for assistance or just need someone to listen, my talk page and my email are always open. I pledge to do what I can to help this project, in the words of a man who needs no introduction, "make the internet not suck." A special thank you goes out to Tim Vickers for nominating me. Cheers, CP 22:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; thanks for your support to my RfA, which closed successfully at (51/1/2). I'll keep this brief since I don't like spamming anyone: I'll work hard to deserve the trust you placed in me. Thanks again. — Coren ^(talk) 23:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you around? Scarian^Talk 00:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, sorry! Ha, I have difficulty with patience so I got "Chase me ladies I'm the cavalry" to do the job for me. Although you can keep an eye on it? [1] Scarian^Talk 01:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, if you could keep an eye on it? I've warned both chaps, navlos slightly more harshly, as he's acting defensivley, but it's nothing that tea can't fix. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Less, I am more than a little disappointed that you chose to issue me a warning, rather than attempting to discuss the disagreement first. The warning is a statement that you believe you are right and I am wrong. That's no way to begin a discussion. Considering that I had reviewed the 530 contributions of Academy Leader, and you had not looked at the matter yet, you might not have had as clear a picture as I did. Please look at the wording of good hand, bad hand accounts and you will see that the behavior of Academy Leader qualified as a bad hand sock puppet. He has another account in good standing that he is free to use. I hope this disagreement between us can be resolved informally. I have appreciated your perspectives in the past, and felt like this warning was hasty and uncharacteristic. If you refactor your remarks, I will be pleased to adjust mine accordingly. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dainsyng.gif You are always welcome at my talk page. I am sorry we had a bit of misunderstanding today. - Jehochman ^Talk 06:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LessHead vau! You should explain to Jehochaman that you are treating him specially that you even issued a warning to you!!!! You blocked me without warning quite a few hours after I had moved on from my conflict with another editor, and I lost a whole intricate article with many footnotes I had been writing in the meantime because when I tried to save it I learned, without any warning, that I was blocked. Perhaps you are an editor who does little article writing. Jehochaman appears to be one of the privileged ones as far as you is concerned! (You should take a look a MONOGO for a little reality check of what is blockable --- I have as many "contributions" as MONGO but I am not even eligible for the common decency Jehochman expects, never mind the extra special treatment MONGO gets.) Oh, well. It is good to be the king. Mattisse 17:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be LessHeard vanU - n, capital U - and MONGO - only two "O"'s -. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry. Thanks for the complete explanation. Your helpful spelling correction clears up everything. I will ask another to find out from you. Mattisse 00:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were behaving quite disgracefully with User:Blueboar, to the point that he was feeling harassed, who had previously had offered to mediate in good faith. My block was preventative, in that you ceased interacting with that editor. I would refer you to my archive five, last item, for the diffs regarding the specific comments. I would, in the meantime, request that we both remove our last comments from Captain panda's RfA since it is unfair to use that as a venue. Please note that I am aware of your raising concerns, albeit obliquely, regarding my actions at various venues (as, ironically, has User:Cyborg Ninja) but have chosen to WP:IGNORE them so as not to escalate the situation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would use a -y, but I daresay there are huge arguments amongst Cornish-language revivalists about this! I appear to be back again! DuncanHill (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you've blocked then unblocked beh-nam recently, he is vandalising pages so why are you not doing anything to stop him? I request that he be blocked indef due to his disruptive behaviour who is and has been vandalising pages after pages of national leaders by falesly inserting that they were child molestor, slave owner, facists, etc.[2], [3] He's been vandalising Pashtun people and many other articles for a very long time.[4], [5], [6]

He keeps removing the official government website from Afghanistan/Hamid Karzai article [7] and usually placing over it anti-Afghanistan blog sites, this after an administrator (Future Perfect at Sunrise) has warned not to mess with again. [8], [9] If anyone adds images of popular Pashtun leaders in the Pashtun article he will revert the page right away, probably that he does not want Pashtuns to appear good in the eyes of others. He is ethnic Tajik, a Persian nationalist, and anti-Pashtun or Afghan as well as anti-Turk.[10] He has an unusual extended block history which includes 2 indefs for which he was allowed back on condition to stop harrassing or personally attacking another ethnic group.[11]

Same as all other vandals, he will never change and will continue with vandalising pages by writing all sorts of untrue things about leaders who are not from his ethnic group. He reverts everyone who fixes his vandalism without explaining anything.[12] Beh-nam is working closely with a banned User:Tajik (who is hiding under anon IPs that start with 82.xx.xxx.xxx which is confirmed by several admins including User:Dmcdevit‎ [13]) [14], [15], [16], and has User:Anoshirawan as his edit-war partner. He and his edit-war partner are going around changing the correct name Afghan (which is backed by the Constitution of Afghanistan, CIA world factbook, as well as all the government and media sites of the world) to a false afghanistani name simply because they like it. There is nothing that can be said to justify his actions, even if it comes from an administrator who knows him. Please ban this user indef so that the rest of us can have peace and finally fix all their vandalism slowly.--Hurooz (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't make a habit of keeping tags on editors I have sanctioned. As I recall I indef blocked per a report at AIV, but the block was reduced per a discussion on ANI which involved people more knowledgable than I - and I agreed to let them decide. That is all that I can remember. I don't have an answer for you since I do not know the details about the dispute. I regret that there are still divisions along ethnic, national, and political lines but I am not prepared to attempt to make choices between editors expounding different views. If there is an instance of obvious vandalism then I can act, but I leave it to others with more experience to decide upon the difficult areas. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not offended or complaining. I'm scratching my head. :) How does typing slower help? Mercury 22:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is an old joke, around the formula of "A (insert choice of ethnicity/culture/class here) Loving Mothers Letter to Her Favourite Son". In it she says that she is writing slowly since she knows he cannot read quickly... Other lines are, "This week it has only rained twice; once for 3 days and once for 4 days", "I was going to send you some money, but I have already sealed the envelope" and "Father has now installed the new washing machine; I put some clothes in, pulled the chain and we haven't seen anything of them since".

In retrospect it wasn't the most helpful comment/edit summary ever made, and I apologise for making it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its fine, I did not make to correlation, it flew right over my head. :P Mercury 23:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments in my RfA and on my talk page regarding it. I agree that I will have to work on my mainspace contributions in order to have a successful RfA in the future. Hopefully, I will do that and have a successful RfA next time. :) Captain panda 21:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you did right thing. Neither my User:Neo. deserve to comment nor obvious sockpuppet User:Smilehalt deserve to comment there. Thanks. 195.189.142.200 (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first comment was obvious (and I really hate both the word and concept, but it is apt) trolling and your response regarding WAS.520 - close enough? - disregarded the fact that he and Jimbo are already in discussion regarding related matters. That you are a self admitted sock did not help... Anyhow, it was only removed from the page and not the history. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for fixing the type-o. glad to see my articles being noticed by admin, i know its not much of an article, but im new to this. any pointers would be greatly appreciated File:FireFlames.jpgYes, I really am a Sith Lord ^(Comms) 00:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly they are not intrinsically or even usually notable, but they're not one of the things that can be removed on speedy as nn, according to WP:CSD A7; --many are copyvios, but if not, prod usually works DGG (talk) 02:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I did check for copyvio, and it was okay(ish). I will PROD next time. LessHeard vanU 09:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning. Regarding your recent comments on the candidate votes page for Giano; unfortunately, the comments are too long and should be made at the voting talk page. The maximum length of comments on the voting page itself should be two short sentences. This determination was reached on prior consensus on the ArbCom Elections talk page. For your convenience, I have moved them appropriately, and have included a link from the vote page to the comment on the talk page - but feel free to edit my move to your preference. However, extended comments, like the ones you provided, are best placed on the talk page. I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. Thank you. - ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ta. I have reinstated one sentence from the moved text. LessHeard vanU 13:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me - I would have, but didn't want to assume which sentence you'd choose. Thanks. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was the one who instituted the block, not him. I have replied to your comment at AN/I. Guettarda (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Maybe I should read things a little more carefully :) Guettarda (talk) 22:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you are a member of the Penwith Wikiproject. A proposal has been made to merge it with the Cornwall Wikiproject. You can join in the debate here. Best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 12:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you deleted a stub i created on a band, Victory at Sea, due to lack of asserted notability; i'm just curious what would qualify for notability? they released five albums and played for ten years, have 80,000+ 'scrobbles' on last.fm, an article at allmusic.com (which i had linked in the stub), and played many respectable venues, though none of that information really seems appropriate for an article.

i also have a separate, unrelated question/suggestion: instead of simply disabling vandal's ip addresses from making changes temporarily, could we make it so that they themselves continue thinking theyre making changes, but the changes are only visible to them? it might require too much overhead or something, i dont know. i was just thinking, it seems like a vandal who thinks he/she is still making edits might be less persistent in their vandalism than someone who is periodically banned and then returns either when the ban is lifted or when they get to another ip address.

i know there is probably a better place to post such a suggestion, but im not involved enough really to know where, and i figure since youre an admin, i might as well mention it to you. anyway, i would prefer you respond at my talk page please, and i appreciate your time with either question. --Quietly (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the speedy response! my article almost certainly didnt qualify for notability, and theyre not such a huge band that finding reliable independent sources is easy, so ill look around, and if i can meet the criteria, ill recreate the article.

also, with the suggestion, what im trying to express is, right now, when someone repeatedly vandalizes articles, (whether as an anonymous ip or registered user), you, as an admin, might disable their editing abilities for some time, right? what if instead, for the same period of time, a bot followed around their edits and undid them minutes afterward? or i guess maybe youre saying that would discourage any faithful editing that someone might try to perform during that time as well... which i can agree with. anyway, thanks for the pointers.--Quietly (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

okay, i figured out that their last two albums were released on Gern Blandsten Records, which qualifies for notability. so is it possible to undelete the stub? it was at Victory at Sea (band) and shows up in the deletion log. if not, i can just re-start it. thanks again for your help. --Quietly (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i.e. [[Image:x]] versus [[:Image:x]]. Of course, there's all new body part humor in the colon as well.... -- Kendrick7^talk 18:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who I should bring this to (I just posted to WP:AN/I] but you seem to be familiar with this editor. She (I just realised) started a rampage of disruptive editing on the Psychopathy article earlier today...at first it looked as if she was a bit POV, but as she has gone on it seems as though she is actually making up many of her claims as she goes along (though they look convincing at first). The best way I can put it is that she seems to be reinventing both the article's topic and WP protocol as she goes along VERY insistently. I know the subject middling well and a lot of the claims she make (with apparent authority) verge on the ridiculous. She is removing or inlining valid citations...it's all really WEIRD...--Zeraeph (talk) 18:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice, unfortunately I don't HAVE a whole lot of time right now. I'll probably just have to leave her to it and recover the damage later. It'll be easier to make sure I explain it all properly on the talk page as a "block" rather than piecemeal, and less time consuming for me. It's also never a BAD idea to overhaul a stable article every once in a while. I have listed for "Third Opinion", and there are a couple of other pretty determined and knowledgeable editors who check in from time to time. --Zeraeph (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To give more information, she has actually tagged citations for citation at one point [17] and also commented them out [18] on the grounds that they do not refer to Psychopathy, when one of them refers to it even in the title and here, with the addition of uncited commentary [19]. She adds uncited commentary such as [20] . Adds a POV tag on grounds of "inaccurate references continue to be restored - the article mixes up UK and US practices & does not distinguish between research findings & clinincal practices" which has noting whatever to do with POV EVEN if it were true, which it doesn't seem to be. There is loads more. I am beginning to realise I made a BIG mistake reverting her at all, because if I hadn't. the pattern of her edits all together would have been bizarre. Here is an example of her rationales on the talk page [21] "not used in court rooms to diagnose real people" that's totally odd. So is this [22]

I feel like Alice down the rabbit hole. --Zeraeph (talk) 21:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you continue to seek a third opinion, or for help from some of the other contributors to the article. Has Mattisse previously edited this article? If so, had there been previous discussions about the validity of some of the references? Has there ever been discussions about the sources validity by anyone? If she hasn't previously edited the article then she does need to indicate why she believes consensus is wrong - even though having a fresh editor look at an article is often a benefit it is up to them to prove their viewpoint. It would help if you could get some previous article contributors to look over the exchanges, and see what their reactions are. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was her only previous edit om talk (VERY POV, and not in line with available information) [23] which was answered here [24] (not by me). There has never been a dispute about any of the citations. Many were dredged up to establish points others disputed. I originally AGF about the Washington State legislature and just went looking for an alternate without checking it, only to find that it most certainly DID contain the reference, so I restored it, specifying why and she "fact" tagged it AGAIN, to me that is failure to AGF at best and potentially just disruptive. The references she commented out supported the statements they were supposed to support. She only had to check them. But she claimed the links were "503", they were not. --Zeraeph (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... Firstly, not the model answer... I note from the talkpage header that there is a related project; have you asked there for some assesment of the discussion/edits?

I had forgotten that Mattisse claims to have qualifications in the field - I will not suggest conflict of interest, but I understand (from only the popular press, I admit) that there are several schools of thought regarding psychopathy. Perhaps she follows a type of thinking not reflected in the article? If she can supply sources for her contentions then it should be included, but I still feel that cited content should not be removed until she can convince others that it is wrong; Saying so aint enough. You really do need to get some counter-counter arguments lined up, and some other voices. Last of all, it doesn't matter if it takes a few days to sort out - it is better to go slowly and surely than to get into revert wars. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only see WP:COI in the combination between her declared position on talk and her claim to work in the field. Certainly if she can find citations in accord with WP:MEDMOS to support her contentions they must be included, but her pattern has been to insert uncited commentary that reflects on and often distorts existing text. In one instance she inserted a block of uncited speculation followed by a cited comment of no relevance alone [25]. She even wants to remove the disease infobox!--Zeraeph (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said previously, you need to get a few more voices involved in the discussion over content - and to make the case that consensus requires argued change. Until there is a body of opinion that concludes Mattisses changes are incorrect or are otherwise damaging the article then this is a simple content dispute (and between only two parties). Once there is agreement that the pre Mattisse version is the consensus version then any non-consensual changes by her can be reverted as vandalism (no 3RR limitations, and possible sanctions for abuse). Of course, if consensus changes then the sources need to be found and cited... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:[26], As soon as people construed that I explicitly and repeatedly made the appropriate clarification. The rumor persisted anyway despite my efforts to stop it. Durova^Charge! 23:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I concede that the impression was rebutted swiftly (even if not noted). My point remains that there are good faith reasons why someone may believe that all avenues have been explored and exhausted, and may therefore feel that bringing the matter to a wider public is necessary. Hopefully we are in a process of looking forward to possible scenarios rather than rehashing the recent past. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please take a look at the frivolous thread that Deeceevoice started on me, two threads above the Brendan one? It started out frivolous, as is indicated by the diffs I posted (DCV only pointed people to talk histories in her "complaint", no diffs). During the discussion, one of her supporters, Jeffpw chose to "out" me as a vanished user. It's there in the thread of the conversation, and has been for many hours. I'd appreciate a quick resolution of both the underlying "complaint" and the serious matter of Jeff revealing me as a vanished user. Mr Which??? 15:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dipped my toe into this one after what I thought was a less-than-stellar block of Brendan for "outing" a guy who had made no secret of his identity right up until the point that Brendan supposedly "outed" him. I familiarized myself with WP:OUTING, and it talks about the fact that the attempted "outing" doesn't even have to be true (per the recent comments about Brendan's complaint about Shot Into). Just bringing that to your attention. There may actually be a breach of policy in this case. Mr Which??? 15:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should take a quick peek at that policy. IMO, the violation of it by Shot Into was clearer than Brendan's, given that the person "outed" by Brendan had effectively "outed" himself through links on his userpage, which is explicitly covered in that policy. Mr Which??? 15:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A statement to that effect ("Brendan's block was less than stellar") needs to be made on the AN/I page, if only in the interest of fairness. Brendan (and those who defended him) took something of a beating for questioning this block. Mr Which??? 18:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This - please find a more genteel way of expressing the sentiment. My heart's with you, but we should be setting the example. Durova^Charge! 16:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Zero tolerance for racist agendas. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks is a policy, and not an optional one. Please reword that comment in a more civil fashion. Refraining from personal attacks is not tantamount to tolerating someone. 1 != 2 17:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• see Talk:Blair Peach. Any sanction against me in respect of my personal position regarding racists will be regarded as a badge of honour (and I hold no ill-will against anyone who exercises such sanctions, as I take the consequences of my actions). I don't abandon principles. Sorry. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I discovered long ago that I have more success combatting bigotry by politely showing people a side of things they might not have considered before. Anger breeds anger; vulgarity breeds vulgarity. Sometimes I stand up and draw the line. It carries more clout to do so in a dignified manner. Durova^Charge! 01:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally created a category page (Category:Category:Christmas number-one singles) while trying to edit the page without the double "Category:Category:" prefix. Can you delete it for me? If not, do I have to propose it for deletion as page/category created by mistake? Thanks for any help/advice you can offer... John Cardinal (talk) 15:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help! Regarding your comment about some situations you couldn't help with, I still felt I had a friend in the business! <g> — John Cardinal (talk) 21:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, accidentally used block3 instead of block1, fixed already :) BLACKKITE 16:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You "corrected" the word grey to gray on the site about Rose and Malone. This is standard British spelling and is acceptable - especially on a page about a UK subject. Thank you.Daisyabigael (talk) 01:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice and warning. I will do as you ask, but calling some one "biased" is not very inflamitory. I have been trying to communicate with "HelloAnnoying" but he seems to be a "know-it-all" as soon as I post within seconds (30-60 sec.) he deletes them (sometimes before I have time to edit). I have tried to talk to him on his page. However when I post an on topic factual information all referenced, I do not expect him to troll. Nor I do not expect a personal vendetta either. --Duchamps comb (talk) 02:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Duchamps_comb[reply]

FYI, I left a comment at WP:ANI#Requesting 2 range blocks about the range block being incorrect. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for unblocking Ceoil. We need him badly over the next day or two because he is doing the final adjustments before sending Las Meninas to FAC so that he can respond to reviews over the holidays. It would not have served Wikipedia's interests to have him banned from editing during the present 48 hours. qp10qp (talk) 14:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded! Johnbod (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just enacted the consensus, and was only one voice among many there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you were cool and reasoned in dealing with the situation yesterday, and I'd like to thank you for that. Have a good christmas...Ceoil (talk) 00:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But your own edit summary is much like mine. And what I can see of yours is really excellent work. Merry Christmas!SBHarris 01:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great success! Thank you for supporting my RfA, which passed with a final tally of 53-3-2. Special thanks goes to Shalom for both the suggestion and the nomination. I'm honored by the trust that the community has shown in me, and will do my very best as an administrator. Thanks again! faithless (speak) 08:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance you want to make this 1 week or even more? It seems like a SPA...--CastAStone/^/(talk) 15:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And maybe protect the talk page[27]?--CastAStone/^/(talk) 15:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher 00:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There have been some questions on Talk:Benazir Bhutto assassination as to why the article was semi-protected and if the semi-protection is really needed. -- tariqabjotu 15:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LessHeard, I've been contributing to this argument on the article talk page and on the admin noticeboard. Could you please unprotect the article and see how it goes for a while. Thanks. 86.31.35.135 (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for notifying me. I wasn't looking for any indefinite ban or anything of that sort, its just frustrating reverting and trying to communicate with a user that doesn't respond. I posted the similar report on ANI but a user requested i try SSP or AIV, either way, it looks like the user has stopped for now. If he continues to vandalize the page I'll just file a report at SSP. Thanks again. Happy holiday! -- LaNicoya  •Talk•  23:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For this. Durova^Charge! 01:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had to report User talk:Zeraeph to the 3_RRR today as within approximately two hours after her 28 day block was completed, she made 19 edits to Psychopathy, removing and rearranging my reference citations, refusing to discuss on the article talk page, removing my wording with edit summaries stating that I am wrong, incorrect information etc. and that she will get citations later. Is there another way of dealing with a person like this? She is making major use of material I wrote and distorting it to fit her goals. Her view is that this is her article and only edits she permits are allowed. Please advise. Regards, Mattisse 22:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But what should I do? Helpful comments have been left on her page many times. In fact, you among many, told her to discuss and get consensus. She is refusing to discuss at all. Does this mean I cannot edit the article because it is hers? Since the 28 block had no effect, and since that block was just one of many in the past, will I never be allowed to edit the article? I am too scared to edit the article myself, as are other editors. Everyone I contacted said the best advice was to never edit the same articles she does. It seems hopeless. Regards, Mattisse 22:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my 3-RRR request was denied because it was "malformed". I do not know what "malformed" is so I give up. There is no help here. I may try another admin - hope you don't think I am admin shopping, but this is so depressing and I feel so helpless. Mattisse 22:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer but it is in such a mess right now it is hardly worth it. I am not going to take the time and effort to bother with that article again. It was foolish of me. This is why I no longer do anything but write my own articles. Getting involved with this one was an exception and proves again why not to edit other articles. I had Barnstars galore (if you look on my userpage) for copy editing and got several articles to FA. But no longer is my goal to help Wikipedia as this sort of thing over Psychopathy is the inevitable result. I will stay away from Psychopathy, as I have been warned by other editors to do, and write my own articles.

Could you explain what "malformed" means? How do I submit one that is not malformed? Sincerely, Mattisse 23:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gave diffs for 19 edits in 2 hours directly after her 28 day block ended. If that is not enought, then nothing is. Mattisse 23:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changes made by your friend to Psychopathy today:

• first revert [28] 17.20 December 28
• second revert [29]-Revision as of 17:41, 28 December 2007
• third revert [30]- Revision as of 17:43, 28 December 2007
• fourth revert [31] -Revision as of 17:46, 28 December 2007
• fifth revert [32] - Revision as of 17:47, 28 December 2007
• sixth revert [33] -Revision as of 17:55, 28 December 2007
• seventh revert [34] - Revision as of 17:56, 28 December 2007
• eighth refert [35] - Revision as of 17:58, 28 December 2007
• ninth revert [36] - Revision as of 17:59, 28 December 2007

• 10th revert [37] - Revision as of 18:00, 28 December 2007
• 11th revert [38] - Revision as of 18:07, 28 December 2007
• 12th revert [39] - Revision as of 18:12, 28 December 2007
• 13th revert [40] - Revision as of 18:14, 28 December 2007
• 14 revert [41] - Revision as of 18:16, 28 December 2007
• 15 revert [42] -Revision as of 18:17, 28 December 2007
• 16th revert [43] - Revision as of 18:22, 28 December 2007
• 17th revert [44] - Revision as of 19:17, 28 December 2007
• 16th revert [45] - Revision as of 19:20, 28 December 2007
• 17th revert [46] - Revision as of 19:22, 28 December 2007
• 18th revert [47] - Revision as of 19:26, 28 December 2007
• 19th revert [48] - Current revision (19:43, 28 December 2007)

All this within hours of bein unblocked. Thanks! Mattisse 06:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just to let you know that I've left a note on Talk:Psychopathy asking that someone explain the dispute to me, and I'll keep an eye on things there. Thanks for letting me know about it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[49]

• (copied from Slim Virgins page)

-- User:Zeraeph question --

Since you seem to have developed some repertoire with User:Zeraeph, I was hoping you would help out now. Her 28 day block expired today, and she immediately made 19 contentious edits to Psychopathy, making edit summaries like, "this is wrong", "incorrect", etc. but refusing do discuss on the article talk page, as she says she is right and that is that. I reported her to 3-RRR but it was declined as "malformed". I do not know what that means. Do you have any advice as to how to handle this? Now she is taking information I put in the article and mistaking it, and she is moving citations around in a misleading way. Is it true, as everyone says, that none of her article's can be edited by anyone else? Regards, Mattisse 22:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---same subject ---

It is my understanding (possibly wrong) that you were involved in Zeraeph's unblocking. I have been contacted by Mattisse regarding this matter, and I have left comments with User:Mikkalai here and User:Zareaph here. I have suggested to Mattisse that the article may be protected until Mikkalai (or you?) can get the parties to agree some working conditions. Your advice will hopefully prove useful here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not 'involved', please. SV was the unblocking admin. Why the (possibly wrong)? Are we children. Ceoil (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And its just not Sandy, SlimVirgin; this user has also harrassed A Kiwi, TRCourage, Soulgany101, Mattisse, Penbat and Psychonaut. Were they consulted, or warned. Ceoil (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mikkalai has made it clear he is done with Z. [50] Mattisse 00:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Let's see what SV makes of it all. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, am I supposed to be impressed this; I dont brush streets myself, and not that it matters or is anyway relevant. And I impressed that you are 48? My mother is 63. So what, actions speak louder than years. Please take regard of the substance, and the background. Ceoil (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you must think I am a fool. Mattisse 00:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify who you are talking to Mattisse. Ceoil (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking to User:LessHeard vanU. Mattisse 00:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why should I care that you wish to involve yourself in discussions between two other parties?

Well, the thing is that Sandy is a friend, has been for a long while, and has helped me enourmosly during my 'career' here . She was harrassed. For months, on and off site. The account that harrassed her was unblocked. I asked why. I was given bullshit reasons, and told, authoratively I have dealt solicitors, barristers, Queens Counsel, and the like in my professional career and am used to writing in those terms. What the fuck? Ceoil (talk) 01:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was explaining why I was using the terminology that I did. Simple. That is how I wrote to members of the legal profession back in the day. That is my personal style in these circumstances. If you don't recognise that you were getting an explanation, in much the same manner in which I was conversing, then I doubt there is any point in continuing this conversation. Re Sandy; she is someone I have previously dealt with, too. Small world. Now fuck off. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Re Sandy; she is someone I have previously dealt with"; Now fuck off? Oh boy, it gets interesting now. So I can cut to the chase now right?? Because I know whats going on here. I was just too much of a gentelman to say it out loud. Ceoil (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember this: [51]. watch your lip. So you won't mind if I reply in kind; "Fuck off until you learn not to piss on your neighbours lawn!" LessHeard vanU 17:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC) ??????? Funny how history repeats. Oh boy. Ceoil (talk) 01:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been alerted to this discussion by a concerned WPian. I want to place on record my concern at the re-activation of an account that has been involved in the harassment and stalking of Sandy (possibly of others too, or is this Zeraeph's single obsession?). I have personally found Z very difficult to deal with—specifically at articles such as Tourette's Syndrome, where on her entry, the discourse rapidly disintegrated into a circular, personal, self-referential fog. It's most distressing for serious WPians. I think that there is ample case for Z to be blocked on a more permanent basis. Tony (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Twern't me that unblocked Zeraeph - that was SlimVirgin. I only unblock the polite type of editor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scrunched up into diff to save on talkpage space and eyesight. Posted by User:Mattisse Regards, Mattisse 01:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please enjoy the reading. This has been a long road. Z was given a community wide ban and Jimbo overturned it. If you do not want to wreck my life then do not suggest anything that involves Z. As I said before, I have lost all interest in the accuracy of wikipedia articles. If Z wants to prove herself, why doesn't she submit it as a GA or to FAC? I have had enough bad experience on wikipedia after months of doing copy editing for other people's FA, that my interest is no longer in helping wikipedia be better. The fact that the article Psychopathy is a joke and no one can do anything about it speaks volumes about wikipedia. The end. Mattisse 01:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to know the precise details on how this matter has developed. I fully realise that there are issues with editing Psychopathy, and that you and Zeraeph are the protagonists - with other editors/admins involved, too, and that there are other related matters. Please understand that it is not the place of admins to determine who is correct in the matter of the content, only that it has written in accordance with the rules, etc. There is an experienced admin waiting at Talk:Psychopathy to help resolve this situation. Use her good offices. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there were some very serious factual errors (not disputes, real errors, like the one about Washington State Legislature, where she referenced the wrong page and insisted, falsely that there was no reference to psychopathy) in the article I just could not leave. She also had references that were used in very misleading ways that I corrected. I don't think I "just removed" anything except unreferenced conjecture and linking text? From ok, the article had been turned into the kind of thing that people use as evidence against Wikipedia. I made no 3RR, nor even close...surely she cannot harass me by making things up like that and get away with it? I wouldn't get away with it (actually I wouldn't try, it isn't in my nature, I'd feel like an idiot if I did that). --Zeraeph (talk) 01:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:SlimVirgin has made herself available at Talk:Psychopathy for anyone interested in resolving this matter. Best if comments were directed there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lets not forget Ceoil (talk) 01:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular bullshit, you being an expert presumably. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do try to find out a little of the past history. You were the one that sent Z a "feel good" note that resulted in her most recent block because she paid not one wit of attention to your note. You gave her the "feel good" note but there was no follow through from you. You just left me out there to rot in hell. You told her that she could not remove cited material. She continued to remove cited material. Your reaction: ZERO. [52]

If you can believe one ounce of what Z says, then she is all yours. Happy Holidays! Mattisse 01:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse, can you contain you posts to diffs, it would be a shame if the thrust of the argument was drowned by month old agruments. Please revert the above with diffs. Ceoil (talk) 01:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC):[reply]

You are kidding. I have no interest in the accuracy of any article on wikipedia anymore, and I am not going to waste my time as others have. The best advice is not to edit articles that Z owns. Please read below, just a sample of my collection.

Per header. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'll live long enough to correct all the factual errors in the above! But where the name of someone I respect has been taken in vain I feel I must. I have never been given a "community wide ban" and Jimbo has never overturned any such thing. All he did reverse was a 3RR that was not technically accurate.

In addition, I doubt if the two citations I restored (one my error, one not), were particularly "controversial" edits, nor the spelling error I picked up, and I cannot see how moving text to (blatantly) more relevant sections could be particularly "controversial" either, nor, I am afraid, was altering (and citing) one piece of text that was in clear factual error. I discussed what User:Mattisse wished to discuss on the talk page, and said all I had to say about it, then I went to bed. --Zeraeph (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And so you shall continue. I thought maybe you had learned something, but no. Mattisse 01:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the actual changes I made in total, as you will see, very little of anything has been removed from the article. [53] here is one interim change made by User:Mattisse [54] and here is another [55] --Zeraeph (talk) 02:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As i have just commented an ANB [56] if you address obscenities to other editors, i will block you. DGG (talk) 02:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC) Followed up on my talk page. DGG (talk) 03:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also came here to remind you of the civility policy. LessHeardVanU, I have always had a lot of respect for you as editor and admin. Your behavior on this page and the AN discussion has really surprised and disappointed me. Please strike and modify your comments. Jeffpw (talk) 10:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This gets a little difficult, because I did write it and mean it at that time. To strike/modify is to alter the fact after the event, but the fact remains. I am unable to accede to these requests, and if there are consequences so beit. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You allowed me to be personally attached for over week through the "mediation" you set up. How can you set up a medation with a person who deletes their talk pages every day. That really facilitates communication.

Now you come up with this great idea of Slim Virgin and your little favorite, User:Zeraeph. Everyone seems to feel that is an exceedingly bad ideal. Perhaps you should retire for a while - a wikibreak to get some brains together for youself. Just trying to help! And to prevent you from causing any more messes. Meant as a kindly suggestion -- but there would have been so much less disruption today if you had stayed out of it. And you accomplished absolutely NOTHING constructive. Mattisse 06:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• So you've taken it upon yourself to ignore the discussion page, ignore the fact that the article is obviously written by the subject. A player who has made absolutely no impression on the game at all?????????? Paste (talk) 11:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Less, I do not honestly think that anything I did (short of dying, and even that might not have worked) would have averted this.

I won't be backing out of anything given the chance. Whether you can believe this or not, I have honestly tried everything else, there are only two alternatives, to go on in this miserable situation here (and I truly do not think I can, I am in a terrible state over all this) or to retire out of Wikipedia. I would hope that an RfAr would be more structured. All I want to achieve is a situation where SandyGeorgia stays away from me (directly and indirectly) and I can just stay away from her. The minute she leaves me alone she doesn't matter to me. That is all I want. To be left in peace to edit here on equal terms with anyone else. --Zeraeph (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed a request for arbitration where you are an involved party. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration and add a statement if you wish. Jehochman ^Talk 17:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am rather surprised (and pleased) that you and SlimVirgin have supported this arbitration. Thank you. Nobody should fear scrutiny of their behavior. Jehochman ^Talk 21:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admins aren't supposed to know about the subject, they try and apply Wikipedia rules, policies and guidelines to disputes...'

That may be the accepted Wikipedia mantra, but it isn't true. You can't apply policies and guidelines to a dispute unless you understand the basis of the conflict, which is intimately and inextricably connected to the topic. It sounds great in theory to claim that one can dispassionately distance themselves from any knowledge of a topic and make an accurate decision about a topical dispute, but in practice it is impossible. This is precisely why a growing number of scientists with Ph.D's are seeking law degrees in the hot field of intellectual property. —Viriditas | Talk 11:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I do not fully agree with your interpretation as it turns on the interpretation of know. I do not know what the current status of the term psychopathy is, but I can recognise a content dispute simply by the type of editing/reverting and the comments of the protagonists in respect of the article. The application of policy, etc, can be made on that basis. The editor concerned however dismisses such consideration as being invalid on the basis that a sound understanding of the subject would support her interpretation and thus her edits. If true, then the admin becomes part of the content dispute (on one side or the other depending on their understanding of the subject) - possibly being useful in improving the article but worse than worthless in applying WP policy fairly. I would comment that the other editor in the related dispute is also adamant that their interpretation is 'the truth', so "knowledge" is surely subjective anyway?

Distance from a subject, or lack of detailed knowledge, is therefore beneficial; it is not coincidence that admins are reminded to recuse themselves from using the mop in areas in which they have involvement - in case of unconscious bias. I work from the Oscar Wilde dictum; "... never read a book before reviewing; it does prejudice one so!" ;~) Seriously, a review of the diffs, editing history, and any talk comments should give an indication of the nature of the dispute (or vandalism, depending on the complaint). A review of the content may also help determine that the disputants are being disruptive or not in their editing clash.

I would also suggest that Wikipedia's mantra of 'Verifiability over Truth' also questions the assumption of knowledge in being able to determine the validity of a content dispute. Removing cited text on the basis that it is incorrect, replacing it with correct content without sources, refusing to talk about the changes other than to say "I am right" and reverting any change back to the cited information on that basis is disruptive - no matter if the person so acting is indeed correct. Even if an admin was aware that the disruptive editor had the facts on their side (and might even be able to supply the references) it should form no part in their dealing with the disruptive behaviour of the knowledgeable editor. Sysopping, in my view, is the process of aiding the contributors of content, and not making judgement calls on the content contributed regarding accuracy.

Notwithstanding all or any of the above, I am very pleased that an admin editor of your standing has involved themself in this matter. I would be pleased to explain myself or any point raised above. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin nor an "admin of standing", nor do I need to be one to recognize that a decision made out of ignorance is still ignorant. —Viriditas | Talk 19:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... okay, I've seen you around making some sound calls, then. Shame the respect doesn't go both ways. Perhaps you might consider going for admin (I think I would support) and find out how working the mop is different from theory.

I would also suggest you consider that if some expressions are considered mantra's, then there is a lot of experience that backs it up. There are a thousand active sysops on en-Wiki expected to assist tens or hundreds of thousand contributors; no admin can take the time to completely familiarise themselves with a subject for every time they are asked to help. Since the rules, policies, and guidelines are not subject specific (except BLP and a very few others) then it is knowledge of the rules etc. that are applied to the article editing - not judgements on content. Content disputes are directed to other forms of resolution that includes the entire community (i.e. some of whom may have the relevent knowledge) which may also include admins. That is the split between knowledge of WP processes (sysops) and knowledge of content (the volunteer community).LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, most Wikipedians are intelligent enough to realize that we do notneed rules, policies or guidelines to justify our edits. These things exist for three reasons: to reflect the best practices of the community in a standardized form; to help newcomers adjust to conventions that exist to make the experience as easy as possible; and to reign in those who would wish to harm the community. Unfortunately, within the last several years these policies and guidelines have been used by a small group of active editors and administrators to increase their power and to stamp out change and innovation -- and to allow the rules-makers to become rules-breakers. This was not the original intent of such rules, and this situation is slowly destroying the site. The rules were were not intended to be written in stone; they were meant to be broken- on a daily basis - because this site is a work in progress developed by peers who experiment within the general framework of ethical editing. The rules were not created to support a a centralized, bureaucratic institution run by power-mad despots who have no knowledge or experience regarding the topics that they edit - which is what it has become. —Viriditas | Talk 09:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]