Archives

January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007

Hi Will Beback. The portion of the article on James Buchanan discussing his sexual orientation has been blanked/deleted twice now, despite being sourced. Can the editor doing this User:Kscottbailey get some kind of a gentle reminder about reverts? I think you are an administrator. Thanks. Jim CApitol3 19:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Sources" must be reliable. The "sources" for this segment are not reliable, and unsourced rumors have no place in encyclopedic articles. It is YOU who deserves a 3RR warning, not me.K. Scott Bailey 06:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two things in response to your inappropriate 3RR warning:

(1) 3RR does not even apply to removing unsourced rumors from an encyclopedic article. The burden lies with the person wishing to include the material. Thus the warning should go to the person re-adding the material. Please refrain from issuing further inappropriate warnings, without understanding the issue.

(2) I started a discussion on the unsourced material. The person who keeps re-adding it has not contributed to the discussion.

Again, I will continue to remove unsourced rumors from encyclopedic articles. If that leads to a ban, that's a problem with Wikipedia, not me.K. Scott Bailey 06:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will, as you've dealt with this user before, would you mind commenting on the indefinite block? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your edit to the Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show page, and it looked like you deleted the whole N section. I know it was unsourced, but maybe a citation needed tag would be a better fit. It may have been unsourced, and I've never heard of the show, but maybe a citation needed tag would be better. Anyways, thanks! BlackBear 22:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanxs again for all your help. =) Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 06:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Willbecack..

Could you take a look at the Sahaj Marg Discussion page and history. This is the second time that someone has used a "redirect" on that page and effectively erased the "history" for the discussions that took placed. I reposted the discussions from a "backup"...

Is this all OK now and how do I deal with this "re-direct" tactic that some are using...I tried the "undo" but could not get it to "undo"... I don't mind the page as it is as long as it does not keep changing back and forth, thus erasing the "history"...

Thanks for your advice and all the input in the article...It is much appreciated as some are trying to use the site to "instruct" and "command" rather that to "inform"...Notice the last edit to your "revert"...

Don--don 19:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this on Talk:James Buchanan. I was afraid that it got lost in that monstrous thread, so I'm reposting it here, so you could definitely see it. I hope you don't mind.

I did not. I said that after hearing him say that Kitty Kelly's nonsense could potential qualify as a reliable source, I was left with two options. One of them was having an axe to grind. The other was that he/she had never read KK's work. When he pointed out it was the latter, I assumed (in good faith) that it was true. And why do you point out the one instance where I could have PERHAPS violated WP:AGF, when the other user has violated it repeatedly, and after several requests to stop doing so and retract the statements? I have been working on an assumption of good faith for nearly--if not the whole--time. The other editor has attacked my motives, both by implication and explicitly. I hardly think the two sets of behavior (mine and his/her) is equivalent in any way, as implied by your last post.

I posted this AFTER your "admonishment." I did not violate WP:AGF at any point. Yet you felt you needed to "admonish" all of us, when it was one user--not me--who was violating WP:AGF. I assumed that as an admin, you would be interested in making sure people comport themselves in compliance with Wikipedia policies. As I did not violate any policies in that discussion, I thought you might want to take another look at the contributions by User:G2bambino in that thread. If you are too busy, I can take it to a different admin. Just let me know.K. Scott Bailey 02:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You "admonished" everyone with a blanket statement. Everyone wasn't involved in violating WP:AGF. User:G2bambino was. As for resolving the problem, if you review the appropriate material, you'll see that I asked more than once for the user to stop violating WP:AGF. He explicitly refused to do so. And then for some reason, you dug up the one instance that could even be [mis]construed as me violating WP:AGF, and gave a blanket "admonishment." I'm just trying to understand why you did that, that's all. Normally the "admonishment" would be issued to the person who actually violated the Wikipedia policy. BTW, why did you recommend I read WP:AGF? I've read it. User:G2bambino violated it toward me on numerous occasions. Why would you suggest I read it?K. Scott Bailey 02:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, here's the quote, from the first paragraph: "[W]e must assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it..." User:G2bambino violated that principle more than once by claiming I had nefarious motives for my edits. He then compounded the issue when he refused to retract the statements when it was pointed out they were in clear violation of WP:AGF.K. Scott Bailey 02:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally posted this to my page instead of yours

I have unearthed most of the instances in question. Here they are:

…it seems that so far editorial bullying has trumped rational explanation - as I've seen the former, and am still waiting for the latter.

…your intent here is to censor any information about Buchanan's life that you find personally offensive.

Frankly, to me, your continuing illogical and cyclical arguments with the motive of banning certain information from an article doesn't give me any reason to assume good faith…

All of the above are from User:G2bambino. It seems clear that he was violating WP:AGF, as he even basically admitted as much in the last quote. I hope this helps in you understand why I didn't feel it was quite sufficient to issue a blanket "admonishment" to "all users" in the thread. The only instance where I came even close to the line, I showed you how it clearly did NOT violate WP:AGF. Again, if you don't feel like addressing the issue, I have no problem taking this to a different admin. I just want User:G2bambino to understand that making accusations regarding my editorial motives is not acceptable.K. Scott Bailey 02:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The way I read it WP:AGF is not about "being nicer", it's about what you assume about the other editor's motives in editing. G2bambino violated it repeatedly, and when asked to retract the statements accusing me in bad faith, he explicitly refused to do so. I've clearly demonstrated that to you with the above quotes. It is your position then that you will not be placing any sort of specific warning on the page of User:G2bambino? If so, may I ask why, given the above?K. Scott Bailey 03:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's amazing. I point out to you NUMEROUS examples of clear WP:AGF violations--after you asked me to do so--and then you send ME a warning about "civility." How do you justify that? Why are you refusing to deal with the issue I brought to your attention?K. Scott Bailey 15:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the relationship between Wikipedia and Wikiquote? I bring this up because User:Primetime has an account there [1], with most of his contributions being complaints on his User page as to why he's a Victim of Persecution. Given that Wikiquote, by definition, is supposed to be copying material, how does that affect his standing there, considering he's permabanned here and at Wikitionary? --Calton | Talk 04:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

God, the guy's an idiot: I just got a prank phone call -- a badly executed prank phone call, at that -- where someone apparently tried to blow an airhorn into my ear (sounded more like an overexcited raspberry than a real noise, and I suspect he probably screwed up his own hearing). Apparently, the genius didn't realize that Caller ID works internationally, so I know the call came from 970-221-XXXX, which is from Primetime's home, Fort Collins, Colorado. Maybe I should drop a line to his department, let them know what kind of student they've got there. --Calton | Talk 11:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you to weigh in on the question of duplication of lists in List of groups referred to as cults in government reports and List of groups referred to as cults on the latter's talk page. I ask you not because I seek to lobby you to any particular position (other than through my comments on that page addressed to everyone), I just noticed that User:Milomedes is invoking your name in support of his actions with references to earlier comments you made. The same was done with my words, although I in fact supported a directly opposite position. So you may find it appropriate to express your view on the issue in the new context, whatever that may be, if you think it appropriate. Best, Really Spooky 17:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Informal Request for Comment on debate tactics

00:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC) header posted by Milo. This dispute about debate tactics and justified reasons for editing other people's posts began at User talk:Will Beback#List of groups referred to as cults: "...I just noticed that User:Milomedes is invoking your name in support of his actions with references to earlier comments you made. The same was done with my words, although I in fact supported a directly opposite position. ... Really Spooky 17:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

"The same was done with my words, although I in fact supported a directly opposite position." In fact, your 25 Dec 2006 words were accurately quoted, without interpretation. Your 25 Dec quote with expanded context makes your support of my position even stronger. Any hint that I misrepresented you is disingenious. Confronted with your own words, you then retracted them.

Here's your 25 Dec 2006 expanded context statement at LOGRTAC#Proposal: "...the main reason I put the entire French list in in the first place was because of complaints that it was that the article only quoted from selectively. Having done so, however, I see one side benefit - it allows readers to quickly wikilink to the articles about those groups (Wait, is that now an argument for keeping it here? :)). Really Spooky 22:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)"

Here's the statement as it currently appears, in which I quoted you, and you retracted by striking[2] on 10 Mar 2007,17:13. (#Foreign lists partial-duplication debate):

5. Really Spooky wrote 22:17, 25 Dec 2006: "it allows readers to quickly wikilink to the articles about those groups" [Really Spooky retracts his statement, 17:13, 10 Mar 2007]

Milo 14:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC) Re-edited 07:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Milo, I didn’t say the quote was inaccurate, but rather that you took it out of context, which creates the impression that I support a position that I had expressly opposed (namely the duplication of lists in separate articles). You do so once again here by selectively quoting my post a second time, and in particular omitting the key first sentence “It makes sense to me to put these lists from the reports in the articles about the reports, and then just link to them here.” Then, as now, I supported maintaining the lists from the government reports in separate articles about those reports.

For the record, I never retracted my words about the convenience of the wikilinks; that still holds true. I simply don’t agree that support for keeping the wikilinks = support for keeping them on the same page, and therefore do not wish my name to be associated with that misinterpretation of my words.

I of course have no problem with you forwarding that idea as your own argument, it’s just that when you put my name to it, it creates the false impression that I support it. I am willing, however, to assume good faith and thus the possibility that this may have been an unintended result of your actions.

I suggest if you want to discuss this further it would be better to do so on one of our own talk pages. The only reason I brought this to Will Beback's attention is for the reasons stated to him above. -- Really Spooky 19:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to AGF that you really don't understand the sophistry of your debating tactics, but your repeated dictionary misuse of "misinterpretation" when you were only quoted has seriously offended me.

• As for the claim that your quote was taken out of context, I quoted the second time your "one side benefit" in its entirety, and it only strengthened the correct representation of the first quote. Your overall position is irrelevant because your isolated sidebar supports my position. You even noted the sidebar's incongruity to your overall position: "Wait, is that now an argument for keeping it here?" You'll have to live with your name being associated with what you wrote and clearly intended to say.

• You can't have it both ways. If you didn't retract your words about the convenience of the wikilinks, what were you doing editing my post with strikeouts? That's another offense, and I'm considering whether to formally report you for doing that.

• BabyDweezil was community banned for various offenses, but in my posted opinion, two of them were dictionary misuse and consensus divergence in debate. Take heed that your debate style is sufficiently similar to BD's, that you could be at similar risk.

• I'm not going to post to your talk page, and stay off of mine. If Will wants this RfC moved, he will move it to the proper venue. You've stated your case, I've stated mine — it's community judgment time. Milo 00:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Milo, you can’t have it both ways, averring that you ‘only’ quoted me whilst continuing to insist that you made a ‘correct representation’ of my words as supporting your position.

As to what my position actually is and was, it is abundantly clear from the article, so I can’t imagine why you should want to waste other people’s time on this too. You have apparently misinterpreted (in the sense of misunderstanding) my words as meaning support for duplicate lists when I was clearly talking about maintaining the list per se.

I am also finding it more and more difficult to assume good faith with that last comment about my 'retraction'. It is you that has changed the strikeout to cover only the quoted words and you that has added in brackets "Really Spooky retracts his statement" with a phony time and date stamp corresponding to that of my original edit, then posting the re-edited version here. That is a blatant misrepresentation to the effect that I was retracting a quote as opposed to objecting to the manner of its use, and you aren't fooling anyone. I have set matters straight at the source.

Finally, I note that you consider my so-called ‘debating tactics’ to be 'sophistry', your warning to ‘stay off’ your talk page (which I have never edited), your threats to ‘report’ me for the alleged 'offence' of wishing to correct an inaccurate representation of my position, your suggestion that I am ‘at risk’ of a ban (?!) and your wish to subject me to ‘community judgment’ through an RfC. I regret that you have chosen to react so aggressively to a relatively innocuous invitation for the input of another user (one that I moreover knew was likely to affirm your representation of his position). If you insist on escalating matters in this way, however, I should remind you of the following from WP:RFC:

"RfCs brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary are not permitted… unwarranted filing of meritless RfCs is an abuse of the dispute resolution process. RfC is not a venue for personal attack. An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors".

By the way, RfCs on users are not filed on a user’s talk page, and certainly not on an unrelated user’s talk page. -- Really Spooky 05:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I AGF'd that a retraction might have been your justification for strikeout editing of (only) your quoted words in my post (that's why I removed the strikes from the correct date of the quotation). Then you stated it was not a retraction, which means you decided to strikeout edit my post because you didn't like my choice of a quotation (for reasons previously mentioned).

Then you did it again, and this time you actually added a comment internally to my post! (Diff showing Really Spooky editing Milo's post to add the comment "doesn't agree with his words being taken out of context to forward a view he did not and does not support")

What I hear you saying is that it's ok to edit other people's posts in the way that you have edited mine. Milo 08:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, what you hear me saying is that it's not OK to attribute an alien intent to me by (a) altering my strike-out, (b) describing the intent yourself (whether by assumption of good faith or just plain assumption) and then (c) using my name and (d) a phony time and date stamp, all of which creates the impression that it was my edit, as you did here (see diff). That is why I set matters straight at the source and gave you notice that I had done so above.

My original strikeout was a perfectly legitimate method for countering what I consider to be a misuse of my words, I explained why I did it in a contemporaneous post using my own name and I chose that method instead of removing the words altogether because there was nothing inherently offensive about them, in which circumstances I felt such an extreme measure was unnecessary and might be perceived as high-handed: this way people could at least still read what you wrote. You are free to ask about my intentions or comment on what you perceive them to be, but altering my edits to fortify your interpretation of them is presumptuous as best, whether you did it 'assuming good faith' or not.

PS - We really should leave Will's talk page, and might I suggest drop this pointless dispute altogether. I for one have no problem if he wishes to remove it from his talk page. -- Really Spooky 11:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I hear you saying is that it's ok for you to have edited my posts, for the reasons noted previously. And I also hear you saying — because you have edited my posts for the noted reasons, I can't change your edits to my posts. Milo 18:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My condolences. I can recommend a good audiologist if you like. -- Really Spooky 20:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not Mr. Stix, have never met the man, have no connection to him, nor do I necessarily support his views. I do know that he is an established writer with a long track record. You seem to be systematically deleting reference after reference to his work. There is no rule against using one's own published work as a reference. AGF. Yakuman 21:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I noticed you seem to be interested in Camping (judging by your pictures and recent edits). So I'd like to invite you to be a part of the new WikiProject Backpacking! I hope you'll grace us with your contributions!

Regards,

Leif902 23:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you for joining, (sorry if you joined before I posted this, I think my browser may have not purged correctly). I look forward to working with you, and all our other new members! -Leif902 23:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erring on the side of caution whilst clearing a backlog of 500+ similarly tagged images. If that's the worse damage I've done, I think I'm well up on the deal :o)

Nevertheless, I've now deleted the image under CSD-I4 (as you could have done) so the problem is now solved. 〈REDVEЯS〉 08:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this [3]:

I have a quick question. I don't mean to start a problem here, but how is pointing out Tsumani's faults addressing SV's blantant inappropriate warning to him. MetsFan76 23:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So Slim's comments to him wasn't antagonistic? MetsFan76 02:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Telling someone that "they have had enough" is legitimate, especially coming from an admin? MetsFan76 02:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did see the comment. Do you agree with it? MetsFan76 03:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer. MetsFan76 03:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have permanently blocked Eric, then please remove my barnstar from his page. It makes me look like an idiot to have strong support for a blocked user, and it ruins my reputation. Before I awarded the barnstar, I looked through between 25 and 50 of his edits and found them to be quite helpful. That's not to say that he wasn't link spamming and removing his competitors. I saw no evidence of this on his edits to my watchlist (which amounted to about 10 applicable articles), but that doesn't mean that it wasn't happening. I don't claim to know his full editing career. I am not interested getting involved in what he calls a feud between you two. Please respond here on your talk page if you need to, for I want keep the thread in one spot. Royalbroil ^T : C 00:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had any time to devote to you and your comrades at the moment, Will Beback, but for now I will note that you continue to misrepresent Wikipedia rules, to misrepresent my edits (deliberately not mentioning all of the edits I had made that were censored that had not cited your personal bogeyman), to misrepresent leading publications with hundreds of thousands of readers as "blogs," to initiate edit wars, and to stalk and politically censor not only me but anyone else supportive of my edits. You are truly out of control. 70.23.199.239 14:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, me again, since you've now joined WikiProject Backpacking could you possible tag your user page with [[Category:Members of WikiProject Backpacking]], thanks in advance, - Leif902 19:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Will Beback, I see from User:70.23.* talk page that you too have had the pleasure of dealing with that person. This is just friendly encouragement -- because when I am feeling frustrated and irritated by dealing with difficult editors I appreciate some friendly encouragement. (Sort of an antidote to the gaslighting effect that is caused by people repeatedly describing someone else as uncivil or a vandal, when that better describes their own behavior.) ... Best, lquilter 23:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of links like the one to the Blakey Report in the references section of Network TwentyOne? --Knverma 20:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Just to make sure you are aware of the circumstances surrounding the appearance of this report, I point you to this page [4]. Those were my actual concerns. --Knverma 22:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I now remember why I was hiding all the specific sourcing on the List of male performers in gay porn films. What do you want to bet that the link spam becomes the next constant, undying issue with regard to the article? See how much fun I'm having?—Chidom ^talk  04:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Will. If you're not too busy, could you possibly lend a hand on a problem I just discovered? In the space of one hour earlier today, an anon. editor posted lengthy POV Copyvio edits on nine separate articles (whew!). I have already confirmed and deleted two of these copyvio edits, and I am quite certain that all of the others were copied from the same source -- a very POV right-wing website called Discoverthenetwork.org. I also left a note on the anon's talk page asking him not to post such material. However, I have to leave and cannot finish the job right now, so if you can spare some time to help clean up the mess I'd sure appreciate it. Regards, Cgingold 22:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/List of male performers in gay porn films. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This user XavierVE insists on removing content I've contributed without reason. His propensity towards resorting to personal attacks and impugning my sincerity and credibility leads me to believe he is not willing to resolve our conflict without intervention from the wiki staff. Vagr4nt 06:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Will. Quick question: what is the policy on mentioning lawsuits against Wikimedia Foundation in the plaintiff's article? Someone on an IP added a paragraph today about Barbara Bauer's new lawsuit in a NJ Superior Court. The online court papers name Wikimedia and practically everyone else mentioned in the article about her as defendants. Is there a problem with including this sort of thing on Wikipedia, or is it okay if it's reliably sourced? Thanks, as always, for your help and advice. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 01:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trampton 20:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"== Spam ==

"Please stop. If you continue spamming you will be blocked from editing.

"-Will Beback · † · 00:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

Copied from my User Talk page.

Stop. Notice, I did not say "please." You have now chosen to go beyond the months of politically motivated stalking and censoring that you, together with your comrades, have committed against every single edit I have made, to threaten yet another politically-motivated block.

I have never engaged in spamming; you are simply condemning as spam any material that you are politically opposed to, and extending your political retaliation. You are also engaging in revenge for my pointing out your violation of WP:VAN regarding the VDARE article. You are thus in violation of WP:CIV and WP:POV, as well, but who's counting? You have long since made clear that you hold the "rules" in utter contempt.

As I have said before, since you already have me under a months-old, de facto 24-7 block, what possible point could there be in "blocking" me? Would it be to deceive those unaware of your political stalking and censorship into thinking that this "block" would be a new move against me, as opposed to simply an official version of what you have already been doing to me day in and day out?

Did you really believe you were going to intimidate me so late in the game, or was your point to intimidate others out of bucking you and your comrades? Or is stalking, censoring, and threatening dissenters who refuse to accept your propaganda simply a fetish that you repeat, regardless of the results? 70.23.199.239 07:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Will Beback. Just thought you might like to see what else our "friend" is up to currently: Talk:List_of_massacres#The_Wichita_Massacre.

Cgingold 03:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Will, You opened a new COI on 13 March about Nicholas Stix, and a discussion ensued. Do you believe that this discussion gave you the information to proceed to the next step? Let us know if the item can be closed, or if you would like the readers of the noticeboard to do more investigation. Add your further thoughts directly on the noticeboard. EdJohnston 19:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the "heads-up" about the possible sock puppets! I had noticed they seemed to have pretty much the same opinions, but didn't think anything more of it. -Aleta 02:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Will, so far I dislike some of what you change that I put, but given that you edit fairly, I pose my question. Now, I saw why you removed my post. My question is, what if it is true? The reason I did not yet put up a source is I have it from the LaRouche guys as a reader of Executive Intelligence Review and share their dislike of Al Gore. The problem is, it seems, Wikipedia have decided not to accept a lot of stuff sourced to LaRouche and his organisation. I am merely waiting to get the free time to find out their sources for this and to add it. This has been published in EIR and can be found on the LaRouche websites. Al Gore worked with the FBI as part of Operation Frühmenschen. The question is, will LaRouche be allowed as a source? --Nemesis1981 01:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to an Arbcom decision:

Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles.

If, by following references in the LaRouche material, you were to come upon reliable sources from non-LaRouche publications, they might be considered. EdJohnston 02:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who decides what is a reliable source? It seems that there was a 'Democratic Party of Athens'-type decision regarding LaRouche, yet I have never seen a legitimate complaint that he is wrong, or any slander actually upheld. If I find these sources, I will see if a Kafkaesque fight is forced upon me. Do I also have the right to demand answers from "impartial" administrators who change my edits?

--Nemesis1981 20:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need to understand why you deleted the Dimitra Ekmektsis article! I stemmed it from the Aaron Sorkin page, who is central to her memoir, Confessions of a High Priced Call Girl. Can I get a reason, please? That lady is at the dawn of a new era in her life and she deserves her article back! Just give me a reason, that's all I ask! ToxicArtichoke 05:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"If I owned a restaurant I'd fire a chef who didn't show up in clean clothes at the start of his shift, and I'd also fire him if his clothes were still clean five hours later."

I like this a lot—it seems to say what is needed! Cheers, Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 20:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Will, I don't know all the Wikipedia rules, but it seems SlimVirgin and I are not agreeing on some stuff, and I have been pushing for answers on other pages, and although I contend that this might have contributed to a lack of dialogue between us concerning the page on the German LaRouche Youth Movement's party, the Bürgerrechtsbewegung Solidarität Bürgerrechtsbewegung Solidarität, I am now adding direct reference and detail as to where people might find reference to what I write. My concern is that this administrator will just change my stuff back, since the said administrator has not responded to my writing on the talk page, nor even elaborated on what was wrong with what I added. Rather than starting an edit war, which is against Wiki-rules, I thought I would ask you to mediate as to what I can add and what the said administrator can delete. Would you do this? Or at least ask Slim for justification and to give me a few days to either credit the claim or remove it, as I did for her. Thankyou. --Nemesis1981 01:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got the message the first time. You've chosen not to address any of my concerns, or enter in a dialog with me in any way. What's the point? [5]

If you had bothered to ask, or looked into the situation, you'd have found that I've already decided to try a different approach - refactoring others' comments less, using strikeouts in my own comments more, and looking for an alternative to Wikipedia. The harrassment here really sickens me. The fact that it's ignored by most, encouraged by others, sickens me more. --Ronz 15:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word "eminent" is used in Hans Eysenck's biography on Wikipedia.

The man is considered "eminent" by almost everyone ... that is not controversial.

Why is it not okay to refer to Hans Eysenck as "eminent" when he comments on Rushton's work in the biography on Rushton?

Mstabba 15:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, there's been been heat on both sides. I don't claim to speak for 70 -- and I understand the admin's mission to enforce policy -- but I feel that this action only worsens existing hurt feelings. Please, please reconsider. Yakuman (数え役満) 16:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia project, not a schoolyard brawl. The language contained in this diatribe [6], and in several others, is not acceptable and is a gross violation of WP:CIVIL. The same user has had the policies patiently explained to him and he has only gotten worse. The "heat" has not been on both sides, as you indicate (and if anyone else has used similar language they should get a block too). The editor has been extremely disruptive and the block is intended to prevent further "hurt feelings" by those who this editor keeps attacking. -Will Beback · † · 16:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This dispute has clear ideological overtones, plus this guy has been wikistalked and chased from page to page for some time. Discussing policy seems a bit tiresome if it is only enforced in one direction. Yakuman (数え役満) 16:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, if anyone else has used similar language they should also receive a block. Many disputes on Wikipedia involve ideology but we still require editors to act in a civil fashion. -Will Beback · † · 16:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's bigger issues involved here. He claims an group of editors follows him around, reverting his edits for months. That might make one a bit testy. Right or wrong, he should be allowed to say it, especially on his own talk page. This month-long block just reinforces the conflict. Also, since you have fresh edits on William Shockley, J. Philippe Rushton, Kevin B. MacDonald and several other race-related articles, he can easily say that the block was ideologically motivated.

To lurkers: To clear up confusion, let me repeat that I am not 70.*. For one thing, I'm not in Brooklyn, NY. Besides, if I were COI, I could simply slip my own clips in among thousands of other edits across a wide variety of topics. I have, however, advocated for him. While I am not AMA, I have a good faith desire to resolve this dispute. Yakuman (数え役満) 17:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that the language used by this editor is acceptable? Do you beleive that he has not violated WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL:? -Will Beback · † · 17:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the punishment fits the crime. Since it was 70's own talk page, policy requirements, while still there, are looser. Also, the other major statement was on a noticeboard and deleted for length, so I'm not sure that it counts. I understand your frustration, yet I also understand his. There must there be a better way to handle this. Does he need a whole month? How about seven days? Yakuman (数え役満) 17:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter where the incivility is located. There's been plenty on pages all over. The block needs to be long enough to change the behavior. The three previous, shorter blocks did not result in any improvement If he sends me a note saying he regrets his former incivility and promises to mend his ways I'll unblock him immediately. -Will Beback · † · 17:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He can point to incivilities directed against him (vandal, racist, sockpuppet, etc) and ask why you never acted there. Or why you never did anything about the obvious instances where 70 was chased from page to page (wikistalking). He can even probe your unusually large number of edits on race-related articles. I hate to say this, but one might question whether you really want anything to change. (He would.) In fact, it seems as if if you are trying to push him hard enough, so that he will respond in a way that gives you the rationale for a permanent block. Yakuman (数え役満) 18:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in what "he can point to". He has been given many opportunities to resolve disputes and has instead inflamed them by his rhetoric. If you can provide evidence of him being stalked then we can deal with that separately. Likewise if you can assemble evidence of personal attacks against him those too can be dealt with. None of those are defenses of his own behavior. I take offense at your assertion that I pushed him into his use of crude and uncivil language. My dealings with him have been entirely circumspect and proper. He is responsible for his own actions. -Will Beback · † · 18:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guess I should gently bring up the AGF issue on your part, which I question. You clearly have some interest in this, which goes beyond mere adminship. If he drew up evidence (again) and posted it, I suspect you would take his conclusion -- that a cadre is wikistalking him -- as a personal attack and justify that permanent block. Yakuman (数え役満) 18:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are now questioning my good faith and honesty I won't keep this discussion going. If you'd like to ask other admins to look into the block it has been posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Personal attacks by 70.23.199.239 -Will Beback · † · 18:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since you are central to all this, you have some responsibility here. If there is some downward spiral, maybe you have contributed to it. I regret your inflexibility. Yakuman (数え役満) 19:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Pages

See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nadine_Gordimer&diff=prev&oldid=121629375 Talk:Nadine Gordimer for the same posting. But, btw, I've never heard that standards are looser on a talk page for one's own userID. The talk pages are wikipedia conversation about the user; I see no reason why we are freer to have personal attacks and be uncivil on those pages. The talk pages are not our personal property. --lquilter 18:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the talk page, 70 wasn't hurling insults as a substitute for explaining "what is wrong with an edit and how to fix it." Nor did he threaten anyone, post personal details, or make legal threats. His rhetorical hyperbole, however ill-advised, fails the test. He shouldn't even be blocked. Yakuman (数え役満) 18:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Eysenck IS eminent. It is not a case of him "asserting" anything. Eysenck's reputation speaks for itself. Anyone who has studied psychology knows of Hans Eysenck and his excellent reputation.

Your adding in the information (in Rushton bio) about Eysenck having received Pioneer funds (and your removing the word "eminent" with respect to Eysenck) reflects a lack of neutrality on your part ... implying he (Eysenck) cannot be objective or counted on because he received some funds from Pioneer.

Mstabba 16:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]