User talk:Wikidemon: Difference between revisions

Check the contributions list of Special:Contributions/72.192.216.42

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#User:Stevertigo's disruptive trolling and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,

Discussions gathered from elsewhere

WP:SOAP

Article talk pages are for discussion of article issues such as content and sources. Also, thank you for reverting my resoration of a post on the talk page. I had not realized the editor removing it was the editor who posted it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop trolling. I was responding to an earnest poster's sincere question there. You really need to tone it down and try to conform your behavior to collaborative, civil editing.Wikidemon (talk) 08:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's troubling that you make yet another personal attack against me saying I'm trolling. This comment [1] that you reverted back onto the talk page does not have anything to do with article content or citations and violates WP:SOAP. There is a reminder at the top of the article talk page that says "This is not a forum for general discussion of Barack Obama. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article." I hope you will remain civil and focused on article improvements in the future. It would also be good if you showed fairness in reverting and warning all editors who make personal attacks and inappropriate comments and not just those whose statements you disagree with. You commented soon after a statement was made about "batshit insane fringetards (and the poor sheep that follow them)," and I hope you're aware that this statment violates our civility guidelines and is grossly inappropriate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by what I said. There was a reason I added that commentary, because I was engaging an editor who made a strong point a number of people disagreed with. I don't think it's worth engaging you over this subject, however.Wikidemon (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidemon's making false accusations

Wikiedmon, please don't make false accusations on the usertalk pages of editors with whom you disagree. There is no personal attack in this edit summary: "The info is in the source. Stop making up bogus excuses to censor everything I add to this article." Nor is there one in the other diff you posted [2]. Please refractor your false accusations and apologize. As you know these articles are on article probation and the subject of an Arbcom proceeding in which your inappropriate behavior is featured. If you make false accusations like this again I will take it to a noticeboard for admin intervention. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're over the line here, and again stating untruths. I'm not going to waste time responding to this nonsense. Wikidemon (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@CoM - Grundle was accusing everyone of censoring him, which is a clear assumption of bad faith. Wikidemon was right to warn him. Perhaps if Grundle would stop his agenda-based approach to Wikipedia, there would be no need to remove anything of his. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page notices

I have asked you repeatedly not to post on my talk page except to call my attention to a discussion on an article talk page. This was necessary because of your history of harassment. There is already an Arbcom case about your biased editing. I suggest you consider carefully the guidelines for editing and behavior on Wikipedia. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have made various requests in connection with your talk page, and I have said that I would not post unnecessarily there. I have never agreed to avoid your page entirely, and when your edits or some other mater warrant attention on your talk page I will post there. The tone of your message, above, is unfounded, unreasonable, and unduly combative. This seems to relate to your long-term denigration of my behavior and edits as being somehow detrimental to the encyclopedia, and if I cannot dissuade you from thinking of me as some kind of Wikipedia boogeyman I would at least appreciate it if you would hold that opinion to yourself. I have never harassed you, nor is it reasonable to say that there is an arbitration case about my editing. More to the point, I posted a notice on your talk page regarding a disputed edit you made to the Barack Obama article, telling you I was about to restore the article to an earlier state, and inviting you to discuss the matter on the talk page. Your talk page is the appropriate place for such a notice, and I am sure that whatever the outcome of the arbitration case may be, something along those lines would be considered a reasonable way of going about handling a disagreement about article content. Wikidemon (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop posting on my talk page. As noted above I have asked you repeatedly to use the article discussion pages. I'm not sure why you fail to respect good faith requests by other editors. The excuses you make for your biased editing and harassing comments just don't cut it. PLEASE STOP!!! ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe my earlier comment is self-explanatory, but to reiterate: I will post to your talk page when that is the appropriate place for a message that is important to pass along. I have refrained and will continue to refrain from posting unnecessarily there. The latest comments on your talk page are a case in point, stated neutrally and non-confrontationally, and entirely appropriate. Despite a temptation to do so I avoided characterizing what I think of your behavior, something I note you have not refrained from doing. I would ask you to extend me the same decorum - your comments above, as I note, are unduly confrontational. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009

Please don't troll my talk page. You've been asked repeatedly not to post on my page unless you need to call my attention to a discussion on an article talk page. Your behavior is disruptive and you've been warned many times. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Characterizing my notices as "trolling", my behavior as "disruptive", and your complaints as warnings, is vexatious and unreasonable. That is particularly given acute given that your protests come amidst an overall campaign to disrupt the Barack Obama talk page. As I have said many times, I will use your page for its appropriate purpose, including admonitions and notices, but have and will continue to avoid unnecessary chatter there. If you do not wish to be cautioned for disruptive behavior, stop engaging in it. Wikidemon (talk) 05:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop harassing me

I've asked you numerous times not to post on my talk page. Please respect my request. If you need to call my attention to a discussion on an article talk page that would be fine. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not harassing you. Because of your request, and the general vituperation you have directed at me for several months, I have generally disengaged from any involvement with you on the project. You have not always done the same. I have been patient, but that does not give you a free ticket for gross incivility and disruption to the encyclopedia, as you have been doing lately on the subject of Obama. If you disrupt an article I am working on and your talk page the appropriate place, that's how it is. If you don't like it, a better start would be cleaning up your act than complaining to me about it.Wikidemon (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My focus is on article building and improvement, so I have no interest in arguing with POV warriors like you. I think the damage you do to the encyclopedia speaks for itself. Your comments on my page have nothing to do with article improvement and were pure harassment. Please don't post on my talk page unless it's to call my attention to a discussion of article content on an article talk page. Thank you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. That one is transparent, and you get a warning for that one.Wikidemon (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidemon, you POV warrior you. Lol. Grsz¹¹ 18:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop harassing me Wikidemon. I've asked you numerous times not to post on my talk page. Your posts don't haven anything to do with improving the encyclopedia and are harassment. Leave me alone. Thanks.ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll refer to my initial response, and this picture of Doctor Evil.[3] Wikidemon (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, not the picture of Dr Evil!!!  :) Brothejr (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well just ignore him Wikidemon. You and I both know that crowd can't handle being called out on their bullshit. Grsz¹¹ 18:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring is the best response, but it only goes so far. Eventually, it may be necessary to put together an RfC/U in order to make a case for a block or ban. --Ronz (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Please refrain from making personal attacks. I am a good faith editor and while I've tried to avoid you as much as possible because of your history of disruptive and antagonistic behavior, I cannot ignore your incitements toward a troubled editor and your personal attacks against me. You know better than that Wikidemon. Come on now. Let's try to steer clear of each other and where our paths cross to focus on article content and improvement of the encyclopedia. Thanks very much. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? My behavior has never been a problem, as much as you try to paint me with that claim. You have been one of the most tendentious, vexatious editors around, on a number of important articles, and you seem to be heading for a complete meltdown. You are now engaged in edit wars and insult matches across the encyclopedia. You are in no position to be lobbing accusations against other editors. Wikidemon (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refactoring

Please don't refactor my comments again. You've been warned repeatedly about this type of inappropriate activity and it needs to stop. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please just quit it and go away. I don't need this nonsense from you. Deal with it on AN/I, where your behavior is under question now. Wikidemon (talk) 02:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to cease refactoring discussions or do I have to file a report against you? You've been asked repeatedly to refrain from personal attacks and soap boxing, and the last report you filed every response suggested you shape up your activities and cease attacking good faith editors. I'm not sure what the issue is, but I like to spend my time editing, not dealing with your incivility and improper activities. Please stop. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please stop the nonsense and go away. Adding section headings is not refactoring comments, and don't edit war over that to game AN/I. I'm not going to respond to yet more fabricated accusations here on my talk page. Wikidemon (talk) 03:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding thread title to the comments of other editors, particularly those you are in dispute with, is grossly inappropriate. Please do not do this type of refactoring again. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you're wrong. Please don't pester me with this nonsense. You're trying to defend your own mean-spirited attempt to spread untruths about other editors. Just go away. Wikidemon (talk) 04:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make accusations that aren't true and remove my comments from talk pages

Your violation of our content guidelines is bad enough. But leave my comments alone thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

False accusations

Please refrain from posting false accusations on my user talk page. Two of the diffs you provided are to a budget issue and the third is to an issue about enhanced interrogation. So clearly it's not 3RR. Knowingly making false accusations is against policy and can result in administrative action. Please also note that I've asked you repeatedly to avoid my talk page because of your persistenet harassment and abusive behavior including numerous frivolous ANI reports. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please retract your latest false accusation

Please retract your false statement that I am "gaming". As is clear from the post I made on your talk page that you deleted immediately, and the edit history, I haven't gamed anything. As I've made clear to you, making false accusation and personal attacks violates policy. I've asked you repeatedly to cease harassing me, to stick to content issues and to keep discussion on article talk pages rather than on my talk page. Please cease your abuse and improper actions and remove your personal attack. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third request to stop posting on my talk page and to stop making false accusation and personal attacks

It's inappropriate to refactor my comments on your talk page. I don't appreciate having my comments moved about inappropriately. This is another example of your inappropriate and policy abusing behavior. Also, I'd like to again ask you to please stop posting on my talk page. I haven't changed anything you've said and I'm certainly allowed to remove your harassing personal attacks and smears against me from my talk page. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilawyering and harassment

Please abide by our guidelines and remain civil towards your fellow editors. Misrepresenting policies to censor content is unacceptable. Thank you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do not understand Wikipedia's Image Use Policy. I was blocked for edit warring, not for tagging images for deletion. Many of those image have been deleted. All images must list sources and have evidence of permission. I'm not marking them as nld, but nsd and npd are fair game for the PD tag. That tag has been deprecated and is not supposed to be used, not just by new images. If there isn't a source or evidence of permission the license tag cannot be updated. These are perfect candidates for speedy deletion. You can check my "User Talk" edits for file redlinks and see how many were deleted per F4 or F11. Many of those images had {{PD}}. The tagging is not inappropriate. You're removing no source tags from unsourced images is inappropriate. Stop removing the tags and let the images get deleted. Jay32183 (talk) 09:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite familiar with image use policy. You seem to be heading for a meltdown over this. Surely you know that your position on this is disputed. Whatever your concerns are, you must know that you represent a minority positon and are better off discussing them on policy space rather than taking such a strident position on image and article space. If you want to achieve a broad deletion of an entire class of images you're better off dealing with this in discussion rather than by taking potshots at images. Wikidemon (talk) 09:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in the minority and there's already been discussions on this class of image. The discussions resulted in WP:CSD#F4 and WP:CSD#F11. No source is not something that's open for discussion. Saying "This is in the public domain" is not a source. File:Corgarff Castle.jpg got deleted after being tagged by me[4]. It was marked {{PD}}. Maybe you should ask User:Drilnoth about the deletion of that image. Jay32183 (talk) 10:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

F4 and F11 are not applicable. The uploader is clearly the source on these, and by using that tag they donated their images to the public domain. If you don't want to discuss it, then don't. Your block clearly didn't have the intended effect - when people disagree you need to work with others instead of simply declaring that you're right and don't want to talk about it. Wikidemon (talk) 15:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey WD -- per your history of a pretty consistent, IMO, altruistic support of i-d-e-a-s ummm I thot dzust maybe your interest might be piqued to help support some -- individuals whose histories here were formerly wayward and might be afforded a way back to constructive participation here? Well, the gist of the project is probably better indicated in the message I myself received about it, which goes like this:

"We need more editors who share a burden for rescuing promising editors who have gotten into serious trouble because of behavioral issues. IF (a fundamental condition!) they are interested in reforming and adapting to our standards of conduct, and are also willing to abide by our policies and guidelines, rather than constantly subverting them, we can offer to help them return to Wikipedia as constructive editors. Right now many if not most users who have been banned are still active here, but they are here as socks or anonymous IPs who may or may not be constructive. We should offer them a proper way to return. If you think this is a good idea, please join us."

If you find this not spam but palatable fare, the link is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_User_Rehab#Project_supporters . ↜Just M E here , now 15:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikidemon. I hope you don't mind...I found this article and it was about to go stale (in a day or so) for acceptance to the main page as a DYK. I did some minor copyediting and added a couple of citations, then nom'ed it for DYK. You will receive credit when it hits the mainpage. :) Syn 01:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all. Thanks for helping. Wikidemon (talk) 02:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If CoM behaves wrong, there are many other editors willing to warn him or report his behavior to ANI. Your first 3RR warning today contains your pledge to report him to ANI, that sounds like a harassment to me. Since he has repeatedly assured you that he does not want your visit, why don't you bother arguing about your integrity there? If you think that you behave from good faith and some justice to be done, just add diffs to the ArbCom case. You may know that your frequent and frivolous filing to ANI just makes your image very bad (FYI, I trusted your report at first because your fair vandal-fighting activities, but as time goes by for your excessive ANI activities, things changed in my mind). That fact that you did not revert much does not make you NPOV or on a better ground to accuse others. This message to request another user to report CoM on behalf of you is very concerning. Just disengage in contacting with CoM from now. ArbCom case can solve the issue soon. Regards.--Caspian blue 23:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case you hadn't noticed I was trying to disengage with ChildofMidnight, who repeatedly misrepresented a post of mine on his talk page until I decided to let him have his way with it. You're not a neutral bystander in any of this, as your recent series of edits shows.[5][6][7][8] The long and short of it is that ChildofMidnight has once again been edit warring Obama pages to add anti-Obama material, while accusing editors who disagree with him of POV, harassment, abuse, vandalism, wikigaming, and goodness knows what else. Yes, it makes a big difference how many times one reverts. Having a content position is what Wikipedia is all about, and supporting that content position is editing. Edit warring against consensus and making accusations of bad faith, however, is a problem. You're fundamentally misstating the nature of 3RR warnings. The proper procedure is to first give a caution on his talk page and, if it continues, report it to AN/I or some administrative board set up to handle it. Whether ChildofMidnight wants to be warned or not is beside the point. His calling me a liar and heaping on abuse for the warning is typical behavior from this editor, and your defending and encouraging that kind of disruption is unfortunate. Wikidemon (talk) 06:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're mispresenting my view on the case. I only recommended you to "add your evidence" to the ArbCom case. I know you do not want to increase your evidence over the current 7500 words, but you need to let things sorted by the Committee, not by your warning. Even if CoM is topic-banned as you wish, I may not feel sorry for him because I do not share with his view at all. Wikipedia is not Americanpedia. See my view, my thought, or Scjessey's extreme incivility; accusations of behaving "BS", being mentally challenged and vandalism accusation. I think you can enjoy the outsider's view although I have to add diffs. Cheers.--Caspian blue 06:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I misinterpreted - your views seem rather harsh. Yes, please do add diffs because ArbCom probably can't fully process it without them. I will be adding some evidence, but the fact that an ArbCom case is underway is no excuse or shield for edit warring, incivility, etc., in the meanwhile. I do share your view that Scjessey needs to tone down the language and is wrong about BLP. I have not been able to get through to him on that. Wikidemon (talk) 06:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On May 25, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Winfried Freudenberg, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 00:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the comment you left me about Grundle's edits and it sounds like you are running for office. We both know that Grundle is conducting a systematic, agenda-driven war on any article related to Obama and his administration. He uses poor sourcing, synthesis and original research and eschews any kind of prior discussion. He also ignores pleas from other editors and other administrators, carrying out his edits as if blissfully unaware of the warnings he has received. He's also received coaching from another well-known agenda-driven editor that has gone largely ignored. And while Grundle gets away with appalling examples of POV pushing, I get warnings (and even overly-sensitive blocks) for subtle expressions of frustration.

Frankly, I'm starting to wonder why I bother. The people defending the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia get warned and blocked more than the POV pushers because the system is setup to protect people adding material. What kills me is that Grundle's behavior should have long since been caught by the article probation, and he should've been topic-banned or blocked. The same goes for his "mentor". Lately, the answer has been to "wait and see how the ArbCom investigation turns out", but it is proceeding with geological slowness and leaving the people doing article patrol with no solutions to the problem.

So please don't give me any more crap about edit warring when I've only twice reverted what is an obvious bit of agenda-driven editing. If you look at my reversions, they are always accompanied by attempts at talk page discussion. My second reversion only occurs if that talk page discussion is ignored by the POV pusher - a reasonable approach. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't know what Grundle is up to. I can tell he has a bias, and agree with you that often the sourcing, point of view, etc., are poor. I can also see that he responds to messages from all sides, but beyond that I won't speculate. Bigtimepeace has been watching his edits but is on vacation now, so there is not a whole lot anyone can do. The "coaching" you refer to is not being ignored; it is an issue in the arbitration, and something I am preparing evidence on. It's not surprising that better behavior is expected out of people who are supposed to behave. You're one of the article watchers / maintainers, not a stray partisan, and the regulars should hold themselves to a higher standard. I'm frustrated too at the pace of arbitration, and I'm concerned that it might not achieve anything. When neutral arbitrators, administrators, or observers do watch it, it's helpful if the people on the side of stability and good editing are as dignified and straight as they can be. Otherwise you risk falling into the trap you fell into before. If you engage in name-calling or revert warring, even on the right side of things, and particularly if you get blocked for it, it hurts your credibility and to some extent everyone's. It's better for you, and better for the cause of keeping the articles in shape, if that doesn't happen. Wikidemon (talk) 02:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a concern. You may wish to monitor this new user with a highly suspicious edit history. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see that. Very odd. Certainly fishy. It could be one of the affected editors, they may be the same editor, it could be a third party from Wikipedia's past, or it could be a saboteur trying to discredit them. Or something else. Hard to tell. Wikidemon (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified the blocking administrator (Sheffield Steel) just in case my hunch is correct. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That one popped up on my watchlist too. It's one of those "clearly a disruptive sock of somebody" ones. Whose disruptive sock it is isn't worth the time to think about. Hopefully will be blocked in short order.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to your notes complaining about removing talk page discussions, including that copyvio, there are zero arbitrators supporting that. I only put it up for completeness purposes and don't expect it to pass. I'll look o ver the rest of the comments later (I'm behind on that) Wizardman 16:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I realize that I have not put together a full case regarding my statement that ChildofMidnight has been vexatious against me for six months and that I've responded appropriately. My evidence is already very long, I've spent a lot of time going over the case history, and I didn't really consider that to be at issue in the case. If the remedies proposed are enacted, it is moot anyway. The only place ChildofMidnight and I have interacted is politics-related articles connected either loosely or directly to Obama. ChildofMidnight's work in other parts of the encyclopedia is exemplary, and as much as I share his love for bacon and some of his other interests, they are not in my editing range. My experience with arb cases is that it's usually pointless to introduce new evidence or open up new concerns tangential to the main case at the last minute.Wikidemon (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your recent edit to the article, please keep in mind that a hatnote is inappropriate for article names that are not ambiguous. In this case, "lawyer" is specifically stated in the article title. Please see WP:NAMB for further information and feel free to contact me if you have any concerns. just64helpin (talk) 00:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your work on chop suey. As it happens, the various "unsupported" claims in the article come directly from the works cited in the bibliography, though they weren't attached directly to the claims in-text. I have now added them as ref's so that the connection is clearer. --macrakis (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, good. Thanks. Food origins are one of the murkiest things around, especially since the question of whether one dish in one place derives from or is the same as another dish in another place is a matter of interpretation and definition. Plus, when someone (as in my source) says the origin is unknown it often just means the writer does not know. Wikidemon (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no personal attacks, just challenging the bias of the "revisionists". I consider the US news media as a much bigger propaganda machine. Pravda online has been in existence for 10 years the staff defected from the original paper. they have been there; done that. just a caveat from them. i didn't realize the page was probationary. i do object to the unilateral treatment, like he's a rock star, when he's never even signed a payroll check. he cannot even complete one take for youtube without a teleprompter. if you want a fair page, include all opinions. could it be that the soviet journalists have more foresight than in the usa? i placed the pravda opinion where it belongs: economic opinion. if you don't want opinions, then delete the section. hindsight is 20/20.

Furtive admirer (talk) 19:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to respond. Opinions per WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, etc., usually must have a certain amount of adherence before they are included. But the main deal is revert warring. A lot of people are anxious over the Obama articles, there have been dozens of account blocks if you look at the link on the notice, and there's even an Arbcom case. So please do be careful. Cheers, Wikidemon (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just noted your "no objection". I am curious to know how you would go about ensuring you don't step on CoM's toes. Are you planning to examine the history of an article you revert to make sure that you aren't reverting something of CoM's? I mention this in my own response to this proposed restriction. Also, what are your thoughts about the lack of a time limit on these restrictions? And have you noticed how many of the arbitrators are performing several dozen votes within the space of a couple of minutes? It worries me that diffs are not being properly studied. I'm deeply troubled at the lack of attention given to agenda-based editing as well. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I share your concern that Arbcom members have not reviewed all the evidence carefully, and they got a few things wrong. But they do understand the gist of the case. And I think there is a lot of practical wisdom behind their approach. There are lots of little implementation details, and rather than assuming the worst it's best to assume that sanctions will be interpreted and applied by reasonable administrators. The duration is one of those details. If everything is quiet for 6 months or a year, we'll be back to normal anyway. Like you said, the way to avoid stepping on toes is to check the edit history to see who is active on an article. On a talk page you can use text search. I doubt anyone would be blocked for an accidental, inconsequential mistake. Also, the way the proposed sanctions are set up there's unlikely to be much contention in the first place because of the one revert per week rule, and the other bans and restrictions. The voting pattern is something I don't know about. Maybe they make up their minds first, then check them all off at once to avoid multiple edits - you know, like a ballot box. Wikidemon (talk) 02:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that a nationalist indian has removed info from the page because hes finds it offence to show that indians are the fastest growing illegal group in USA this pov pushing by wikireader41 is the sole reason he joined wikipedia you should revert his trash cheers 86.158.178.91 (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this fustrated the indian user wikireader41 because he lives in USA himself what ever the reason his pov needs to be neutralised cheers 86.158.178.91 (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Immigrants from India are the fastest-growing groups of illegal and unauthorized aliens in the US.^[1] This is the portion deleted because wikireader41 felt It was offensive to Indians nationalistic pride no doubt even though he doesnt live in India lol 86.153.132.231 (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This ip is banned user Nangparbat. please see

Nangparbat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Hersfold/Vandal_watch#Nangparbat

User:Thegreyanomaly/Nangparbat the evader

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nangparbat

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nangparbat/Archive

AKA

Algebraic123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

AKA

Jailstorm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

AKA

Rashtra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Interesting... Well, the edit blended in on this article because the article is a semi-mess subject to lots of agenda-driven editing as it is. In a better article, singling out (or else deleting) a statistical claim would be more obvious. Wikidemon (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note, the above was deleted by an IP, who accused the editor posting it of being a sock.[9] Although socks shouldn't be posting anywhere, I'm reverting here just to preserve the record... Wikidemon (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dont you think you should revert wikireader41 hes obviously pov pushing due to his indian heritage and thats the sole reason for him deleting the well sourced info on the growing numbers of illegal indian aliens in the USA im sure you agree nationalist rants on wikipedia should not be tolerated BTW i have several diffs showing his blatant pov take care:-) 86.153.129.95 (talk) 20:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion going on at the talk page that I hoped you could comment on. Soxwon (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been reading the latest "comment flinging" sparked by the (timely?) return of Noroton, and I'm amazed. I've been tempted to offer my own opinion, but I've decided that it can only dig me into a deeper hole than I appear to already be in. The ArbCom procedure, to my surprise, seems to coming down rather hard on me and I find myself questioning my own judgment.

We have worked hard to defend the project, particularly in this group of articles, and we are being unfairly treated for our efforts. I don't know about you, but right now I feel like one of those Vietnam veterans returning from the war, only to have their own countrymen spit on them. The agenda-driven efforts of certain editors are being ignored by the ArbCom procedure, while our work to protect the project against such efforts is attracting censure. How thoroughly depressing. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I share your disappointment. A few characters have come out of the woodwork, and surely one or more have been here before in different guises. The Arbcom members seem to be making the fundamental mistake of failing to distinguish between efforts to protect the encyclopedia versus efforts to subvert it. They also seem to conceive of things in a very superficial way that validates the troublemakers, assuming based on seeing a dispute that there are two sides fighting and both need to be pacified. There is not a whole lot we can do about that, and fighting it will not help. It is a fair process, and as in life a fair process often generates unfair outcomes. You don't deserve the punishment that seems likely, but all the same you should have seen it coming. A lot of other editors, including me, cautioned you for a long time to tone down the language. Also, you must know by now that your interpretation of BLP is at best a minority position: repeating well-sourced, common disparagements of a public figure may violate other policies but not BLP, and thus edit warring on them is not covered by the 3RR exception - it becomes common edit warring, for which there is no right side. A topic ban for you is unfortunate because we need everyone's help given the persistence of the troublemakers. But one way or another, if you want to be around long-term you have to deal with those two issues: maintaining decorum while going about it, and avoiding edit warring even if on the right side of the content question. Wikidemon (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I've done very little edit warring. You can count the number of times on one hand over the last 2 years. And my interpretation of BLP is not that different from yours, although I put a little bit more emphasis on the stuff about avoiding "guilt-by-association". Folks like Tarc and Grsz11 seem to have stricter interpretations than I do. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidemon, in 2007 you were active on the image copyright issues here on Wikipedia. I noticed you moved to a more serene area, presidential politics. I have a favor to ask, would you look at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Most_pre_1978_magazine_advertisements_are_public_domain. Am I barking up the wrong tree or are these old advertisements public domain? See File:MITS Calculator 1200 Series 1973.jpg If you don't want to give an opinion, I will understand.

I noticed you are from the San Francisco area. I lived there in the 1970s and have added some photographs to Carol Doda and North Beach, San Francisco, California. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 05:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I amended my statement on you per your previous request (I did not know what "catch22" is, and why you kept talking about "catch22"), and I think I quiet reduced the negativity on your part. I have to admit that is partially because I've seen you've done some good works on cuisine articles just like CoM and your good-faith help for some user's struggle at RfAs. In fact, your interaction with CoM led me to write the evidence because you should've let CoM alone since he persistently asked you not to. I think the remedy for you and CoM is good for the both. In the end, my evidence weight more of Scjessey. Anyway, I hope you're doing good jobs. Regards.--Caspian blue 12:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's from Catch-22. I would comment further, but I would like to get into the habit of not dealing at all with that editor. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a 20/20 tag on Wikipedia for articles with an episode? Thanks --TalkAbout (talk) 19:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see any special tag or template in the 20/20 article. Some fictional shows have well-developed episode guides, like the Simpsons. For example, a given episode would have the template {{portal|The Simpsons}} and [[Category:The Simpsons episodes, season xx]]. But I don't think anyone has ever gone into that much detail with news shows. Wikidemon (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--TalkAbout (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated your new article for DYK on the Main Page. Figured I'd let you know. -RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 20:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. We should see if there are any public domain images... the article says a U.S. federal employee has been tracking the clouds so maybe there is a free government picture available. Wikidemon (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, your edit removing the praise/criticism looks good, but instead of saying 'at the other page', which could mean any of a dozen talk pages, please link it next time? Or use the article being edited's talk page to provide a link, rather than make others sort through your contrib list. ThuranX (talk) 21:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It refers to the immediately preceding edit summary. Wikidemon (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Peace
		I know we may not agree politically, but your comment on Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama is what Wikipedia is suppose to be all about. Working together peacefully. Jojhutton (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On June 18, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Undulus asperatus, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wizardman 02:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks like the Arbitration Committee are about to do a U-turn on their normal policy line of BLP enforcement in the Obama case. Of course, I'm going to appeal to have some of the remedies vacated as soon as I can. But we need to think about other things as well, such as creating a criticism article, because it's obviously NPOV. And we need to cover the important issues, like him swatting a fly yesterday, or him ordering mustard on his cheeseburger, or him making a joke about the Special Olympics! Sceptre ^(talk) 00:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only way to get your remedies vacated would be to petition Arbcom and I doubt that, having considered the case for three months, they would be in a mood to overturn their own decision very quickly. I won't comment about the appropriateness of the sanctions but I do think you could have been less confrontational and more polite with other editors, and done less reverting. Structurally, I think the same argument against your own revert restrictions would apply equally to the other three editors who received them: they are too harsh and unspecific because they relate to editing everywhere on the encyclopedia, and no evidence was introduced or mentioned by the arbitrators of edit warring outside of the Obama-related articles, Obama-related political matters, and meta-pages relating to Obama article-related disputes. I think the best way to have the editing restrictions lifted would be to do a lot of good work, in an exemplary fashion, without getting into any edit wars or disputes, for a few months, then go to back with a promise to continue like that. I don't see that Arbcom reached the question of BLP, and was not very definitive about criticism articles. Wikidemon (talk) 02:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do have a point about there being no real edit warring outside Obama pages. And my point is that, by issuing the same sanction to Steve (who was previously desysopped for edit-warring) and to me (who was trying to uphold BLP, even if I did edit-war) shows a lack of thinking through on the Committee's part. Besides, the only thing that the AC got right is that I edit warred on the FAQ; I reverted Steve "outside" Obama articles as he was, at the time, being exceedingly disruptive, and that's what contribution logs are for; and the word "fuck" does not a personal attack make. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, you have two editors who absolutely hate you. There is nothing you can say to either of them that will change that, so I recommend you simply say nothing. It's really obvious that their comments about you are without merit, so you really have no need to defend yourself. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to craft a canned response to the attacks, lest they continue on other pages. As I commented (and as you know from the case), when people throw enough mud, some of it sticks sometimes. Letting accusations sit unanswered makes people believe they must have some merit. One of these two will shortly be prohibited by Arbcom from interacting with me. The other, should he continue, is a real problem - he announced (in the diffs I posted) that he will hound me indefinitely until he shuts me down, and he has appeared several times since then to try to do so. You've probably also noticed from the history of AN/I that the fastest way to gum up an AN/I report is to accuse the original poster of bad behavior. The upset editors on the Obama pages seem to have learned from each other on that front. Wikidemon (talk) 15:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you, and I think the canned response idea is definitely the way to go. I feel that we have both suffered from the "mud slinging" approach by both of these problem editors. I think you can understand why I pulled out of all the Obama articles when I did - I refuse to have all the work I do in good faith mischaracterized in the way that these two editors (and others) always seem to do. Now, it seems, all the good work I do in other areas of Wikipedia will be affected by the harsh restrictions that will be applied to me by ArbCom - largely because of the actions of these two editors. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

• Stevertigo (talk · contribs), Sceptre (talk · contribs), ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs), Scjessey (talk · contribs) and Grundle2600 (talk · contribs) are admonished for their edit-warring. Furthermore, they shall be subject to an editing restriction for one year. They are limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and are required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.
• In addition, Scjessey (talk · contribs) and ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs) are topic-banned from Obama-related articles for six months, including talk pages.
• ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Scjessey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are not to interact with each other, including replying or reverting of each other’s actions. ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Wikidemon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are not to interact with each other, including replying or reverting of each other’s actions.

Non-compliance to the above are grounds for blocking for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling.

• Wikidemon (talk · contribs) is admonished for his part in the edit warring.
• Grsz11 (talk · contribs) and Tarc (talk · contribs) are reminded to be civil when dealing with hot-button and controversial situations.
• Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) is reminded to be more civil when dealing with users and to not use talk pages as a forum.

The probation on articles relating to Barack Obama will be reviewed by a group of involved and non-involved editors and administrators to see how effective it has been. The process will last two weeks. After the two weeks elapse, the working group will provide their findings to us and the community, and will outline how the article probation will run in the future.

- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 15:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, neutrality concerns over the criminal conviction of Chris Brown have been raised on the talk page. Since you have been previously involved in the discussion, will you answer the request for comment? Thankyou. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 21:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your kind words about the article that I wrote about Obama and the fly.

Grundle2600 (talk) 00:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I am hoping we can draw a line in the sand and move on. Please avoid posting anything from this point which could be considered inflammatory. Thankyou for not seeking 'action' at this point. Taking a deep breath, I am posting this advice all round and hoping everyone can calm down and move on. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]