Misplaced Pages

You are not being just

User Thulean is vandalizing, ignoring WP:POV and WP:CON and manipulating WP:Ettiquete to achieve these other goals. If I would have said he's a liberal or a communist or a tory, nobody would have said a word. But for some odd reason WP:Ettiquete protects people with a far-right ideology that are precisely those who most vandalize and in the most sophisticated manner. I am just stating the truth, and you should investigate if I am saying the truth or slandering him. It's not a matter of "name-calling". It's a matter of truth, honsety and protecting Misplaced Pages against vandalism and manipulation. --Sugaar 22:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, another administrator has intervened in the dispute with a diferent attitude. You didn't post anything in the case but in my page. I'm assuming good faith and assuming you are in fact an administrator but I believe you should post your resolutions in the RFI relevant section too. Else it's quite confusing: for me, for you, for Durova and even for Thulean. --Sugaar 23:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No actually Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy doesn't allow those either. Please try to focus on the content and not the contributors. If you're having problems of that level, I hope you're using dispute resolution. In the meantime, try to be patient and avoid labelling other editors. I was not involved in an attempt to resolve the dispute. Shell 12:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Other administrators don't think the same. I am appealing the warning. Please see relevant discussion in the corresponding RFI. --Sugaar 12:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

There's not really anything to appeal. If other's don't think its a personal attack, that's fine. I'm just suggesting that you try not to let people get under your skin next time. Shell 13:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

As I see it I've not let anyone get under my skin. My comments on Thulean's nazism, etc. are not anger-motivated not intended to cause a name-calling war or anything. They are just descriptive of his ideology. For me and other editors it's pretty objective. It's not intended as a personal attack but as merely descriptive term. If I used "liberal" or "nationalist" nobody would put any objection, specially if there are descriptive terms. Why some (particualrly disruptive) ideologies are specially protected? That's the question I asked in the talk page of WP:Etiquette, why objective description, honesty, calling things by its name... is punished?

Why racism has special protection? It's relevant to the discussion to point out that certain POVs are such. It's also relevant to the integrity of Misplaced Pages to denounce politically motivated disruption and unilateralism when it happens.

Thulean is playing victim. Have you even asked him if he feels offended? He doesn't. He has read the WPs, chosen the most convenient and claimed protection not against insults (that he doesn't feel as such) but denounce of his (well calculated) disruptive attitude. He's claiming special protection for his ideology - and using the text of WP:Etiquette to protect his ideology from scrutiny.

And yes: the warn needs to be reviewed. I don't dare even to initiate an RFI on him while under warn. I also feel harassed by his constant threats of "you'll be blocked" and I don't dare to expose these users' attitude on fear that I may actually be blocked.

In other circumstances, I'd be less fearful of disciplinary measures but I've just started with other editors and ethnic wikiproject and portal and I think I must be around to push them ahead.

I'd also intervene in other cases of racist manipulation of articles (see Caucasoid, for instance) but now I feel threatened by the Wikibureaucracy and don't dare to act.

So your hasty warning, ignoring the objectivity of my remarks, is causing disruption and helping vandalism. And needs to be reviewed. Don't tell me that I need to be blocked before I can initiate an appeal. I don't want to reach that point but rather prevent it.

So yes: there's something that needs review. Specially as other administrators seem to see no fault (or at least no clear fault) in my actions. --Sugaar 16:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you point out what other administrators felt that labelling another editor and then continuing to use the term after they've complained is not a personal attack? Please note the policy we've been pointing you at WP:NPA specifically says: Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme. is a personal attack. The same page also mentions that its important to focus on the content and not the person who contributed it.

If you feel that another editor is pushing a POV or otherwise harming an article there are established methods to engage outside editors from the Misplaced Pages community to help resolve the problem. If you feel their behavior consistantly violates Misplaced Pages's guidelines, those same methods can be used to help resolve the problem. As a last resort, arbitration is available to impose enforcable sanctions and guidelines on editors.

The fact is that if you're not making personal attacks, you have nothing to fear. Someone could come along and warn me not to make personal attacks - since I try to avoid them, I wouldn't be concerned. I'm just asking that since he felt he needed to report you for consistantly ascribing his position to that of naziism, perhaps you could try not to use that term in the future and find another way to resolve your differences. Shell 16:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I know about DR methods but I had to excuse myself from the ongoing Cabal because I feel I cannot express freely while your warn is in effect (still Thulean went to my user page and threatened me again with a block for that, when I have not used the forbidden words not gone even close to that - I've opened a new RFI for that). The matter of wether describing the ideological manipulations, consensus disruptions and POV pushing in clear terms is an insult is relevant beacuse I can't even speak (no matter what I say) without Thulean threatening me with a block (and that is probably scaring other editors as well).

I have also reopened the case against me that you so hastily archived because I feel it's not fully solved.

Durova clearly said (and you must have read it before your archived the case) that: I did a search on Yahoo and did find Nazi websites that use "Thulean" and "Thule" in their titles, so - strong as the statement from Sugaar was - it appears to be fact-based and valid. There are two sides to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA that apply to this particular discussion: first, standards of civility at Misplaced Pages do not depend on what ideology an editor holds; second, discourse on certain sensitive topics may require the judicious use of terms that would otherwise be eschewed as hot button and inflammatory (such as when the topic at hand actually is Nazism and racism). This is obviously in contradition with your warning and that's why I reopened the case in hope that the situation is cleared up.

You say I have nothing to fear but I, and possibly other editors, are now in fear of Thulean's "lawyer" tactics. I can't describe his POV as racist and I can't denounce the obvious agenda that drives his unilateral actions (on what other respectable editors agree).

I'm not trying to solve the POV dispute in the PAIN I'm trying to clear my name and know that I'm not gagged t speak up my mind in honest and direct terms.

I'm also trying to gain some protection against Thulean's harassing and threats. --Sugaar 07:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason to remove yourself from participating in dispute resolution - this is the proper way to solve your issues. I've asked you to stop labelling him a nazi and you've said you won't do it, so I really can't see what more you want done.

I've pointed you to the specific wording in the policy that I feel you violated. Per the instructions on WP:PAIN, you're welcome to take this to the administrator's incident noticeboard if you feel its still not been resolved, but please do not continue readding cases to the personal attack noticeboard. Just because Durova understood where you got the label from doesn't give you license to repeatedly label another editor against his wishes to devalue his contributions. You did not say his editing was in line with nazi ideology, you called him a nazi - those are two very different things.

Thulean can do nothing to block you so long as you're not doing anything block worthy. You've agreed not to continue calling him a nazi, so what more is there to worry over? The warning I gave was only about the nazi situation and doesn't mean that any mistake you make will automatically get you blocked. Shell 10:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I've removed Thulean's bogus warnings from your talk page and warned him against the behavior. I hope that will help resolve some of your remaining concerns. Shell 10:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

As long as your warn is in effect my ability of free speech is gagged. How can I describe Thulean's ideology and motivations. Should I call them "liberal", "unspeakable"? Without mentioning it, I can't speak up my mind. It's not name calling it's accurate description of reality in the appropiate context. As I said your resolution and the other two resolutions are contradictory. Removing the issue is just hiding the dirt under the carpet, not solving anything.

Regarding your editions of my user-page, they solve nothing as you have not warned Thulean on them. In fact they may prejudice my case, as his misbeahviour is not visible. I am reverting that edit of you because, as this issue will probably have to go to ArbCom, I want all evidence available well at hand. If I just wanted them removed (hiding the dirt under the carpet), I'd do it myself because after all it's my user space. But until this is fully settled, I'm keeping all the evidence well visible for all to see.

I know perfectly that Thulean can't block me. I'm not a newbie around here. But I know that with administrators like you he can well do it by indirect means, manipulating the case in his favor.

I fear I have nothing left to do but going to ArbCom, unless you accept this dispute that is now between you and me to be mediated. You are allowing me no other options. If you are interested in mediation, please say so. --Sugaar 12:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, like I said in the message above, I did warn him about the behavior and asked him to try to avoid messaging you until the content issue is resolved.

Perhaps, like has been suggested and is in the policy I've pointed out multiple times, you should discuss the content and not the editor. For instance, you can say: "I feel this paragraphy is biased and presents a racist point of view". This is optimal since it avoids discussing the contributor at all. If you must, you could always say "This editor constantly pushes his POV by making edits like (give diffs); these edits seem to have a racist slant." Again, you've characterized the edits and chosen not to label the editor.

I'm not sure why you feel this needs mediation, but you're happy to ask for third party assistance if you feel it is warranted. I'm fairly easy to get along with :) I would have to suggest that ArbCom may be a bit premature since there are many other ways to come to a resolution; they typically reject cases without prior resolution attempts. Shell 12:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this issue needs mediation because there has been two contraditctory rulings: your's and Durova's (and another one that was more in the line of Durova's than in yours but was more ambiguous). But instead of keeping the case open till a consensual resolution was reached or whatever procedure is used in these cases, you are archiving the case, keeping me in legal limbo: I don't know if I'm warned or if my actuation was within the margins of WP:CIV, as Durova thinks. I don't know if I'm aquitted or sentenced, innocent or guilty. And I need to defend my innocence before I can discuss anything re. Thulean and his activties.

So my first choice was to try to keep the case open till that was cleared. But you instead prefered to brush it under th rug keeping my position in a legal limbo.

Therefore, I need to either reopen the case until the administrators involved can reach an agreement on which is the one ruling (there can't be two or three contradictory rulings, that's not serious) or to appeal it.

I'm absolutely convinced of my innocence and Durova saw the why I acted the way I did. Without justifying me she also admitted that it was a reasonable use of the terms that I cannot write because they were fully relevant to the discussion.

I'm also absolutely convinced that Thulean is not offended but just playing offended. The only thing that offends him is that I and others are putting obstacles to his unilateral and ideologically motivated disruptive activities.

But first of all I need the case reviewed and a clear resolution reached: either I'm warned or I acted justifiedly. But it can't be both ways.

So do I fill for mediation or do you prefer to reopen the case and try to reach a consensus with the other administrators involved? Both would be valid for me. What can't be is this juridical limbo with contradictory resolutions: one sentencing (yours) and the other absolving (Durova's and partly the third one). Either I'm guilty or not-guilty but can't be both. --Sugaar 15:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think its important to point out that while Durova did understand where you were coming from, he did not choose to reverse the warning you were given. Also, the mediator for the article disupte has also warned you about insulting Thulean . It is clear that you are continuing to attack Thulean in a manner that has caused more than one other editor to caution you against it. It would be best if you stopped referring to him and discussed the article content. Shell 17:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

No.

Durova and the other administrator were apparently unaware of the warning because you made no notice of it in the case. I believe that Durova thought s/he was giving the first ruling. I haven't talked with her, so I really don't know for sure.

When I started this discussion with you was precisely because your lack of mentioning the warning was causing confusion to me, to Durova and even to Thulean. That's the first thing I wrote in this discussion.

I said then: well there are contradictory rulings: can you sit together and decide a simple one?

And no: I have not been attacking Thulean. I have been defending myself and the other serious editors, and Misplaced Pages itself, from his twisted tactics by all the legitimate means I could think of. I have never again used the forbidden words, even if that made for me impossible to discuss the issues at hand. As I say: I feel gagged and unable to express the dimensions of the problem. We are discussing racism in that page and how do you expect me to discuss it if I can't use that word?

Anyhow all I want is that Thulean's behaviour is investigated in depth.

I have also been informed that the correct way to appeal this uncertain ruling is to go to WP:AN/I. Of course, I'm willing the case to be mediated if you still want it. But I am very unhappy on how you handled the case: the hasty warn, the removal of the case without a clear ruling, not giving me info on how to appeal your decission, etc.

I will wait 24hrs before starting the AN/I, for the case you do want a mediation. --Sugaar 18:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I've said before that I have no problem with mediation, but perhaps you should ask Durova to clarify first? There's no reason that more than one person can't warn you about your behavior - you displayed the same problems in the meditation as in your prior discussions that Thulean reported. You do not need to insult Thulean and his motives in order to state your case - I've tried giving you some suggestions on how to do so. I'm not sure what more you want out of this. Shell 18:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, my point is that I was not "insulting" Thulean but "describing objectively". Nazism (or neonazism or white racism or white nationalism) is a real ideology. If I say that X is liberal or nationalist or communist or conservative, that would be no problem. But for some reason the people that has that unspeakable ideology is overprotected by WP:Etiquette (that anyhow is just a guideline) and can ask special protection from exposing their ideological motivation.

I agree that, in normal circumstances, denouncing each others' ideology is not polite nor constructive. But that page has been under consistent attack by (mostly anonymous) vandals of clearly nazi/racist ideology. Thulean and Dark Thicondrias have been the only ones in that spectrum to do it with a username. While DT is somewhat estabilished, when I first denounced T's attitude and ideology, he was a totally new user. He has just a couple of weeks in Misplaced Pages and he has already caused all this disruption. Imagine what can he do if left unchecked.

I may well talk with Durova after all but I hoped that you could discuss it between yourselves without need of me pushing it further. In fact I think it's your duty (as you archived the case) to clarify which is the resolution. As I am between three contradictory ones: your warn, a rather supportive resolution by Durova and a no-say reolution by the third administrator. Neither of them could know about your warn unless you (or someone else) informed them.

Obviously burying the case before they could read about the warn didn't help either. --Sugaar 19:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The noticeboard you're referring to is only for people asking for intervention because of ongoing personal attacks - it is not a substitute for our dispute resolution processes. Reports are removed after action has been taken.

I assume the reason you're continuing to discuss this is because you want me to remove the warning. I've explained why, regardless of your intention, your wording was accusatory, dismissive and used language to insult and belittle Thulean. There are no good reasons to break the personal attack policy regardless of whether or not you feel the comments were warranted. There are polite and civil ways to discuss article concerns without ever even having to mention the contributors. You will not agree with the viewpoints and opinions of everyone you meet in Misplaced Pages, so its important to develop non-judgemental and accusatory ways of discussing issues.

Please remember warnings are not a black mark, just a reminder that policy states that attacks should be avoided and the behavior can lead to you be blocked if you continue. Shell 21:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I realized it's WP:AN without the /I. Anyhow, I'll check those ways only if thre's no other option.

I don't want you to remove the warning. Well, of course I want the warn removed, but basically I want the case reviewed. I think you archived it too hastily with contradictory resolutions and you have only given wings to a vandal with that. I think that the correct resolution is that of Durova and therefore I think your warn is plainly wrong. Archiving the case with a confuse resolution has only brought more confussion to all the parties involved. The case must be reviewed one way or another.

The warn is just plainly out of place. As such I give no importance to it, but for the fact that it gags me and other users from denouncing explicitly the ideological motivations of certain (somewhat sophisticated) vandals. I believe in the assambleary principles of Misplaced Pages and therefore as I stated in Misplaced Pages talk: Etiquette I think we must be able to express ourselves honestly, specially when using such tags are necessary for the proper discussion of the matter in question. I think that "nazi" in this case is not an insult but an accurate ideological description. There are some (few hopefully) nazis among wikipedians, as there are liberals, conservatives, anarchists and whatever. Would you make an offense if someone called me anarchist? Of course I would not denounce it to the PAIN or anywhere, I make no secret of my ideological preferences, unlike others that pretend to be what they aren't.

I think that honesty is at least as important as politeness and therefore I demand that the case is reviewed, hopefully according to what Durova resolved, that was way more reasonable. Your warn was totally out of place and is only helping vandalism and POV-pushing against Misplaced Pages's principles.

The case has given wings to Thulean to keep trying his "legalist" tactics avoiding consensus-making usual ways (but keeping editing at will until the page has been finally protected).

I see no point in continuing this discussion here. Do you want to go to mediation or should I check for alternative ways of complain against administrative procedure? --Sugaar 22:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Might I point out that you are, in your statement above, now calling the editor a vandal? I understand that you do not agree with his ideaology and editing, but this isn't the way to resolve your concerns. This type of attacking and incivility toward Thulean is precisely the trouble. I'm sorry we're not able to see eye-to-eye on this, but sometimes you must agree to disagree. If you feel that further dispute resolution is needed, I would be happy to participate. Shell 22:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• That's it. I've given enough time to Sugaar to understand why what he is doing is wrong. And why he shouldnt comment on editors but on the text of debate. I'll give him a warning (this time I hope you wont call it bogus) if he continues saying things like

"But that page has been under consistent attack by (mostly anonymous) vandals of clearly nazi/racist ideology. Thulean and Dark Thicondrias have been the only ones in that spectrum to do it with a username."

and then I'm going to report it him again. Sugaar,

Nazi

/naatzi/

noun (pl. Nazis) 1 historical a member of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. 2 derogatory a person with extreme racist or authoritarian views.

When someone uses the Oxford English Dictionary to define white , you may think they are Nazi, but it's only your opinion, many people would disagree with you. So please keep your derogatory remarks to yourself, even if you think you are being honest. Frankly, I have my own honest opinions about you, but I dont voice them because despite being objective and honest to me, they may be very insulting to you. Thulean 00:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

See how I am gagged? Each time I try to speak my mind you (and Thulean) start lawyering as if I was insulting. I'm just trying to describe situations and facts.

I feel this discussion is going nowhere. Several days have passed since I asked you to agree mediation and you have only been talking in circles and accusing me of incivility each time I'm forced to explain things clearly.

I don't think I'm praticularly uncivil but just honest. I can't be a hypocrite and I believe it's totally against the principles of Misplaced Pages.

I'm going to AN. --Sugaar 15:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• (sighs). Listen. I'm going to attempt this one last time. First read the description of Nazi above. Then read liberal: .

Do you see derogatory anywhere in the discription of liberal? No. Do you understand the difference between calling someone liberal and Nazi? Hopefully.

Even then, calling someone liberal and then dismiss his arguments based on that IS a personal attack. Not to mention calling someone liberal just based on his nick is silly. I'm not even talking about there are different definitions of liberal. The definition you think is true might not be accepted by everyone else.

Finally I find your notion of that I'm pretending to be insulted absurd. Obviously, I went all the trouble of reporting you. Finding where to report you, read rules then read personal attack guidelines took *time* to me since I've been editing Wiki for less than a week.

So look. Your culture might be ok with everyone saying what they think as honest but Basque culture (assuming you are from there) is far from being a worldwide norm. I understand your cultural confusion because currently I'm temporarily staying in a country whose culture is light years away from my home. However, I also think it's no excuse to insult people. I've debated with Psychohistorian and Alun as well but I didnt report them? Why? Because they concentrated on the debate. So I suggest you review your attitude of discussion before pointing fingers. If you cant be sure of what to say, check an english dictionary to see if the term you will use is derogatory. But I imagine simple common sense should suffice. Thulean 19:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I would suggest the advice of WP:SPADE indicates that Sugaar's comments were not a policy violation. Addhoc 15:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The nazi comments might fall under the thoughts of that essay, though it still would have been considerably preferable to object to the material and not the editor - I do have a small objection in that dismissing edits because of an affiliation is explicitly in WP:NPA. However, I have serious difficulty seeing how calling other editors vandals or "Misplaced Pages enemy number one" would be justified in that manner. Shell 15:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have already indicated that it would be preferable for Sugaar to handle situations in a dispassionate manner. Addhoc 16:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Which is what was being said all along, unfortunately that wasn't the path he chose in these particular circumstances. He's learned through this how to focus on the contributions and not the contributor and even gone on to advise another editor of the same. However, that is not what the RfC is about - since the warning and block (now two and one week old respectively) Sugaar has repeatedly claimed that both were violations of policy. The RfC was an attempt to get closure on the situation; I have many other tasks I would like to return to. Shell 17:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Bogus Warnings

You have left a message in my talk page about my bogus warnings. I disagree. Sugaar has said this AFTER he has been warned:

"I can't intervene further. Thulean has initiated an RFI against me for denouncing his political motivations and I have a warn. Whatever I may say could be used by Thulean against me to force a block, so I can't discuss openly before the warn is removed. Nevertheless I will keep protecting the article against unilateral harassment by Thulean, who obviously is not interested in reaching any consensus but just imposing his opinion and (unspeakable) ideology by any means at reach. --Sugaar 16:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)"

And even our meditator warned him:

"Please do not insult Thulean. I don't care if he is or isn't Nazi (he probably isn't though), but you must respect him here. If you want to do that, do it on the main discussion page, not here. Also, please, could everyone read WP:NPOV by Saturday, so we may start this by then? | AndonicO Talk 17:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)"

Do you still think my warnings were bogus? Thulean 13:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. While he's not being incredibly civil, I'm not sure I'd categorize those as personal attacks. He's agreed not to call you a nazi anymore so hopefully the mediation can go forward. Shell 15:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If you arent sure, perhaps you should ask me if I'm insulted. Or perhaps you should refrain from calling my warnings "bogus". His implication is clear ("unspokable ideology") and I made my warnings so he could stop speculating about my motives and concentrate on the text of debate. Thulean 15:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Please read our personal attack policy, it should help explain why, while uncivil, nothing in the discussion was a personal attack. I'm sorry you feel insulted by it; that's why we ask that people focus on the contributions and not discuss the contributor. I hope the mediation helps resolve these difficulties. Shell 15:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I did actually. Perhaps you can clarify:

"Examples of personal attacks":

"Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme."

"Accusatory comments such as "George is a troll", or "Laura is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom."

Clearly, he speculates about my affiliations and uses it to discredit my views. And I believe this is accusatory:

"I will keep protecting the article against unilateral harassment by Thulean". I wont press this further but I just wanted to make my point clear. Thulean 15:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Having seen more of the mediation page in question, I would agree that Sugaar is seriously pushing the bounderies of personal attacks and being incredibly incivil. It would appear that the mediator has already cautioned him and should continue to intervene should further assistance be needed. Shell 17:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Thx for removing your warnings :) Thulean 02:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation at White people

Just wanted to ask if White people could be semi-protected while mediation is going on. Editors are more concerned about having edit wars and accusing each other of attacking them, and not assuming good faith, than reading WP:NPOV so mediation can begin. Right now, all that mediation is is a second talk page for arguments, rather than a tranquil page for exchanging of ideas. By the way, I neither support Sugaar's accusations of Nazism, nor Thulean's RFI against him. Also, this Euskata has been editing almost, if not, excusively on pages involved with the White people article. His account was created November 9, and I suspect he is a sockpuppet. Where should I report that? | AndonicO Talk 01:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Given the edit history and the fact that the disputants have accused each other of having multiple socks and opened numerous WP:RFIs on each other, I've given it full protection for now. I was hard pressed to find a revision since the dispute started that wasn't a revert. If you think this is too much and want it scaled back to semi-protection, just let me know.

You might want to see how the investigation requests go - there's one on Euskata, or you could also open a request for checkuser and have the accounts checked - you might really want to open a checkuser on all the disputants to ferret out once and for all who's really who. Shell 17:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

For now, I think full protection is fine; perhaps we can change it to semi-protected in a week or so, depending on how the mediation goes. Thank you for your help; it may speed things up a bit. By the way, I added a check user, like you said, of everyone involved here, including myself. I doubt there are sockpuppets (aside from User:Euskata), because they wouldn't argue so fiercly. Once more thank you for your help. | AndonicO Talk 19:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Can you help me to determine if these last edits in White people are vandalism? They keep changing cited metarial with uncited metarial. And then, one person added stuff which he was explained that it doesnt mean what he thinks it means. See and Thulean 22:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The vandlism policy defines vandalism very narrowly. Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. These issues should be resolved through the current mediation. Shell 16:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Brought the case to ArbCom

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Current requests. As stated above, I felt I had no choices, as you did not accept mediation and kept patronizing. --Sugaar 16:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You are right: you accepted the mediation request but I misread you because of your patronizing tone and threatening questioning of my terminology.

I've asked to retrieve the case and let's go to mediation. --Sugaar 17:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Sugaar, please please stop being uncivil about other contributors editing and motives. I have never attempted to threaten or patronize you; I'm sorry if you've felt that way. Please feel free to use any method of dispute resolution you'd like. Shell 17:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I've filed for mediation: Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/PAIN case mishandling. Please sign.

I do find your insistence on "being civil" each time I make any protest quite patronizing. You are taking a one-sided view to the issue. I have never attacked Thulean's user pages with bogus warnings or any other way, I have not been the one that started this wikilawyering and I have been throughtly honest. I have not created sockpuppets or invited people from outside Misplaced Pages to get involved and I have not POV-pushed my viewpoints nor brushed any difficulties under the carpet.

Anyhow let's discuss all this in the mediation. --Sugaar 18:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Being civil and not attacking people is a guideline that the Misplaced Pages community has agreed on - asking that you follow it isn't an attempt to be patronizing, its an attempt to help keep you out of trouble and help resolve the dispute you're having over the White people article.

Further review of Thulean's warnings show that they weren't bogus - you continued to attack him on the mediation and were warned there by the mediator as well. Asking that you and others in the conflict follow Misplaced Pages's policies isn't wikilawering.

I hope we can find a way to resolve this and the additional disputes you're involved in. Shell 18:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not attacking him. I am critizising his methods and denouncing his motivations. He is anyhow no one to warn me. I haven't gone to his user page to make threats of blocking. I don't like to harass people. I have just discussed the relevant matters in the relevant pages. And each time I discuss them I fear that Shell Kenney will come around and warn me again or just block me.

In the very difficult problematic of the White people page you are being of little help except for T's lawyering tactics. I have read that Durova for instance has recused herself from this case on fears of leaning to one side. I think you also are leaning to one side (much more clearly than Durova) but you still keep taking actions. I wish I could recuse you in eventual further cases, really.

It is impossible to discuss racism without using that term, it is ipossible to discuss complex vandalism without using the term vandal. You have warned LSLM on grounds that he described the ideology promoted by T and DT in very scholarly terms. Nazism (or if you prefer neonazism, for which nazism is just a shorthand) is a real ideology, it's not about insults it's about description of really scary things that are happening here.

We are all making our best to avoid falling in the legalist traps set by Thulean but we can hardly struggle against such one-sided admins as you, really. --Sugaar 21:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

"we can hardly struggle against such one-sided admins as you, really." ...

...That would also qualify as a personal attack, per WP:NPA. So far as I can see, that's all Shell has been trying to tell you. Crimsone 21:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Sugaar continues to baselessly accuse both "humble" users and administrators alike of all sorts of unethical and vandalistic behavior. Most recently he rehashed his groundless claim that Thulean is either the outright "puppetmaster" of multiple named and unnamed actors or a collaborator in an "international" ring of what he repeatedly terms "racist," "nordicist," and "neonazi" vandals and trolls. His exact incendiary words are: A very simple case: this "user" (sockpuppet maybe, maybe one of those international "friends" of Thulean that are appearing more and more frequently these strange days) has copied my user page in his/hers with some mockery modifications. Can't provide diffs because it's a newly created page (under "Getxo" heading). This behavior was unacceptable two days ago, one day ago, and is just as unacceptable today. He has been warned but he has not understood, he now needs to be presented with the possibility of a short-term block. Thank you.--AdvocatusPlatus 04:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The checkuser confirmed that none of the accounts involved in the dispute were running sockpuppets except Euskata. Unfortunately this is a simply content dispute run completely out of control. Sugaar's comments that you link to weren't particularly civil, but they also aren't a clear violation of the personal attack policy. It would probably be best to try ignoring his incivility and resolve the content dispute so everyone can put this behind them.

I'm really a bit concerned that you created this account just to make these complaints. Please read our policy on sockpuppets. Thanks. Shell 04:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but he also made this unflattering comment (which was directed at a certain administrator) as well:Apart of that I want to mention that LSLM has been seriously warned by Shell Kenney, who is not taking any neutral stand. I wonder how an administrator can be recused in such processes. While other administrators like Durova have recused themselves in a push of honesty, this one is clearly favoring Thulean's lawyering tactics...I'm starting to become paranoid. --Sugaar 19:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC).--AdvocatusPlatus 05:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't be concerned. Editors who find that they don't work well within Misplaced Pages policy will often find somewhere else to contribute. Give the mediation time to work. Shell 05:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Shell: now you are making sense.

My apologies for becoming paranoid about you.

And I imagine that at this point of the case, you are starting to see what's really going on.

Who's this Advocatus Platus? He has been editing the polemic intruder Getxo, even DT's comments in the talk, deleting them all.

My impression is that he's another of several newcomers of unknown origin who are "buzzing" around the White people conflict but where do they come from? Are all Stormfronters (or alike)? Are just anonymous wikipedians that decide to take form (register) precisely to create confusion in this case? I'm personally for the first one but can't say for sure. --Sugaar 08:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I imagine they're probably more sockpuppets. So far, the checkuser that your mediator requested only found that User:Euskata had multiple accounts (and he had quite a few). Its difficult to deal with the issues going on when random accounts keep popping up like this. Shell 18:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand (this part). It's actually a very difficult conflict. --Sugaar 19:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking...

That WP:NPA does not mention accusations of "nazism" or "racism" (much less when justified) as PAs, that WP:CIV doesn't do it either, and that, therefore your warn on me and your severe warn on LSLM are totally unjustified. Only WP:EQ (which is just a guideline) mentions (quite anecdotically) the terms. I think we will have a lot to discuss at the mediation process. And I also think I was and am justified in appealing those warns and questioning your behaviour as administrator. --Sugaar 00:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you'll see via your post at ANI that your belief is incorrect. There is no such thing as "just a guideline" - guidelines are just as actionable as policies but may be edited more frequently. Also, you were warned because you clearly and unequivocably violated our personal attack policy. Thank you for finally taking your complaint to the correct forum. Shell 18:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

In the ANI they did not back you with WP:EQ but WP:PA and they were kind enough as to quote the corresponding sentences (Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme - you were partly right but for the wrong reasons), something that you were unable to do in all our discussion. A guideline is a just a guideline and can't be enforced by itself much less so severely and hastily. It's also made quite clear that the abstract mention of ideologies either in general, as LSLM did, or in particular regarding the tone of edits, are not PAs. It's also made clear that nazi is not different from commie or whatever other ideology: it is the use of the ideology as PA what makes it PA. In this sense I think you interpreted many things quite beyond policy.

I just realized that you're running for ArbCom. After my experience with you, I'm quite certain that you are not yet prepared. I guess it's no surprise that I won't vote for you (so you can disregard my somewhat mischievous questions if you wish) but I do hope that in the future I will be able to say otherwise.

Regards, --Sugaar 20:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually they said precisely what I've been saying this entire rime - you are the only person who keeps calling this a violation of WP:CIV - I have always affirmed that this is a violation of WP:NPA. I also {in my first response to you ) quite clearly stated that commie, liberal or tory were not acceptable when used in the same manner. For the record, I also quoted the exact same text from the policy for you days ago in an attempt to resolve this issue.

It is clear that regardless of how many different editors and administrators say the exact same things to you that you are not going to agree - can we please just agree to drop this? Shell 20:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation rejected: moved to ANI

Hi again, Shell.

The mediation case has been rejected: (Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/PAIN case mishandling), on the grounds that it is an ANI issue. I've asked for clarification to the signing MC member but, anyhow, it seems I had no option but going to ANI (here). I really wanted to slve it by more "peaceful" procedures but it seems Wikibureaucracy gives little choice. Regards, --Sugaar 11:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you've finally used the method that everyone had been counselling you was the next step. Hopefully this will bring some closure to the issue. Shell 18:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You told me ANI wasn't the place to appeal. >:-( In fact nobody directed me to ANI but an administrator in the talk page (you said s/he was wrong) and then the member of the Mediation Comitee. You were counseling me to go to mediation, if anything at all. You did not want me to go to ANI, for whichever reasons. --Sugaar 20:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've misremembered again. On the 9th, I suggested ANI ; Paul Cyr suggested it to you on the 10th. The only thing I ever counselled you against was going directly to ArbCom, which is what you chose to do anyways. Please take some time to look at what was actually said before continuing to post false accusations against me in multiple places. Thanks. Shell 00:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You are right on that, though I could not remember that one. When I mentioned ANI later on, you said:

The noticeboard you're referring to is only for people asking for intervention because of ongoing personal attacks - it is not a substitute for our dispute resolution processes. Reports are removed after action has been taken.

Maybe you were refering to another noticeboard (PAIN?) but I thought you meant ANI. That's why I though the ArbCom seemed the only instance to appeal. But I have misread you in other occasions, so I apologize for what is my fault in all those misunderstandings. --Sugaar 13:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You didn't mention ANI in your post before, you mentioned me burying the report. Since the report occurred on

If you read my immediate previous post, you see that I mention AN/I, so I thought it was that you were talking about. Guess it was all nothing but a misunderstanding - yet I thought for several days you were diverting my efforts to find a solution. --Sugaar 17:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

Regarding your decision , are personal attacks ignored simply because the article is disputed? Thulean 17:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

No, but the fact is that you are all being incredibly incivil and baiting each other - since there are mitigating circumstances and since WP:PAIN isn't part of the dispute resolution process, anything but egregious attacks will be referred back to your mediation at this time. I've suggested multiple times that everyone either work on the mediation or avoid contact with each other until you can work together while following Misplaced Pages policies about personal attacks and civility. If you feel that other editors are still violating policy, please escalate dispute resolution, such as filing a request for comment on their behavior. Shell 17:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok I'll do that but I just want to say:

"However, as this may be too complicated for you to grasp (and an indepth discussion of textual analysis with someone like yourself would be sure to try my patience)"

"If this point continues to elude you, we can bring in a third party opinion who may be inclined to simplify these issues to the point where you can understand them."

"while I grant that it might seem that way to someone who is not as knowledgable or comfortable with a subject as is the majority of people"

"Since this fact is eluding you, I'll see if I can find a third party who can simplify it and put it at your level."

are definately personal attacks and far exceeds my incivility. Just wanted to make my position clear...Thulean 17:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Rude yes, egregious personal attacks, no. You're always welcome to initiate further dispute resolution methods like RfC that I mentioned or bring up their behavior in the mediation. Shell 17:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, how about LSLM:

"I am sorry, but I openly accuse Thulean and Dark Tichondrias of Neo-Nazi propaganda."? Thulean 18:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Please - try to work this out through the mediation. Mention and deal with the personal attacks there. Shell 18:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It's cabal, not official. Can we still deal everything there? Thulean 18:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Its still a chance at resolving the issues both with the article content and the editor's civility. I will remind LSLM about his behavior; poke your mediator if he's not helping keep things under control. Even though its difficult, sometimes we have to work with people we can't agree with to improve articles. Shell 18:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• I know you just want me to go away but PLEASE!!!!! I'm sick and tired of these continous attacks!

"You want to play with geneaologies... like the Jewish skinhead of the BBC article, you may get burnt." Thulean 07:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL - that's not an attack. I'm just saying that you really have no clear idea of where your ancestors may ultimately be from (and this is only in realtion with European genetics, a discussion on which you have shown very poor understanding).

Stop whinning for everything (this might be a PA, who knows?). --Sugaar 13:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I have a real problem with my talk page being used to further harass and attack other editors. Since Sugaar has been persistent in his attacks despite warnings from many different areas, he's been blocked. Please do not use my talk page in this manner. Shell 20:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Thx. Sorry for the whole mess, I wont talk with them outside meditation from now on. I was just answering because not everyone is in meditation and there was a debate about content in talk page. Anyway, thx...Thulean 03:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Its quite alright, you shouldn't have to put up with this continued harassment. Everyone has been asked nicely to deal with the content dispute and stop referring to each other in a derogatory manner - hopefully this will make Sugaar understand that Misplaced Pages policies will be enforced and he needs to change his behavior. I hope you have better luck reaching a consensus on the content dispute. Shell 04:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandal

I notice you blocked User:MeltedSugaar but s/he's back as User:ZugaarZucks, and has left a message about white man not getting blocked on my talk page. S/He's also vandalised Sugaar's page (though reverted their own edit). This is intimidation that has arisen due to the block of Sugaar. I don't know the ins and outs (and am making no comment about the reason for the block), but there seems to be a systematic attack on wikipedia race pages by nazis, and upon those who oppose the racism in the pages. I'd like this IP to be checked for sockpuppetry etc and this account blocked if possible. I don't know all the correct procedures, but I know you are an admin and have been a little bit involved in this. Thanks for any help you can give. Cheers. Alun 11:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The second account is also indef blocked (and was caught rather quickly). The IPs behind the accounts have been blocked as well, so hopefully that will assist in keeping them out of your hair. If it keeps up, I'll go further with checkuser/RFI to get rid of the problem permenantly. Shell 14:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Cheers, you are a star:) Alun 16:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Its back again today so I've opened a checkuser request to see if the underlying IP is blockable. Shell 12:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• I have a feeling that he might be Euskata. He's using same tactics. He may be also the guy who wrote french in Talk:White people, it looks like something offensive...Thulean 13:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Improper Reverts

Can you review the page and Talk at Israeli Apartheid vis a vis, Help:Reverting? Can you look at the issue? Thanks.Kiyosaki 08:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but like several people have said, you want to use some form of dispute resolution if you think there's a problem behind the reverting. From a quick glance it appears that there is reverting going on by multiple parties between two versions. It looks like consensus needs to be worked out on the talk page so that those differences can be resolved. If someone hasn't mentioned it, you'll want to read our three revert policy - its always better to discuss than edit war and more than 3 reverts in 24 hours can lead to you being blocked for disruption. Shell 08:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

good catch

I'm so glad you got the joke (and responded in kind) that I won't explain your debt to Thatcher. Just remember that you owe me a favor when someone finally reports me at ANI. Given the way I've been treating linkspammers and certain other "contributors" (I use the term loosely), it won't be long...

BTW - I've posted at ANI about various "situations" several times in the past couple weeks. I only report things that seem to require a swift block or deletion, and the responses have always been speedy and gratifying. I would wish that everyone at WP could be so clearheaded and reasonable, but that's expecting too much, even for a wish. It's always a pleasure to meet another geek fan; happy editing! --Doc Tropics 08:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. There is a fine line between assuming good faith, and blithely ignoring a pronounced scent of troll. I guess that's when the BSR (Bull Shit Radar) comes in handy. --Doc Tropics 02:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

RfC

I certified RfC about Sugaar and added couple more stuff, hope I didnt mess with any procedure. Btw, making that whole page in that format should've taken hours, I feel kinda guilty of involving you in this stuff at first place. Sorry...Thulean 15:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Its ok, I've unfortunately had to do them before so its not so bad. If this finally gives Sugaar some closure and I can go back to my normal activities on Misplaced Pages, it'll be worth it. Just remember, try to keep your head and be civil; work out the mediation so you can get back to editing too :) Shell 23:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Munich

Hello,

You are invited to join WikiProject Munich!

There are a lot of things to do in this project. From creating new articles to finetuning articles into featured article status.

How can you help?

• You can join a Task Force.
• You can help comform Munich-related articles to Misplaced Pages Policy.
• You can get free Munich-related images under GNU Free Documentation License.
• You can create and edit of Munich-related articles.
• You can do translations from German Misplaced Pages to English Misplaced Pages on Munich-related articles.
• You can help do assessments of Munich-related articles.
• You can help expand articles currently in the Stub-class and Start-class.
• You can help reference articles.
• Since original research is against Misplaced Pages policy, you can research topics to expand. This means you don't need to know anything about Munich.
• You can help expand stubs and start-class articles and help finetune other articles into Featured article status.

A WikiProject of this nature is very broad. Munich has a rich history in sports, culture, politics along with many more topics. Feel free to help out in your area of interest.

If you want to check the project out you can click the link above. If you want to join the project, you can sign up here.

If you have any questions feel free to contact myself or any other member of the project.

PAIN report comments

Hi Shell, with regard to the PAIN report on Iwazaki I would like to make it extremely clear that the user is only pointing to a non-existent problem to escape from the accusations that have been levelled at him.

Though I do not have to respond to his accusations in that thread, it is pretty much common-sense for anyone to understand that my comments should not be read as an isolated phrase but as one clause in a sequence of conversations. My usage of the term 'Sinhala goons' was a contextual remark and not an attack or anywhere close to being one. As per Durova's very own remark, there really is no evidence as such because it should be read in a sequence of events and discussions and not as a stand-out phrase. This is like highlighting only bad when we say that children should not be bad, I can't believe that somebody is actually pointing out to such a trivial remark when there is something on him. Neither did I have an idea of floating such a userbox nor did I create one. It was a casual remark mentioned as a counter for the "This user supports the killing of Tamils", which points to people of my race, which was in Iwazaki's userpage and was created by User:Lahiru_k

I would request you to look into the actual report and not let Iwazaki show that such escapism can let him go scot-free. Thanks Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 11:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

attack by recently blocked anon user

Dear Shell Kinney, User:72.74.110.151 which you blocked 24.11.2006, immediately begins attacks to some articles in vandalist manner. here. Please take alook. Regards Must 18:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Also here and here

Regards. Must 18:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom questions

Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Misplaced Pages Signpost. We're doing a series on ArbCom candidates, and your response is requested.

1. What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?

   I've been an admin for a teeny bit more than a year; I also work on WP:OTRS.

2. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?

   The ArbCom hears more and more cases as Misplaced Pages grows and there aren't a great deal of people who have the incredible amounts of time, in addition to the demeanor, to review cases. I know I've got the time and willingness and I hope the community thinks I have the demeanor, so I'd like to help out. I'm sure Fred's friends and family would like too see him again occasionally.

3. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

   I was the initiator of the Shiloh Shepherd Dog case; after two months of attempted mediation I was unable to reach an agreement between two sets of parties with outside interest in the article. I was listed as a party in the current Pseudoscience case as an attempt by one party to bolster their case since I had once blocked another party; my involvement has been scarce other than to describe the particular dispute I encountered since I have no knowledge of the substance of the dispute and little bearing on the heart of the matter. I also had an editor attempt to open an Arb case against me because he didn't want to be warned for personal attacks; it was rejected. I have commented on other cases occasionally, usually in regards to whether or not the ArbCom should consider the case. Shell 12:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press late Monday or early Tuesday (UTC), but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 02:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 27th.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 48	27 November 2006	About the Signpost

Arbitration Committee elections: Candidate profiles	Steward elections begin
Group apologizes for using Misplaced Pages name in online arts fundraiser	News and notes: 1.5 million articles, milestones
Misplaced Pages in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 01:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Need your advice desperately

I should have followed your advice and filed an rfc on snowolfd4 but I think I was too merciful. Anyways he has launched a sockpuppet case against me and user:Trincomanb with some dubious evidence, claiming voting fraud etc etc. I launched a checkuser on myself and Trincomanb hoping to sort this out. First it was rejected because I applied for it, then I got Sudharsansn to do it for me and here is the result . The checkuser person thinks its "Likely" (sigh). Both of us have given a rebuttal for the results. Trincomanb upon hearing the checkuser results decided to strike out his vote in the xfd and I am awaiting his defence in all of this. I would sincerely ask you to comment on the case when you get a chance. Elalan 14:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Voluntarily removing votes was a great thing to do until you get this cleared up. Unfortunately, checkuser isn't a good tool to prove innocence - there are many ways to get around having the same IP address and as you've seen, the folks at checkuser also look into things like close proximity of IP addresses (i.e. editing from home and from work). When two people live close to each other and have similar edits, its much easier to suggest those might be the same person than it is to prove that they are not. I'm afraid that even if snowolfd4 filed the sockpuppet report to get back at you in some way, it does present some evidence that would support his theory - having the checkuser done actually made that a bit worse. The best thing you can do is, instead of attacking the reasons that snowolfd4 created the case, show times that you and the other user were editing at the same time or times that the two of you had different viewpoints - things that show you are not the same person editing from different locations. Best of luck. Shell 15:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, if I recall correctly there were numerous instances of difference opinion on certain issues. I gather my statement on the case is perhaps a little too emotional. Thanks. Elalan 20:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The more you can be calm and point out facts that contradict his assumption, the better your case will look. If you're not familiar with showing evidence, you might want to look at the help page on diffs which are best for showing differences in edits and opinions. Shell 20:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

RE JOYCE KULHAWIK

Dear Sir or Madam:

May I ask why you speedily deleted Joyce Kulhawik's page when a "hangon" had been placed informing whoever responded that I was appealing this ridiculous accusation to the Administrator's Noticeboard, which I did.

Why after all that would you take it on yourself to delete something that was being appealed? And not even contact me to let me know.

This reflects very unprofessional, abusive and demagogic instincts on your part, I am sorry to say. I am still appealing to an administrator for a "checkuser" and once I am vindicated I will be sure to let you know. Mikijaniec 19:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

As I'm sure others have told you, checkuser cannot be used to prove someone is innocent; there are far too many ways for people to funnel through other IP addresses. The fact that on your first day, you even know what a checkuser is indicates that you are not being entirely truthful about being a new user. Since a good case has been made for you being a sockpuppet, I have no qualms about deleting articles you create - if someone determines you are not a sock, its easy to undelete the articles later. You might want to take a look at our no personal attacks policy - coming to me in this manner certainly does nothing to enhance your credibility. Shell 19:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sir or Madam:

I apologize if I was abrupt but I stand by my comments. I forgot to mention to you (although I did mention it on the Noticeboard) that I was advised to request a "checkuser" by Isotope23, a helper, and I frankly DON'T KNOW what a checkuser is and did not claim to; I only know that I was advised to request one by Isotope23.

I am sorry that that point wasn't clear.

Let me be frank - I wish to be vindicated, and if there is no way to do so then I am being banned without appeal or representation for no good reason despite Isotope's consideration that AGF (Assume Good Faith) be applied. It is absurd that because I because I have a good vocabulary I am being penalized.

What is the good case you referred to, aside from my knowing words such as "canard" and "Luddite"? Am I to understand that no other Wikipedian (amongst millions) has ever used these words?

I want to be vindicated and if the "checkuser" will not do that then please LET ME KNOW HOW TO GO ABOUT IT. Why should Demiurge's word outweigh that of "Isotope23"?

Thank you.

Mikijaniec 19:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually its not just the language; you happen to copy the banned user's page, happen to use the same language and happen to edit the same articles and add the same content. You know that we use AGF as an abbreviation and knew where the admin noticeboard was within your first 10 edits. You're also on a spree of being rather rude to other users, which , oddly enough, was the exact behavior that got the banned user banned. Perhaps you should calm down for a bit and try to work this out? As it is, things are not going well. Shell 19:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• For a new user, you certainly weren't long scooting off to complain about User:Demiurge on WP:ANI. Hmmm. Furthermore, you are now doing the rounds of the admins, as you have done in the past. Further-urther-more, your edits, interests, diction, writing style and commentary is remarkably similar to the banned editor, Robert Sieger. Even your indignation is redolent of RMS. - Alison 19:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Shell Kinney:

I don't understand what you are saying; are you saying that because I went to update some names on the list of breast cancer victims, and created a page for one who is an ovarian cancer survivor (so far), that means I am doing the same thing as some other person? I did not know what AGF meant until I hit on the link that Isotope provided on the Noticeboard and that's how I found out what AGF means; just as I only requested a "checkuser" at the suggestion of Isotope123, as I explained to you already.

As far as being rude, I made the comments to you that I made b/c of your precipitate deleting of my page on Joyce Kulhawik. J. Smith apparently agrees with me.

As far as the Noticeboard I simply went to the main page and clicked away until I read about it and it seemed the best option (my adrenaline was pumping, I'll admit) and I clicked on it, got to the bottom of the page and left my message under the previous last person's message so I could be sure it would be seen.

To whom else was I rude? Why don't you look at the message I left for Demiurge on his talk page to which he refuses to respond even though everyone is telling me that I have to resolve it with him. I can't do that if he won't respond of if he is partial. And why don't you ask who this Alison is, who has a virtual shrine on her talk page to this guy that everyone is gunning for (impartial?) and why she has been harrassing me.

Oh, I just realized, you're referring to the comment about shoddy grammar that I made to Alison. I was angry at her impertinence (yes another obscure word I like to use sometimes) that she displayed and childishly I responded in kind. That was immature, but I don't think that by itself displays a degree of immaturity that would make me ineligible to participate on Misplaced Pages.

I repeat that I am appalled at the apparent lack of checks and balances that allows users to delete other user's edits for no other reason than because they choose to. I am also upset that after all this an unbiased administrator cannot spare 10 minutes or so to review all the data and resolve this. If I lose I'll go away. I am not going to waste my time.

Mikijaniec 20:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you'd lump me in as a biased administrator - I knew very little of the case other than it had resulted in a ban. Upon looking at the multiple coincidences, I had to come to the same conclusion that two other editors familiar with the case have. I've mentored many, many new users and they simply don't have the knowledge you do in so short a time. I understand that you can come up with an answer for everything, but that doesn't resolve the underlying problem. Perhaps if you'd take a moment to settle down and take a look over Misplaced Pages policies, you might have better luck. Shell 20:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Based on your refusal to respond further and your comments to J. Smith it appears that I need no longer "try and calm down" since you have already made up your mind. As you are an administrator is almost definitely the last word, although it's too bad you didn't have the decency to inform me, but just left me dangling.

As I said I am not going to waste my time; there are lots of other things to do (G-rated even) on the 'net than Misplaced Pages, and while I am sorry that I am not allowed to share my knowledge and expertise to other Wikipedians, as I said if I lose I'll go; I don't want to waste my time further.

Mikijaniec 20:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC) Andrew Mikijaniec

P.S. -- Based on the nanno-sized possibility that you would care to respond; don't bother, as I am logging out and never returning.

• Firstly, I am not 'harrassing you'. Second, I do not have a 'shrine' to Robert Sieger. I do have a bit-bucket where all his voluble commentary ends up so my talk page is not cluttered with Robert's insults. People can read it here to get a taste of Robert's style. - Alison 21:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Forgiveness

It's never ok to revert a good-faithed helpful edit. (again, let me reiterate, I haven't checked out contributions lists, so I'm simply taking you guys on your word)

Misplaced Pages has a long-term practice tradition of letting indef users come back under a new account if they don't continue the behavior that got them banned in the first place. It's an extension of the fact that bans are not punishment, and the guideline to assume good faith. If this user is editing to cause damage, then feel free to revert/block the user. However, if the user is being helpful then leave them alone. ---J.S 20:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'd have to strongly disagree with your interpretation of the banning policy. It very clearly states that edits by banned users are not allowed, regardless of the merit of their edits. This particular user has not taken time off and returns to the behavior that led to his ban with each sockpuppet he creates. If you are concerned about his ability to edit, you may wish to discuss having the ban reviewed. Shell 21:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the difference between a ban and a block. ---J.S 21:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Whoa. I misunderstand the difference? You've admitted you did nothing to review the accounts edits and apparently didn't look at the account they were suspected of being a sock of. Its important to take time to look at these issues, especially when someone you've cautioned tries to give you more information on the case to clear up any misunderstanding. Shell 21:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If there was a community/ArbCom ban, then yes, they shouldn't be allowed to edit. However, you should have simply blocked the account. Going though and rolling back all his/her contributions seems like a great way to start an argument. ---J.S 21:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, all I did was speedy delete one article that was tagged by another user. I haven't gone in and reverted bunches of content or changed anything else the account has done. Since the account later protested his innocence, I asked an administrator or two more familiar with the case to look at it and block if they determined it to be the same sock. If not, I'll be undeleting the one article. Shell 21:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I apologise for my mistaken impression of the situation. Ta-Ta for now. ---J.S 21:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Ghirlandajo crusade by User:Piotrus

So that you are of the opinion, that personal assaults on a daily bases are mere part of a dispute resolution process? Constanz - Talk 12:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Constanz, please review WP:AGF and WP:DICK. Angry outbursts of incivility are not appreciated. --Ghirla 12:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I would very much like to hear your reasoning for removing this case. I don't understand what do you mean by 'long standing dispute being taken through the system already, just going to get out of control here' - it was my impression that users making personal attacks are to be reported there for possible block actions. Do you disagree that Ghrirlandajo has been making personal attacks? Not the least with his last post on the PAIN noticeboard where I was again accussed of things like 'pursuing his anti-Ghirlandajo crusade', ' incivility, wheel warring, POV-pushing, fraudulent reports', 'spreading nationalist agenda', 'removing warning tags from articles, without bothering to discuss the matter on talk', ' vandalism'... that post in instelf is a major slander and violation of WP:NPA - and you remove the entire incident with not a single word of criticism to the user making such gross allegations?? PS. When Constanz, again accused by Ghirla of trolling and vandalism re-reported the case, Ghirla removed it citing your decision. Way to go encouraging him, I have to say :( PS2. After reading your reply to Constnaz I think there may be some misunderstanding. 1) it was not my intention to start a dispute resolution here and now but to show clearly blockable offense of breaking WP:NPA/WP:CIV and such, just as you don't start a DR after with a 3RR report - I and Constanz and others have already done a Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Ghirlandajo and the only reason we did not pursue it with a RfArb was that for a few months Ghirla has 'lied low'. Rest assured we will continue to RfArb - but we also think his offences are blockable without RfArb, thus PAIN 2) while the 'conflict' with Ghirlandajo is old, this particular one is not, it concerns events from the past two days or so, was reported to PAIN recently and removed by you within few hours 3) in your comments to Constanz you refer to a 'closing admin'. There was never one - you are the first person from PAIN to respnd by closing the case (i.e. removing it) thus in effect you are the closing admin, and this is why we demand a more detailed explanation for removal of this case. PS4. I have to say I am disappointed with my experience at PAIN. As Constanz note, we are being offended on a daily basis at the above page, we come to the theoreticly right place to report the user who it turning the page into an extremly unfriendly environment - and the report gets removed, user is not reprimanded but boosted seeing his invulnerability... this is definetly against the spirit of respecting WP:NOT (a bureaucracy).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Piotr, I see you again at your most militant, slandering my name wherever and whenever you can (and even can't). This will not be tolerated. I have to submit a report on your harrassing me on WP:PAIN. The crusade becomes unsupportable. --Ghirla 16:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)