User talk:Luna Santin/Archive7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User	Talk	Contribs	My Sandbox	Improve Me!

This is my talk archive. I periodically move old discussion here, to reduce clutter on my main talk page; I ask that you don't edit this page, but if you feel that a conversation should be continued, feel free to move it back onto my talk page.

6 ← Archive 7 → 8

9 warnings later

9 warnings later clearly the IP doesn't take the warnings seriously because within a half hour the page is now getting hit with those same edits from multi-user anon. IP. Arbusto 23:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Luna, I'm very busy right now, so if you want to try to deal with the user in question, feel free. Hopefully the user will be willing to talk now. JoshuaZ 01:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!

Hi, Luna Santin! Thanks a lot for removing the vandalism from my userpage. You are great. --EstebanF 00:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Article on Biostudentgirl

The article on Biostudentgirl contains References/External Links (reliable sources) that are legit and can be used as citations for the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AlexHiggins (talk • contribs) 5 October 2006.

Still interested in your opinion

The discussion was archived over at Intelligent Design but I offered the following and wanted your opinion on it.

Ive offered the following as meeting WP:V and WP:RS in regards to the sentence in dispute at the Intelligent Design article, "All leading proponents of Intelligent Design are affiliated with the Discovery Institute." The San Francisco Chronicle, August 28 2005 calls Norris Gravlox, "a leading proponent of the intelligent design theory" the Tribeca Film Festival calls Jack Cashill, "a leading proponent of intelligent design." The Orlando Weekly from September 1st 2005 calls Mat Staver, "leading proponent of teaching intelligent design in public schools" and on May 26, 2006, the Legal Times calls John Umana, "a leading proponent of intelligent design" establishing WP:V and WP:RS.Bagginator 05:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem Luna, Wikipedia will be here for years to come, there is no rush :). I plan to offer up an RfC, probably late this week or early next week. Perhaps you will have time then.Bagginator 05:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

sorry I removed you page, it was not on purpose

my user page

Thanks for fixing it. DesertSky85451 21:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Gee, I'm popular.

It's so reassuring to see that I'm really ticking off vandals when the mouth-breathing idiots start in on my user name. It's a badge of honor! Thanks for watching my back. - Lucky 6.9 06:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Chomsky vandalized!!!!!

I just reverted it back to where you had last left it. I will trust your judgement, for now. I will review the page.--Friendlymat 17:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Sienna Miller

Hi, I noticed that you check the admin noticeboard for vandalism. You've also recently reverted some vandalism on the Sienna Miller article. I went to the admin noticeboard to see if I could get some help reverting the article but I don't have just one IP or user name to report. So, I'm not sure how to get assistance with this. Would I still leave a notice there? Dismas|^(talk) 19:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I guess. I see that you've protected it. Dismas|^(talk) 19:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I had forgotten about WP:RFP. Thanks for the reminder. Dismas|^(talk) 19:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you so much for reverting my userpage! Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 19:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

....for indefinitely blocking an account that has only been used for time-wasting vandalism. (User talk:Smartone4sega) KP Botany 00:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Foe Pa now notable?

Foe Pa has been edited. The group just started what is probably the first streaming live web-show using IM and message boards allowing the audience to interact with the show in real time at TheStream.tv. I hope this warrants keeping the entry.

CoreyBlake 01:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Keystroke logging

Since there's been a spate of external-link -related wrangling, I've proposed (and implemented) a solution that I think solves the problem, linking to a page with reviews of lots of keylogging packages rather than the freeforall that existed previously; unfortunately, User:Cheesyd has already started putting commercial links back - since you've been involved in the past, do you want to take a look at the talk page under the October 2006 heading and see what you think of my solution? I fear otherwise without concensus this is going to turn into another revert war. njan 20:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much

Thank you so much for lifting the Autoblock. It's been a real pain. I'll make sure to take off the 'save password' feature. Thank you again. Infolithium 21:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's working right now. If it persists, I'll get in touch with those concerned. Thanks for unblocking me, three times. Oy. Infolithium 21:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Wishing you well, Infolithium.

Why delete ET Pro?

All I could see on the ET Pro article was that you had deleted it under the notability criteria. I can't help but think this is an unjustified deletion, given that I have no connection to the makers of ET Pro and was curious to know what it's all about. For the game Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory, ET Pro is the standard competition mod, and I wanted to know exactly what the differences between it and other mods are. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tspike (talk • contribs) 8 October 2006.

Thanks

Thanks for reverting my talkpage Bryan 19:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help!

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on the Divorce page!

To everybody else reading this: it's a good idea to drop a thank-you note every now and then. If you'd like to know why, visit RickK'S page and see why he isn't helping anymore. --God's Webmaster 20:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for being helpful

You actually haven't done anything for my page, but I just wanted to thank you for all the hard work you put into making Wikipedia a better place. So, again, Thanks! MissileWaster 20:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I have to give you more thanks! I made my User Page much cleaner and better looking thanks to yours :) I just popped open the edit page for yours and used that as a base for mine, and even learned some new things like tags and stuff! Thanks again! MissileWaster 21:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Carla Deary

There are news hits. Fifteen of them, one piece of prurient reporting from The Sun and fourteen local press pieces. If you look at most of them - in fact all but The Sun, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch and has a massive legal team - studiously avoid mentioning the name of the Ms Deary's boyfriend, now "helping police with their inquiries". I'd suggest that (Ms Deary's death, while tragic, was a news non-event. No daily press except The Sun reported it, and her name gets no hits on BBC news. Further, putting the boyfriend's name in the article is not necessarily clever from a legal point of view. The idea of Mr Wales being marched off to court to face contempt charges next time he sets foot in England is moderately funny, but I'm not sure he'd see it that way. Not my problem. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Unblock

Thank you for your message. Assuming good faith, I have unblocked that IP: [1]. --Bhadani 02:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for your prompt removal of a personal attack from my userpage! - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 04:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Buffalo AFD

Thank you for your welcome and explanation. I attempted to express my opinion to Chacor, however he seems to label anyone who disagrees with him as a "troll" and immediately reverts their talk page edits. I do see your point about a strong consensus on the previous AFD pointing towards keep, however it didn't seem like there was much discussion, and I thought Chacor coming along and unilaterally closing the AFD early was inappropriate, and the labeling of it as a bad-faith nom even moreso. Anyway, I appreciate your kindness. --AlabamaTalking 04:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Asterix299

Looks like Netsnipe downgraded his block, which is fine. I'm going to watch over that account like a hawk though. -- Steel 09:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Freed up some time?

I noticed your comments on Intelligent Design pretty much put you in the neutral category. Therefore i'd like your opinion as i'm a rather new editor and am receiving some rather hostile responses. I accept that maybe I deserve them, or maybe there is another reason i'm receiving these attacks. I'd like a third party opinion. If you are willing, please read this this and this and let me know, if you would be so kind, if i'm on the right track and behaving properly, or if i'm simply being disruptive and should say things different/just shut up. Thanks in advance if you are able to devote some of your time to this. I realize you are very busy and will not in the least bit be put off if you don't have the time or the inclination.Bagginator 12:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there a "backlog" standard?

I've jumped in and added that {{backlog}} tag to the top of the WP:AIV page a few times now, when the list grows past 10 or so and nothing has been cleared in the past 45+ minutes. Is that about right? -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 19:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know about the {{adminbacklog}} tag; that makes a log more sense for that page. I only knew about the {{backlog}} tag by "monkey see, monkey do"; I noticed that Sarah Ewart added that tag to the page once, and it seemed like a good idea. And yup, I did notice that you added it back (commented out) to the top of the page. I should have done that myself instead of adding & removing it. If it's there, commented out, there's more chance that someone will notice it and use it when it's needed. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 19:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

208.189.22.173

I saw your response after I blocked the user. I just wanted to let you know that since all of this user's edits have been vandalism, I thought an appropriate block period of one month was justified. Feel free to change the block time if you disagree. Nishkid64 19:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Administrator intervention against vandalism

I noticed you removed a user I listed with the comment "blocked, not empty". I'm not familiar with the procedure at Administrator intervention against vandalism. Could you explain a bit? Thanks. ENeville 00:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, I believe this one is empty. ENeville 00:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you.  :)

I appreciate your watching my back. Really.  :)

• LOL! Thank you so much. The little so-and-so is still bitching on the talk page...which I am conveniently blocking. Ah, there are times when the block key is SUCH fun. I owe you another one. - Lucky 6.9 02:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Made a bit of the mess of the Simpsons page

Cleaning up after user:220.240.241.185. I'm trying to do about three things here. I cleaned it up, but I'm a bit slower than I like. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HalfShadow (talk • contribs) 10 October 2006.

Nah. I pretty much have it down. I'm just a bit clumsy at it. I can fix any mistakes I do make, so no woorries, but I just hate being sloppy, y'know? HalfShadow 03:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

10East Corp.

Today you deleted my company's (10East Corp) information from Wiki. I have reviewed all the other companies listed under SaaS, and fail to see the difference between the content we provided and the content of all others that are listed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_as_a_Service#SaaS_providers

We actually used those Wiki listings as a model for our content. Could you help me better understand the difference between our listing and all the other SaaS companies listed?

Thanks, Mike —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.218.152.162 (talk) .

Cross-posting reply

Ah, I do remember that. While I can understand your wanting to have an article in Wikipedia, my judgement was that the article's primary purpose was to promote or advertise -- particularly, the nature of Wikipedia has always left us vulnerable to such things, and so we have policies and guidelines involved autobiography and emphasizing that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. In particular, the Wikimedia Foundation recently opted to add criterion G11 to the criteria for speedy deletion, and that's the basis for the page's deletion. If you'd like to appeal that, you're welcome to make a request at deletion review. Thanks for your time, and have a good day. Luna Santin 05:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Cross-posting reply

I gave this another go, this time modeling 10East Corp. after Backbone Systems and giving it far less detail, in hopes that it is not viewed with the primary purpose being to promote or advertise. My reason for wanting a 10East Corp. page is actually to improve upon the very good and growing body of work found at Software as a Service, by providing additional examples of SaaS providers, and in specific, vertical-market SaaS providers, which are poorly represented -- note that companies like Backbone Systems host Microsoft Office and Exchange and are horizontal-market SaaS providers, or more appropriately, ASPs (Application Service Providers). The work at Software as a Service is a very good piece, providing excellent educational material on modern SaaS. My hope is to improve that work by offering more information about vertical-market SaaS, as opposed to just horizontal. We've been in this business since 1995, and have been through many trendy names. The Application Service Provider (ASP) era was probably the worst, as the vertial-market ASPs were badly misunderstood and overlooked. The new trend of referring to companies like ours as SaaS providers offers an opportunity to draw a distinction between ASP (which is really what companies like Backbone Systems are) and modern SaaS providers. Minutes after posting, though, User:NawlinWiki deleted it. I just don't understand how judgements like this get made so differently for different companies. I think I give up on contributing to Wikipedia (and I've done so anonymously many times)... Hightowe 15:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Autoblock message

You might be interested in the {{autoblock}} template. Thanks for the barnstar by the way. --  Netsnipe  ►  05:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Infolithium

Hi. Just wondering about your unblocking of Infolithium (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log). The autoblock was in place because it is the same IP as Profilio (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log). Since I blocked Profilio as a vandalism-only account (all User: and User talk: vandalism and insults), he has completely cleared my conscience by sending me four e-mails with bizarre rants and other nonsense. Now Infolithium has started the same and is following a similar pattern of (almost) nothing but User talk: edits including a long essay of some kind on his own talk page. It seems to me this is just one banned user playing sock games, don't you think? —Wknight94 (talk) 15:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. At the time, there wasn't much of any contribution history to go with, so I opted to AGF and look at it as a collateral damage case. If the user has engaged in the same behaviors, I wouldn't object to (re)blocking as a sock/meatpuppet. If the user continues to be a problem, it doesn't seem to make much difference whether they're brothers or the same person. Apologies for not contacting you; at the time, I thought it might've been more of a hassle to clutter your talk page, but I suppose I should have known better. Luna Santin 20:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh no - no apologies necessary. I was just wondering if you had some insight that I didn't - if maybe he contacted you offline or whatever. I'll keep my eyes open and block forever at the first sign of nonsense. It just smells very much like a sock party - and, from Profilio's contribs, I don't think Profilio and Infolithium are the first of them. Infolithium even admits on his talk page to having created a Wknight49 imposter user which I killed yesterday. I really should block for that alone... —Wknight94 (talk) 21:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocking 205.223.222.254.

Hi, You would have noticed that person with above IP address frequently does vandalism. Can you block him for longer period? Also please let me know how to block users? Whether only Administrators can do it? Thanks. --Lravikumar 16:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 9th.

Volume 2, Issue 41	9 October 2006	About the Signpost

Interview with Board member Erik Möller	Wall Street Journal associates Wikipedia with Grupthink
Account used to create paid corporate entries shut down	Report from the Portuguese Wikipedia
News and notes	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line	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 17:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for unlocking my IP

(User talk:87.81.54.23) It is appreciated! DJRikki 20:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Deleting Lali Watt

Hi - I noticed that you deleted the article "Lali Watt" under the useless biography criteria. However, I'd like to point out that she is an American Politician and has contributed considerably to her community and therefore merits a page on Wikipedia. I would appreciate it if you would un-delete the page or at least give some appreciable reason for why you deleted it in the first place. Mrmaroon25 01:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey I got your message - I just wanted to clarify - Lali is not a candidate in these upcoming midterms - she is a current trustee and therefore doesn't fall under that category, I believe. Anything I've missed? :) Mrmaroon25 03:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, if you're interested in information, I would highly suggest that you google her name.

Undeleting would be wonderful :) Thanks so much. Mrmaroon25 23:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Konstable'd

=P --Konst.able 07:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Blocking school IP Address

Yes I understand your view point. Thanks for your clarification.

--Lravikumar 12:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Bsmntbombdood

Interesting question. Tor are essentially open proxies and we block open proxies and IIRC Jimbo has explicitly talked about blocking tor. All the discussion I am aware of however predates the revised blocking facilities. The advice to tor users page talks about soft blocks, however that was only changed a month ago and I'm not aware of any discussion around it (not that it's official policy anyway). So the answer to your question is that your guess is as good as mine. --pgk 18:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. IrishGuy ^talk 23:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank You

I know it's part of your job as an admin, but I wanted to thank you for blocking so many disruptive users. Happy editing! Sasuke-kun27 23:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I didn't expect someone to revert it that quickly (I didn't even think you had my page on your watchlist). Thanks and happy editing! Sasuke-kun27 02:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

thanks

Bot

Thanks for the revert, I just noticed it as I was about to leave. I added a measure that tests the target (not destination) page for "vandalism" and causes the bot to ignore the move if that is the case. That should avoid cases like that, though a few random errors may still happen sometimes. It only revert new user moves to "vandal" names, so that shouldn't be that often, especially with this measure.Voice-of-All 00:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Help desk

I normally don't post things like this, but I'm in a bit of a jovial mood today. In regards to the question that you moved, I thought of another solutuion to that problem, but was afraid of violating WP:BEANS. I was wondering if anything like that happened to cross your mind? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for reverting vandalism to my talk page and for blocking that tiresome IP. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 04:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, thanks for this too. That will work. JungleCat talk/contrib 04:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

FWIW

I have replied to you on User talk:12.72.71.46. —12.72.71.46 20:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I have again replied to you on User talk:12.72.71.46. I see nothing more to be said by me. —12.72.71.46 21:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

(Cross-posted this to your talk page.) Huh. Fair enough, there's more history here than I realized. If you're still interested in pursuing your complaints, I'd recommend taking a few moments to compose a good pile of evidence (mainly links to diffs, showing both abuse and warnings for abuse, and such), and then start a thread at AN/I. While AIV does tend to get a faster response, it's really not the best place for that sort of complaint -- we have a very narrow definition of vandalism, and while I can sympathize with you, it's not absolutely clear that he's acting with the intent to harm Wikipedia. He thinks he's doing the right thing, you think you're doing the right thing, there doesn't seem to be a truly clear-cut answer -- that's the exact sort of situation suited to ANI. Just my two cents. Good luck, either way. Luna Santin 04:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether I had other edits such as those was an irrelevancy, though. The only thing relevant was whether my account of his actions were accurate. The problem here is that Arbustoo broke the ostensible rules of the institution. Yes, there is a narrow definition of vandalism, but he did plainly cross it; for example,

• Here he flags 12.72.68.43 as a possible single-purpose account, and here is the edit history of that account, which includes edits to Brian Flemming (no relation to the race) and to Solar. (Arbustoo made this insertion, after being cautioned, to prove that he could get away with it, and he was right.)

I linked to this edit at AIV (where one is supposed to be brief), but the admin didn't even examine the evidence; he just baldly declared that Arbustoo was not a vandal. It would be one thing, if administrators, assessing his character, gave him a warning or a mere slap-on-the-wrist (in spite of giving at least one editor, Devilmaycares, a 48-hour block for doing the same thing). But, instead, the admins are completely waiving the rules (and even the investigation) for Arbustoo, and threatening me with blocks and personally attacking me for trying to get the rules followed. I have no reason to expect that at AN/I the very same clique is going to behave substantially better. —12.72.73.61 10:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hrm. Those diffs you linked do look a bit suspect. I'll take some time to look into this in more detail, later. Let me know if he continues that sort of behavior. I'm really not convinced that such tagging is vandalism, but it could very well be disruptive, especially if he does it too often. There's part of the pitfall -- AIV is for really stinking obvious stuff, like adding "HURR HURR PENIS," and anything significantly more complex than that tends not to get acted on. AN/I also tends to get watched by a different crowd. In cases like this, I recommend being as civil as possible; it helps resolve the situation if possible, and if not, it makes it clear which person was playing nice and which wasn't. How-evah, I've got to get going, so we'll talk later, I imagine. Luna Santin 15:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

And, given that he was making such edits, he knew that the original warning was not trolling; &c &c. He has learned how to work the admins as a tribe. Again: He broke the rules; admins have slapped me around for bringing that to their attention. I have no intention of doffing my hat and asking them for more over in AN/I. —12.72.73.61 16:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

While I can sympathize, strong reactions like that only help others build a case that you look like a troll. That's why I recommend staying as calm and openly level-headed as possible. Luna Santin 18:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Whatever one wants to call one who has strong reactions (and “troll” is not the proper term), no reasonable person would say that someone were wrong because he or she had a strong reaction. If Wikipedia administrators, as a group, do not to look first at brute facts, then Wikipedia will simply be the outcome of a political process. Now, in fact, what you're perceiving as strong reactions are not that; they are, however, a rejection of political processes — been there, done that, seen what happens. :-/ —12.72.72.238 19:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You missed my point -- the two of you are in a conflict. It's difficult to tell who's good or bad in these sorts of conflicts, because there's too much yelling and anger. Several users have chosen to characterize you as trolling -- by getting angry, yelling, and talking anything to the effect of admin cabals, you're playing right into their hands. Your best move, in my opinion, is to be as cooperative as possible and earn the trust of your fellow editors. I'm not talking about right or wrong, good or bad; all I'm getting at, right now, is that the more of a sane, calm, rational team player you look like, the better chance you'll get an honest hearing. Just my two cents. Luna Santin 23:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I really haven't missed your point. I'm telling you that if I need to do that, then Wikipedia is already doomed to evolve into something with little merit. Wikipedia's admins, whenever they are wearing their admin caps, need to behave as scientists and scholars. (Whether one will behave that way is, of course, largely independent of whether one has or has not spent much time in academia or whatever.) If they won't focus on brute fact and points of logic, and instead engage in groupthink and focus on personalities, then I think that, within about two years, Wikipedia will have failed in its mission and generally be seen to have failed in its mission. —12.72.72.122 17:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough -- I'm convinced that you're rational. I still don't entirely agree with you, but that's a debate to save for another day. ;) For now, let's get back to the matter at hand. Your IP range appears to be 12.72.0.0/16? It's unclear whether these people are you or not, but I've tracked down some users who contribute in there... [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. If you're interested in contributing over a long period of time, I really do encourage getting an account, but that's your call. Some of those are almost definitely you (they've posted at the Murtha dispute), and a few have made contributions in other areas. I'm not particularly interested in censoring either of you at this time, but it looks to me like both (yes, both) of you need to stop throwing around accusations of vandalism; I'll ask Arbustoo to avoid tagging so many of your comments with {{spa}} in the interest of civility, but he should be able to speak his piece, which you could rebut. Ideally the two of you will stop edit warring and will instead settle down into dispute resolution and the use of talk pages. I know that content disputes are long, hard, and annoying, having been through some myself, but that looks to be what this is, as far as I can tell. Luna Santin 22:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If an IP has a limited range of edits it will be tagged as a SPA. Moreover, this type of stuff does not win sympathy. Note this IP is involved in two canidates running for election. This IP has continuly tried to remove another user's good faith edits. Rather than clean up that, the IP removes a news source and the content.

If this IP wants to contribute to wikipedia on a range of articles and not be confused with a SPA, she/he should get an account. Until then it looks as if this IP is pushing a POV on two articles related to one congressional race.

If my full edit history is examined for the Irey article, then one finds me first fighting pro-Irey rhetoric and then fighting anti-Irey rhetoric. For the former, look at my attempt to reason with MRMKJason (the blockquoted “Blogs and forums are for debating issues, not spinning facts.” is from one of his edit summaries). After MRMKJason had seemed to accept that his word-choice was at best questionable, C56C came along with a cooked transcript. Then H_ll broke loose as MRMKJason responded by returning to his earlier behavior, and C56C found an admin all too ready to believe a cooked version of the conflict over that transcript. —75.18.113.152 00:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This IP has called a long-time wikipedia adminstrator a liar when that admin. was trying to get a handle on IP's POV pushing. This is not acceptable. Arbusto 22:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. They've done some stupid stuff -- though I note the most recent of those diffs is from about two days ago, and some are older. I guess what I'm getting at is that if they'd like to contribute legitimately, we may as well let them; if they regress or keep pulling crap, I'll be happy to block them. So a "second chance" is what I'm looking for, I guess. Luna Santin 22:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking further into your comments, I don't think you realize this started at the Irey article nor that I reported it at the AN/I days ago.[7] And told this user where to deal with it a week ago.[8] It is very telling that he is doing it on your talk page and feeding you parts of what really happened instead of on AN/I. There is a wider spectrum to this. Arbusto 22:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I did see the Irey thread on AN/I (at least, assuming there's only one). The user's refusal to consider AN/I is also a bit suspicious, I've noticed; I encouraged them to do the same. I'll readily admit I'm not aware of the full history, here, but it at least seems like a content dispute gone sour, unless I'm missing something. Luna Santin 23:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not even sure its a content dispute because everything is in there now. I don't really know what this user's problem is. Arbusto 23:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Could make a request at third opinions or the Mediation Cabal on the issue, to get more voices involved. If I'm reading the situation correctly, it looks like you consider a particular quotation/section relevant, and they don't? Luna Santin 23:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Not entirely. If you note this happened October 10th and this on the 11th while the content issue happened a day later on 12 October 2006. This user doesn't like the SPA template. Arbusto 23:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't the best reaction, on their part, but they do appear to have contributions in multiple areas: [9] [10] [11] (found using VP), and over a longer span of time than I first thought: [12] [13] (I found those last ones digging through the history at John Murtha, dating at least back to early August 2006). Luna Santin 23:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking at your first example that IP has editted at two articles. So it makes sense that it is "Possible single purpose account: (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic" and should be tagged as such. As the IP noted he/she gets assigned a new IP[14] so how do we know the spectrum of 12.72.72*** is all one user? (You have in fact referred to these IPs as "they" above.)

I can't tell, and so I've tagged a IP with a limited range as "Possible single purpose account: (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic". If this IP doesn'tike it she/he should get an account and edit a range of articles. Arbusto 00:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the connection is between these -- what do General Eisenhower, the wife of an attorney general, a BBC radio show host, and John Murtha all have to do with each other? It would be ridiculous to suggest that all users from 12.72.0.0/16 are this same user, but I haven't made that claim; I believe that all of the IPs I linked to are apparently this same person, because they've all made edits related to the current subject of discussion, in addition to their edits in other areas. Yes, they should probably get an account, and yes, they've been incivil in the past, but it's important to note that your continued use of {{spa}} will only aggravate the situation. Neither past failings of judgement nor failure to register an account strike me as reasons to ignore legitimate complaints or disputes. Luna Santin 00:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You asked how they are all linked? Politics: Making Republicans look better than Democrats. See Martha Beall Mitchell, notice how there were good edits, but also[15] Notice how an article titled Martha Mitchell, the Watergate scandel was removed? Could the 12.72.*** IP be the same person as the 70.166*** IP? Well one of your examples of a non-Murtha-Irey edit is see edit summary "Rvt latest attack from Chico-based vandal", which is similiar to see summary "Revert to undo spin attack from Chico editor". Note the 12 and 70 IP's editting on the Irey talk.

A limited range of articles. There are more examples, but I've already wasted too much time on this IP. Arbusto 00:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Read Talk:Martha Beall Mitchell, and then go to the site for which I removed the link. It's brief, so you can read it quickly. And you can see that, just as I said, it contains major errors. A those-who-are-not-for-me-are-against-me leads Arbusto to presume that I am a Republican. I haven't voted for any Republican since 1986, nor a Republican Presidential candidate since 1980 (when I voted in a primary for one who had withdrawn to voted against the front-runner). Arbusto seems lost in POV. —75.18.113.152 00:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You can use masculine pronouns in reference to me. (And I am rather pleased with how much I improved that article on MM.) —75.18.113.152 00:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't a reaction on my part. When I began dealing with that passage, Arbusto hadn't yet touched it. If there was any stalking here (and it might have been just chance coincidence), then it was by him. I removed that passage for exactly the reasons that I explained: most of it was redundant, part of it (the claim by Abizaid) didn't seem to be relevant, and the rest was bald claims — not an attributed quotes but a bald claims — such as that Murtha was the soul and conscience of the military. Maybe Arbusto doesn't see what is wrong with such things; but, again, if there was a reaction (in Murtha) here then it was on his part. —75.18.113.152 02:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

At this point, it's merely a dispute on the history of a content dispute, because you've bailed on having a passage that claims that Murtha is the soul and conscience of the military, and there is now a sensible passage in the article (which reports Woodward's words as such). Are you going to pursue that dispute while insinuating that there is something wrong with my responding to your pursuit? (Alternately, is the Mediation Cabal going to give a d_mn about a dispute on the history of a content dispute?) The only reason that I've continued this discourse with this admin is because he's attempting reasonable discourse. I don't generally walk away from that, even when it's moot. —75.18.113.152 00:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it proceeded from my having various other complaints basically ignored in AN/I and being told by an admin to use the route that I later used for Arbusto. (In that earlier case, it actually worked. The rules and procedure around here seem to change with the wind.) —75.18.113.152 00:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It's only stupid on the assumption of a particular set of objectives. In fact, there are a number of options here. And what I am doing is trying to get appropriate edits made without accepting what I regard as corrupt and corrupting protocols. You're probably correct that I could get more of the former done if I didn't respect that side constraint, but I operate from considerable first-hand experience in participating in such protocols and what really results. (I ask you to remember what I say now in a couple of years, when you see what has become of Wikipedia.) —75.18.113.152 00:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

No, that admin stepped into a three-way edit war between an anon and two logged-in users. One logged-in user used a few dirty tricks such as linking to diffs such that a series of diffs by the two other editors (one another logged-in editor) seemed to be by the anon. The admin locked out only the anon, without attempting to query the anon, claimed that the anon had failed to discuss edits (when almost the only discussion was by the anon), and then the admin didn't act to fix a single one of his mistakes. (The admin walked away after the anon presented a systematic analysis of the extent to which the falsifications that he'd been fighting were indeed falsifications.) —75.18.113.152 00:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

So the 12.72.** is now 75.18.***. I am still convinced this user is a WP:SPA, and will be tagged as such if the range of articles is limited. Arbusto 00:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, there you have it. No matter what the range of articles I edit may be, Arbusto will use the tag as a means of attack. —75.18.113.152 00:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Arb, you haven't yet made a case that all of the edits are related to "making Republicans look better than Democrats." Fixing a ref on a BBC radio personality's page certainly doesn't appear relevant to the accusation. While the edits to Mitchell's article did indeed remove a reference to Nixon's skullduggery, they replaced it with another reference, they explained their removal on the talk page, and nobody has disagreed or refuted their reasoning since. I'm not sure how his edits to Eisenhower and German POWs reflect the POV-pushing nightmare you want me to see, as again no one has disagreed with those edits for a few days. On the other hand, attacking users and admins is pretty much unacceptable. So: you both need to start playing nice, or this can and probably eventually will make its way to the Arbitration Committee. I heartily encourage the both of you to seek ways to compromise with each other -- 12.72.*.*/75.18.*.*: please register an account to appease Arbustoo and demonstrate your variety of interests, and please avoid anything approaching trolling in the future; Arbustoo: please avoid biting and be aware that continued use of {{spa}} can be considered incivil; both of you: please assume good faith and consider dispute resolution and/or requests for comment. That's all for now. Luna Santin 01:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I could careless if this user gets an account or not. I can careless about what articles he edits. However, those two factors might result in certain tags. This user expired good faith a while ago with partisan hackery on the canidates pages. Arbusto 03:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

That's why everybody needs to play nice. That was in August. We're now about halfway through October. Please let go of the past and work with each other. Luna Santin 03:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, this attack was a few days ago and this partisan hackery was admitted a recently. I guess this closes another case. You could cut people with a long contribution history a break, and be a little more stern with people who so clearly have an agenda. This is disappointing. Arbusto 04:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's look at each of those links:

• “attack” — Cautioned him that I would report his indiscriminant tagging as vandalism.
• “this partisan hackery” — My cross-through of my own comment below.
• “another” — Arbusto complaining that his warnings aren't heeded.
• “who so clearly have an agenda” — Again that strike-through.

I find this evidence(?) bizarre. —12.72.71.3 06:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Arb, he reported you to AIV -- do you remember what happened after that? Nothing happened to you, and he got yelled at for making a bad report, and for being incivil. I haven't forgotten that. Both of you have thrown superfluous accusations of vandalism over what should be a simple content dispute. Wasn't it you who called him a dick, just today? Hasn't it been you who constantly eggs him on with SPA tagging, in spite of evidence to the contrary? And you, 12.72, why so eager to make Arbustoo look bad? Why so hesitant to report to AN/I, so untrusting of other users, explaining that you wouldn't even register an account because you'd be "stalked"? I'm getting impatient because neither of you seems to be even admitting the possibility of good faith. If I continue to be frustrated, one or both of you may find yourselves blocked. It's time to work together to resolve your differences and find a solution. Play. Nice. Luna Santin 09:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• “And you, 12.72, why so eager to make Arbustoo look bad?” — I wasn't out to make him look bad; I thought that he already looked very bad.
• “Why so hesitant to report to AN/I,” — As I said, my attitude towards AN/I developed from having tried it without success, only to get ignored except for one admin who explained that for action I should use AIV, which use was in that case then successful.
• “so untrusting of other users,” — I'm a social scientist, and certainly not a utopian; I see the incentive system here and how it would be expected to work. And I've indeed seen editors behaving exactly as per such expectations.
• “explaining that you wouldn't even register an account because you'd be ‘stalked’?” — I've seen stalking. And you and I both know that AN/I and edit summaries have lots of complaints about it.

Look, the dust settled, and at John Murtha what happened to the passage at issue? The parts that I said should go because of redundancy are gone; the parts that I said were unacceptable bald statements are no longer bald statements; the part that I said was irrelevant is gone. (The fate of the cooked transcript at Diana Irey was quite similar.) And Arbusto is furious, trying to get you to act against me, telling you that he will continue to war against me with tags. Meanwhile, what am I saying that I'll do against him? I've explained that I regarded my discussion with you as moot, continued only out of respect for your desire to discuss things reasonably. When I was disagreeing with your suggestions, was I ever saying “No, the way that I will get Arbusto is…”? When he called me a dick, did I use a counter-insult, or report him to A-whatever? What are you demanding of me? that I give him a big hug? —12.72.72.229 13:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that a potentially useful way of summarizing much (though not all) of what I have to say to you is: “I'm not here for community; I'm here for the encyclopedia.” Wikipedia wasn't proposed for the former, which is why “anyone” can edit it. —12.72.72.229 14:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll let sleeping dogs lie, provided they stay more or less asleep. That's really all I want -- both of you have done or said what I would consider some iffy stuff, but if the situation cools down, that's the main idea. As far as I can tell, the situation is calmed down enough to keep me happy. I don't need flowers and puppies to drop from the sky, only cooperation between two people who otherwise appear to be very good editors; for now, we look to have that happening. Luna Santin 18:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Who would catch the poor puppies, in any event? —12.72.72.229 18:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, dear. I think we need to start a WikiProject. Luna Santin 18:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

(I'm wonder how my edits concerning Brian Flemming (again from a middle ground, in that case between Devilmaycares and Laurence Boyce), Caramel, Pederasty would fit into Arbusto's exploded theory.) —75.18.113.152 01:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I recognize and explicitly acknowledge that your request that I register an account is a request, made very politely. But, on the one hand, if anonymous editting is really unsuitable to Wikipedia (and I am not convinced that it is), then they ought to be prohibitted; and, on the other hand, as far as I can tell, the principal effect of logging-in would be to make me more stalkable (which is why I'll resist showing you edits made from even more IP numbers), in the context of dealing with dedicated gamers. (I note that Arbusto began warring against me in John Murtha after I objected to his tagging-up of the Irey talk page.) —75.18.113.152 01:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, examine my actual edits to Eisenhower and German POWs. How do they make anyone look good? or bad? They are just clean-up of the mark-up, a spelling fix, and so forth. —75.18.113.152 01:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC) Okay, you saw that. Sorry. —75.18.113.152 01:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

*sigh*

Personal attack. —75.18.113.152 03:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not really a personal attack, it's one of Wikipedia's policies. Sasuke-kun27 03:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The page is a statement of one of Wikipedia's policies; his use of it was as a personal attack. (Note that a hammer is not an assault, and has legitimate use far removed from assault.) —75.18.113.152 03:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Ion-weapon and Communism

The entry for communism is inaccurate. It does not speak of the violence caused by communism. It does not have any criticism whatsoever. I will place my text at the bottom, do not remove it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ion-weapon (talk • contribs) .

I've reverted the change and followed up on User talk:Ion-weapon. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 21:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the unblock ...

... I believe that Google accelerator was the culprit (well, actually, MyWikiBiz was the culprit). For a little more detail see my talk page. -Dmh 04:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

User:JohnnyICON and User:JohnnyIOON

Could be so, though to similar anyway. If he/she asks for unblock will do so if it's before I hit the sack. If so feel free :)--Dakota 06:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

I was wondering what was taking him so long to vandalize it again.... -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 06:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I really have to wonder what people who attack that article, and Westboro Baptist Church, and Communism and other articles, think they're accomplishing. It's not like vandalizing a Wikipedia article affects the subject of the article.

BTW, I saw the comments from User talk:Ion-weapon on your page, so I followed up with him. It did not go smoothly. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 07:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

User block question

I noticed you blocked a user account who had done blatant vandalism in his/her 4 edits, but had only been given a bot notice and test1. Can accounts (not IPs, obviously) that have only blatant vandalism edits be blocked permanently even if they haven't vandalised after a "final"-type warning? I'm not questioning your action, but wondering if this would fall under 'vandalism only account'.

I know one such account won't make much difference, but I'm wondering if I should report such to AIV in the future.

Thanks for your hard work. TransUtopian 11:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation and recommendation! TransUtopian 22:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)