User talk:Mackan79

• User_talk:Mackan79/Archive_1
• User_talk:Mackan79/Archive_2

Been deleted, no problem. speedy criterion G7 covers that one, a mistakenly created page that the author requests deletion of. You can place {{db-author}} on those too, or of course I'm happy to help. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't it? Abortion is murder, no matter what Wikipedia says. --69.67.230.109 03:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mackan,

I was hoping that the list could be collaborative, and created by multiple parties. There are other posters who know more about certain controversies than myself, and vice versa. CJCurrie 22:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mackan, I understand your points. I do think that the current 'protected' template, as I noted in the Talk page, clearly tells the readers that there is a dispute among editors, that the version is locked, and that the locking does not necessarily endorse the locked version. I find that a very reasonable top-level description of the status quo. Any interested reader can then go to the Talk page with one click and read further details there. Although I strongly believe that we must unlock the entry ASAP, we don't want to descend immediately into renewed edit wars, which will just get us back to where we are now, so it seems logical to insist on mediation. I hope you all can move that process along ASAP. Crum375 15:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of incorporating the newest allegations and info, the 7 new items on the Discussion page?Kritt 06:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know about the article. I will read it as soon as I can --Aminz 01:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't your vote more accurately be described as rename or move?--Urthogie 21:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like dialogue gets nowhere with you right now. You don't even highlight a single correct argument that I make. If you want to report me for 3RR, go ahead-- you'll just be keeping a falsehood on the page 24 hours. If you want to actually see that G-Dett objectively misread Adam and Moodley, I would highly advise that.--Urthogie 17:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've suggested a compromise on the talk page. Please remove the report?--Urthogie 19:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The compromise has nothing to do with the 3rr, which as you said is relatively inconsequential to me. It has to do with my observation on reflection that Adam and Moodley are dealing with position on Israel as an apartheid state, not all the types of accusation.--Urthogie 20:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With so many different "allegations"-related deletion votes going on, it occurred to me that you might have missed this one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (third nomination).

Nice work on NAS. All best, --G-Dett 14:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article Stephen Breyer you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Stephen Breyer for eventual comments about the article. Good luck in future nominations. I have left some comments as to how to further improve the article on Talk:Stephen Breyer. Please feel free to message me if you have any queries. LordHarris 01:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 19:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

can we clarify what place the allegations would find in this article?--Urthogie 22:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

my fear is that i'll just end up creating another frankstein monster. what if that thing explodes into israel criticism and israeli apartheid article is kept?? it seems like a pure rename is best because it would attract a lot more neutral and mainstream editors. it's hard to go on faith alone because editors like Kritt aren't so open minded as yourself in this regard.--Urthogie 22:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it need to be done in your user space? The way I see it this is a list made by editors to be as long as possible to make Israel look as bad as possible. Why don't you support me on the actual talk page in pointing out that assistant professors should be removed immediately from the article, as their views are not significant enough?--Urthogie 15:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I think that the sources that list people that aren't especially notable should be turned into source lists, like a list of israeli academics, or a list of MP's, etc. Because these people are notable when taken as a group. This sound like a good way to start the talk page version?--Urthogie 15:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a quick glance at the edit history pages for Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid and Allegations of Brazilian apartheid and review the history of Hafrada (Separation) and it's older version Hafrada. Something to consider in light of the discussions surrounding Allegations of Israeli apartheid. I have tried very hard to WP:AGF, but IMO there are a couple of editors who have gone too far. Tiamut 15:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you might take a look at this Mackan. Whatever one may think of this user's edits, it seems to me he's being railroaded here.--G-Dett 18:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to hear the case for why these red links shouldn't be there. Generally, red links are supposed to be on templates if applicable.--Urthogie 16:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you might want to argue your other points --Urthogie 16:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so are you saying if I demonstrate without a doubt that those allegations are article-worthy, we can keep them as red links until I or someone else writes them? If so, let's start with the US. Entire books have been written on the US "economic apartheid" of the poor and specifically blacks, an allegation which is accepted as basic fact by many. Unlike "Israeli apartheid", it actually relates to race, and blacks are actually part of the country, rather than Palestinians in the West Bank who aren't actually Israelis. (of course, Guantanmo is also compared to apartheid frequently as well, if anything an example of how irrationally the term is thrown around) Agree?--Urthogie 17:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, please specify what the problem is then with adding a red link for US allegations of apartheid?--Urthogie 17:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Your article is on a contentious and disputed issue.' You've cut right to the heart of the matter. There is no actual policy objection to the red links, only "its ugly" (subjective) and "its contentious." Applying occam's razor here would lead me to believe the non-policy objections result only from opinions about allegations.--Urthogie 18:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Palestine is looking for editors to help build and maintain comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Start by adding your name to the list of members at WikiProject Palestine. Ahlan wa Sahlan! (Welcome!)

--Ian Pitchford 19:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, you seem to forget that we are advised to be bold. Second, if you object to certain changes, feel free to bring them up on the talk page where a discussion has already been taking place before I made any edits. Thanks VanTucky 17:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mackan -- the sentence which you say is at issue would seem to rule out the Vatican as well as Israel: "The opposite end of the spectrum from separation is a theocracy, in which the state is founded upon the institution of religion, and the rule of law is based on the dictates of a religious court." The law in the Vatican state with regard to civil secular matters parallels that of Italy. Under the Lateran treaty, crimes are not handled by the "dictates of a religious court" but are prosecuted by Italy in Italian secular courts. Both states are "founded upon the institution of religion" and have citizenship laws which give unique privilege to religious adherents. I'll agree that Israel should be deleted on this basis if the Vatican City is deleted on the same basis. Neither is a traditional theocracy, but both have a unique and essential tie to a religion. Mamalujo 18:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your efforts to tighten up the prose on Joseph Priestley; they are, by and large, effective. I hesitate to say this, but I wonder if it is the best use of your wikipedia time to copy edit this article at this time. Much is going to have to be removed from this article and whole sections are going to be reworded since it is too long, so I am not sure that this is the moment to go over the language with a fine-toothed comb, looking for superfluous words or slightly awkward phrasings. You are welcome to do so - I just wanted to make you aware of the ongoing editing and the possibility that whole sections you have carefully corrected may be deleted or radically revised in the near future. Awadewit | talk 05:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to help me out with The Age of Reason, I would greatly appreciate it as there are currently no other editors working on the page. I have thrown all of the information up that I think I am going to want in the article, but some of it needs to be slightly rearranged and the sentences need to be refined. I am trying to prepare it for a peer review and FAC. Just a thought. Awadewit | talk 09:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please review a controversy currently brewing at this page? CJCurrie 02:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For boldly disentangling Fundamentalism and Fundamentalist Christianity. Groupthink 20:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

its customary to comment on users who create accounts for the sole purpose of adding to an AFD.--Urthogie 15:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sure thing. thanks, --Urthogie 15:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like my comment there.--Urthogie 15:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, a huge chunk of the discussion just disappeared after your last edit. I don't know how to revert it and still preserve all the posts... Can you unscrew this, please? Thx ;-) --Targeman 15:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my bad, didn't notice :-) --Targeman 15:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mackan, can you do it? I'm not absolutely sure what you're referring to, and I'm running out the door... whereever you think it should go is fine with me.--G-Dett 18:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a message for all regulars at the “apartheid” AfD series. I believe there may have been a breakthrough. Please share your thoughts here. Thanks. --Targeman 03:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... for your valiant attempt to cleanup the Cult article that has suffered from bias, lack of sources and other maladies for long enough. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings about the Template for Discrimination Project. I'm leaving a note for you and other recent editors so the back and forth editing of the Discrimination template will cease and those interested can dialog about the need to include or not include an article. Please use Template talk:Discrimination and start a new section "Include _____ ?" so that others can also help keep the discussion constructive. thank you. Benjiboi 17:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm truly sorry about this one : [1] ! I mixed up the links, editing in the same time the oldids on my userpage [2] to keep track of the last diff of each article i already read. Sorry again. NicDumZ ~ 14:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following your recent participation in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of French apartheid, you may be interested to know that a related article, Allegations of Chinese apartheid, is currently being discussed on AfD. Comments can be left at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid. -- ChrisO 15:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,Newyorkbrad 18:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you've edited the tempate itself I'm wondering what your thoughts are on the TFD discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Allegations_of_apartheid? Lothar of the Hill People 21:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry I did not respond earlier. Been very busy in RL, and wrapped up in the AoIa Rfar thing. I'd like to continue this discussion with you, time permitting, but would prefer to do it on-wiki, unless you have thoughts that are really so private you don't want them shared, which I guess I can understand. For my part, I think I can speak about this issue perhaps more generally, as my earlier approach seems to have annoyed you (though I assure you that was not at all what I intended). IronDuke 04:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm officially baffled now. First, you question why it is I want to continue the discussion; in fact, I was responding to your email, where you indicate just such a desire. If you don't want to continue it, that's A-OK with me. If you feel matters are too sensitive to be discussed on-wiki, maybe you can say more about that. I don't see why you are insulted by the notion that you might have private thoughts not suitable for WP; I think most editors here do have such thoughts/opinions. And since you asked to have this discussion off-wiki, I can't see how I could reach any other conclusion than there are issues you want to keep private. Just really baffled why this insults you.

When I said I thought you were annoyed, it was because you removed my comments. I interpreted that as annoyance--perhaps I was wrong. Your email to me was fine, although I would argued you showed some annoyance there, too, not that there is a thing in the world wrong with that. If you are annoyed with me, I'd much rather you express it (in a nice way) than pretend you aren't.

I'm just at a bit of a loss as to why you feel antagonized; it's starting to feel like a deliberate misreading of what I'm trying to do here. I don't "need" to continue this discussion, but I'm happy to if you feel there are unresolved issues. IronDuke 18:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Allegations_of_apartheid#Propose_move_to_.22Apartheid_analogies.22. Lothar of the Hill People 21:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I see you reverted the last edit on Discrimination against atheists where you removed the word "other". You cited the word "other" being in violation of NPOV policies and I just wanted to know your rationale for that. The article originally had the word "other" in it, which was subsequently removed, and I changed that back. Thank you. Obac88667 22:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am conducting reviews of Law articles listed as Good as a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. A week ago I put Stephen Breyer article on hold, but have not received any answer. I don't realy want to delist this article, so could you address those issues? (see Talk:Stephen Breyer#GA Sweeps (on hold)) Ruslik 10:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your evidence, I blocked WB because he posted to Gary Weiss that Weiss was editing as MM on Wikipedia, plus some other potentially defamatory material that was only partly sourced. The edit was deleted, which is why you can't find it. I blocked the account, told him I would unblock if he would assure me he wouldn't post it again, to which he responded by posting it again. Therefore, the block stood. The block had nothing to do with claims about sockpuppets or vandalism. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by him having promised not to post again. He made an edit that was a serious violation of BLP and harassment. He was blocked for it. You can't see that edit because it was admin-deleted. He was then told on his talk page that he would be unblocked if he agreed not to post it again. He responded by re-posting part of it. You can't see that edit either because it's also been admin-deleted. Because he did that, the block remained. Had he not done that, and had he given some kind of assurance (such as "I'm sorry, I'm new, I didn't realize"), he'd have been unblocked. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: "As I said, for him to repeat the allegation at that point, when you also asked for an explanation of his edits, does not seem to me surprising, or evidence of bad faith."

I must not be making myself clear. He posted "A is B" (among other things). It was deleted as a violation of two policies, and he was blocked. He was told "You must not post A is B. If you agree not to do that, you will be unblocked." His response was "A is B." If that's not acting in bad faith, I don't know what is. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The linked material is an attack on a living person, GW, unsupported by reliable sources. In addition, the linked material includes an outing attempt of a Wikipedian. Both violate BLP and must be removed by anyone, per:

Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Content may be re-inserted only if it conforms to this policy. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.

Crum375 (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not taking any sides, and don't think that two wrongs make a right. If you see any unsourced derogatory BLP material, you may remove it. And the whole point of WP:BLP, which I quoted above is that we don't wait for someone else to do it — each WP editor is empowered to remove the improper BLP material. Crum375 (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not remove "links to a BLP violation", since as you correctly note our BLP rules don't apply outside WP. I removed material that is BLP violation in itself, and consists of a link to unsourced derogatory information about a living person. Crum375 (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mackan79 - I responded to you on my page. Should I also here? If so, my answer was, your point is taken and respected. I am just learning my way around here and will in the future check on such matters before posting. Best, PatrickPatrickByrne (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is not. It's almost certainly been oversighted. —Random832 04:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the article has no deleted edits visible to administrators. —Random832 04:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That link has a timestamp of 22:28, as can be seen in the url itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete
&target=User_talk:WordBomb&timestamp=20060707222852&diff=prev . —Random832 22:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following apparently libellous attacks on this article, you removed all reference to Neve Gordon's libel action against Steven Plaut. This removes the main part of the article. I have restored my edit from this morning, which removed the libels and distortions inserted by apparent sockpuppets of User:Truthprofessor, and relied on an objective NPOV report in The Chronicle of Higher Education, rtaher than on the smears and lies of FrontPage Magazine. I hope you will agree that this is better than leaving the article almost empty, and without reference to this important issue. It is likely that Truthprofessor will try again to repeat his libels of Gordon in this article, so best keep a watch on it! Thanks RolandR (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with you about the Dershowitz comment; but it might be difficult to justify removing it altogether. I removed a long quote, allegedly by Plaut, which wasn't in the source cited. I have no doubt that this is his view, but it can't possibly be inserted without a source. And, since the appeals court has confirmed his conviction for libel against Gordon, it would be extremely foolish of us to include this even if sourced correctly.

Look at the background to this, including Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Zuminous, Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Zuminous, and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Truthprofessor. These are clearly the same person as User:Jenkinsimon and User:Borisyy, and I believe them to be Plaut himself. Jenkinsimon's edits to Talk:Steven Plaut, in which he posted libellous comments about a third party in his attack, resemble also the MO of the notorious Runtshit sockpuppeteer. We have to keep an eye on all of this. RolandR (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, for further evidence, compare this edit by Jenkinsimon to your talk page just now, with this one, by a Runtshit sockpuppet to User talk:ST47 in December 2006. RolandR (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure an RFCU would help, as this vandal seems to be an expert at using proxy and anonymising services, which leave no trace. RolandR (talk) 20:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George, the lack of thought here is somewhat striking. I can only assume you think I was referencing an email that WordBomb sent you in my earlier comment. If so, please look for an email I sent you on December 7, 2007 which began:

I haven't seen you so much on Wiki, but generally appreciate your thoughts on the mailing list, so you may be a good person to ask about this, if you don't mind. What I'm wondering: I've followed the whole Bagley situation somewhat closely, and have seen most of the allegations against him. In terms of "dangerous stalking and harassment," however, I'm frankly not sure what you refer to.

If the issue is something else, please let me know. Mackan79 (talk) 05:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I sent this to george(dot)herbert(AT)gmail(dot)com, which I presumably took from the mailing list. I can produce the rest if necessary. I have seen WordBomb say as well that he asked you the same thing, which is why I imagine it is what you are considering. Mackan79 (talk) 06:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The exact tone of your comment here matches several emails I recieved from Judd and goes far beyond what you mentioned on Dec 7, though I can confirm receiving the email.

If you want to post the email here, feel free. I will post it to ANI if you give me permission and let others review. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mackan, keep the faith. This will only be temporarily. GWH, this is a horrible block, considering your DUCKness elsewhere. You had BETTER undo this block, and quickly, with an apology. SirFozzie (talk) 06:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a little amusing; I reread my comment and heard the tone of another user that I've sometimes been in conflict with. In any case, I'd hope you'd know it's not the first time I've questioned your and other editors' comments about Bagley.

If you've received the email, then I'm not sure there's a need to reproduce it.

For the record, the two edits you site on AN/I are obviously mine. They refer to the section immediately above that I had created to highlight a section in evidence that I added. The section is titled "Editing content."[3]

In any case, you should realize based on the email that this is a mistake. Please reconsider. Mackan79 (talk) 06:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GWB, please tell me you're not blocking on "tone" --and there is in fact an email from Mackan79? R. Baley (talk) 06:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with this block. You need better evidence, George. Bstone (talk) 06:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again - do I have your permission to post the email? Your comment I diff'ed from earlier tonight matches Bagley emails to me, and not your email to me from December. I am happy to put the email in evidence on ANI, or you can here and I'll confirm if it's what I received. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant portion of my email follows:

That said, I'm wondering if you can clue me in to what kind of things you're talking about here. Do you refer to public information or private? I'll say honestly my suspicion is that people have said this so much others repeat it without specific evidence, and moreover that Wikipedia could really be doing a much better job of acting as mediator in this dispute than fighting fire with fire (as huge a step from the current situation as that would be). But considering it's always possible there's information I lack, you might be a good person to ask.

I didn't receive a response. Since then I've criticized GWH's comments on Bagley in what I consider strong terms at least twice on the evidence page. Please do not post my email. Mackan79 (talk) 06:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My criticism of GWH's comments can be seen in the section here. A couple sections above you'll see a similar discussion I had with JzG. With all due respect, this discussion should be completed. Mackan79 (talk) 06:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that section appears to be the fourth paragraph of an email I received on Dec 7.

I didn't respond in email, I believe I have addressed the issue on-wiki.

I still would like your permission to post the rest of the email, with the header / address info stripped. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth would we need to post my email? The basis for this is an obvious mistake, that you didn't think I sent you an email. Now you're wanting to post the email that I sent you. If you'd like to establish that my email was polite, that is absolutely true. Per above, I have since then become more frustrated with your lack of response and continued comments. Please acknowledge your mistake so that we can end this. I'd be happy to address any concerns you have under more appropriate circumstances. Mackan79 (talk) 06:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The basis for the block was that you posted on AN a comment that rather closely matches comments Bagley has made to me in email. Even with your earlier email, your comment still closely matches Bagley's emails, and doesn't match your email on the whole. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there information that you believe is relevant in the rest of the email, George? daveh4h 06:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in context with Bagley emails, and the on-wiki comment, the comment resembled the Bagley emails and not the earlier email. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked per [4] Viridae^Talk 06:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Viridae. To clarify, I'm absolutely not Bagley, and it is absurd. The history of my involvement in this dispute is offered on the evidence page, including specifically why I am concerned about some of the rhetoric that has been leveled at Bagley. This is a mistake based on an email that GWH apparently forgot that I sent him, or did not see. That's fine; the fact that he would block me without comment is less so, but perhaps can be discussed politely, hopefully beginning with GWH recognizing an obvious mistake. Mackan79 (talk) 06:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're not as angry as I was when I was first indef. blocked out of the blue - but regardless, I wanted to offer a note of support, and I hope it's sorted out very quickly. You should never have been blocked. Privatemusings (talk) 06:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same here, Mackan. Don't let this foolish move by someone sour you on this place. SirFozzie (talk) 06:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also voice my support. Sorry you had to go through the hassle. The block was without any merit. Bstone (talk) 06:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you at least get a laugh out of this permanent typo on your record. :) Lawrence § t/e 06:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry :( Explanation: User_talk:Viridae#Cockpuppet Viridae^Talk 06:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be a cockpuppet article. damn deletionists...Now I'll wonder my way through life, never knowing what a cockpuppet is. >:( daveh4h 06:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just found out, if anyone is curious: [5] So you're definitely not a cockpuppet. Anyways, enough sillyness. Glad to see you unblocked, Mackan. daveh4h 07:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all very much for the comments. I'm hoping to hear further about whatever people are looking at. I find it rather surprising that someone would block based on something that could so easily be checked and verified (whether or not I sent an email), but perhaps my thoughts aren't impartial. I'm hoping I'll hear further if there is anything more happening on this. Mackan79 (talk) 07:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous block, I asked George a few questions on his talk page, as have others. He needs to explain himself, though I think the basic explanation is that he screwed up big time (but not in a peaceful fashion, unfortunately).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you are probably aware, Alison has posted a confirmation that you are not Judd Bagley on George's talk page. I have posted a confirmation on AN/I, as I believe that you are entitled to have a formal notation recorded now, without waiting any longer for George to see Alison's post. Like Bigtimepeace, I believe that George has made a huge mistake - and one that calls his judgment into serious question; hopefully no further damage will befall you as the fall out from the ArbCom case and from George's actions continue. Amazing that all this has happened and the case still hasn't closed! I'd love to know what email discussion is occurring on the ArbCom list at the moment.  :) Best, Jay*Jay (talk) 10:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the absoloute proof provided that you are not a sockpuppet, I did a bit of IAR and noted it in your block log with a one second block. Not a practice I usually encourage, but allegations of sockpuppetry are quite a stain and you are quite clearly innocent of them. Hope you feel better in the morning, the community is clearly on your side. Viridae^Talk 10:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The one-second block is, incidentally, the only block this user has had to serve out for its entire term, without it being ended early!  :-) *Dan T.* (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'd been waiting for someone to notice that :) I imagine they were more tired of talking about it than anything else, but I'll take the credit... Mackan79 (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the further comments from everyone. I won't have time to look at this again until a bit later in the day. I am interested, if slightly dubious, in any coming explanation for having blocked me as a sock of a very controversial user, apparently after a negative checkuser result, as a heavily invovled editor, and without thinking to raise the issue first. I won't catalogue the various other problems here to see if maybe GWH recognizes them himself, although I will suggest it might have helped to have looked and seen that I started editing before WordBomb registered (and as any CU should be able to verify even then from a static IP very far from Utah). So be it, I'll have to see what GWH says. Mackan79 (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been off Wikipedia since yesterday and only now became aware of GWH's inane block. If I'd been on when it happened I'd have insisted I be blocked as well. You may be too peeved at the moment to be thinking about silver linings, but...this total breakdown of common sense may bring needed attention to unaddressed issues in the Weiss-Bagley affair, including the problems of systemic bias and Wordbomb hysteria among incompetent admins.--G-Dett (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You showed great coolness under fire. Welcome back. I hope you get every explanation you're looking for. Noroton (talk) 19:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in my comment to Jay*Jay on my talk. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back Mackan79, if there is a silver lining, it is that the double standard has been thrust into the face of every observer to this whole thing. R. Baley (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've gotten assurances from arbcom members and checkusers that they have investigated this and are fully unambiguously certain that you aren't Bagley. They can't show me the detailed evidence, as I am not a checkuser, but they have described the type and extent of checks, and based on those descriptions I believe their conclusions.

I want to apologize to you for having misinterpreted the situation last night. I don't know for sure the degree to which it was your presumably inadvertently and unawarely using some language Bagley did elsewhere, or my oversensitivity in this case. But I believe I was in error, and I owe you an apology for the block and fuss. I'm sorry, I goofed. I would note this as a mistake and record the apology in your block log if I could do so conveniently.

As I stated last night, I really don't want to affect anyone's participation in the MM debates and didn't intend that effect from the block. Had I not concluded mistakenly that you were Judd, I would have never bothered you about any of your actions or discussion. To the extent that this all interfered in that legitimate debate, I apologize again.

I was off in meetings all morning and I'm just finished up with email - I have no idea what else has been discussed where regarding this, in terms of catching up from last night, but I felt that it was most appropriate to come directly here and apologize to you first, and follow up elsewhere later. I will note my mistake and an apology on my talk page and on ANI as well.

I would like to additionally thank you for remaining civil and calm through the stress that my mistake dropped on you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I think it was actually mostly that you didn't realize I had emailed you when in fact I had (I saw Random832 said this somewhere else, so please don't think I'm them ;) ). That may have been lost in trying to straighten it out. All the same, if I may say, I would seriously hope you reconsider blocking someone based on a personal hunch, particuarly someone you're in disagreement with, someone's who's been editing close to two years, and without even asking ("what email?"). That seems all to have been somewhat of a mad spree, which I don't fully understand. The stranger thing was that you were then very sensitive about another "involved" editor unblocking me... I'm willing to accept this as a mistake, but I do hope you'll be more cautious in areas where you're involved. Thanks in any case for the apology and explanation, as well as the tone, which I appreciate. Mackan79 (talk) 23:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very gracious, Mackan. I'm not sure I would have been as accepting in you place - perhaps it is the tone of the apology that irks me ("presumably inadvertently") or the unjustified righteousness after the block was overturned or the failure to recognise that the conclusion reached was a fairly large exercise in bad faith (and that is the word GWH used - conclusion, not suspicion - and the block log notation reflects this as well) or even the contrary evidence based on your registration on-wiki. Anyway, you have decided to accept this apology, and I wanted you to know that you have emerged from this incident with dignity intact and having impressed other editors. Best, Jay*Jay (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mackan, thanks for fixing my comment on George's talk page - obviously I did mean you and not MM. It's a pity that "Mackan" and "Mantan" are so similar. Perhaps we could deal with that by calling you "the Mack" and Mantan "the Man" since those are a bit more distinct and can both be considered complementary nicknames. :) Anyhow, thanks for the correction!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Special Barnstar
		For dealing with unfair treatment in a graceful, dignified manner. *Dan T.* (talk) 22:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you appear to be using Wikipedia to engage in baseless and rather wild attacks on SlimVirgin. Please stop. [6] For genuine and well founded concerns about serious misconduct, please follow the dispute resolution procedure and avoid making personal attacks. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 15:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand, raising the issue on someone's talk page would be an appropriate first step. I'm currently considering whether there are ways to address the situation while minimizing the level of drama involved. To be clear, my longstanding concern has specifically been how much and the nature of the way these two accounts have worked together, and it is something that I have raised with ArbCom. Following the recent block issued by GWH, an arbitrator had suggested that I may be able to have the blocklog expunged, but SV then arrived to say that this shouldn't happen because I had been wikistalking her for much of two years and had tried to have her "investigated" by the Committee. As such, I have spoken again to correct this, and to ask her whether the issue that I raised with the Committee is one she would discuss. There is no easy way to deal with any of this, and I'd like to be clear I'm notinterested in making a scene, but I think that is where it stands. Mackan79 (talk) 15:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raising appropriate concerns is fine. Raising ridiculous and half-baked accusations is not, and when especially baseless it begins to look like an attempt at a smear. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's ridiculous that the two accounts have acted inappropriately together. It's also not something I would have raised yesterday, except that SV did herself. I responded, and I'm trying to hold back that discussion, although in the end I do think it is another situation where various baggage has inhibited standard dispute resolution from working. I've suggested one possible resolution below that would try to get around that problem, for what it's worth. Mackan79 (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe you'd found any inappropriate behavior by those accounts. If they sometimes agree with one another and support one another's edits, this merely means that they are of like mind. It is absolutely not forbidden for two Wikipedia editors to agree with one another. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tell that the the numerous people who have been blocked, banned, or marginalized for agreeing too much with the "wrong sort" of others. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you name the "numerous people" who have been blocked for that reason? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before you go any further[edit]

I decided to put their edits in the same spreadsheet I've used previously. Going back to September 18, 2006 (SlimVirgin's last 25,000 edits, and the last 9120 or so for Crum375), they have 385 edit collisions—that is, they edited during the same minute 385 times. I've also made these graphs that suggest that Crum375 lives on more regular hours, while SlimVirgin definitely does not.

Of course, Tony would tell you that these methods are untested so mean nothing. I just thought you should keep them in mind. If you still think SlimVirgin might have access to the Crum375 account, perhaps you could look at the edits that Crum375 made in the early morning when the account usually does not. I, at least, would demand a smoking gun, because I'm not seeing it here.

See also:

• Image:SlimVirgin Crum 4 month sample.png‎
• Image:Crum only.png
• Image:SlimVirgin only.png

Cool Hand Luke 16:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, I think. I also wouldn't want to start an investigation without myself or someone else presenting a stronger basis for concern. As I suggested, I think it may ultimately get to this question: if Crum is a friend of SV from before the creation of Crum's account, and yet Crum has perpetually taken sides in SV's disputes even from very early in the account, is this something that SV should disclose? This is basically what the evidence goes to, give or take. My perception based on specific points I've submitted to ArbCom is that this would matter a great deal, and that there is strong indication from editing that this is at least the case. One of the obvious reasons it matters is the very great extent they edit together, revert warring against other editors on a page, but then acting hostile when other editors familiar with them arrive to comment.

As is clear at the same time, SV and I have a longstanding dispute which the situation also relates to, which makes it hard for me to suggest what should happen. However, I think it is possible that the issue could be mediated, for instance by making it a nonissue. That could happen simply based on situations such as the discussion here as well as Crum's recent actions in the Mantanmoreland arbitration case which resulted in their block, without any regard to the issues I submitted to ArbCom.

The point would be that if an editor is in such a sensitive situation that their editing relationships can't be openly discussed, then they shouldn't edit tendentiously and controversially with another editor. If others have an opinion on that, including SV or Crum375, it may help resolve the issue. Mackan79 (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence doesn't point very well to outright sockpuppetry in this case, but the much more vague label "meatpuppet" would seem to apply, in that the two accounts back one another up in a quite sycophantic way. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop this use of pseudo-statistical babble to justify the harassment of editors through false and disingenuous accusations of sock puppetry. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those statistics are being used to disprove the sockpuppetry allegation, actually... stop trolling. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony doesn't actually read. . .just makes comments. R. Baley (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read. Representations of statistical significance in the edit timings facilitates the abuse of statistics to attack editors in good standing. This is the case whether one purports to exonerate or incriminate a user with these untried methods. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and using facts and evidence in the course of determining sockpuppetry and confirming or denying accusations of such is something up with which we must not put... it gets too much in the way of acting on gut feelings and clique loyalty! *Dan T.* (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not using any statistics. Just highlighting some characteristics that makes sockpuppetry unlikely. This is a DUCK test; I've listened and have heard a goose. If you have a problem with it Tony, nominate WP:SPADE for deletion. Cool Hand Luke 23:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry is not the issue here[edit]

It doesn't matter if they're two different people or not (and, for that matter, no-one, not even WordBomb, thinks they are the same person as far as I know) - but countless incidents of him showing up to support her on pages that he's never had a single edit before is a pattern of disruptive meatpuppetry (and if he were showing up on the same pages at the same times to _oppose_ her, he'd have been banned long ago for wikistalking) —Random832 23:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note that in the past four months you've made significant edits to the following articles:

Doctrine of the two kingdoms‎

Separation of church and state‎

Joseph Massad‎

Overstock.com‎

Patrick M. Byrne‎

Neve Gordon‎

John J. Byrne‎

Antony Flew‎

SlimVirgin doesn't seem to have any involvement in those articles. The latest attack on SlimVirgin seems to have been provoked by her decision to comment yesterday on your request for an inappropriate block to be removed from your log. In the discussion she mentioned an incident from last year in which several people had asked you to stop behavior that had the appearance of wikistalking towards her. I also note that, perhaps thinking it better to avoid picking at ancient wounds, she removed it a little over half an hour later. Her edit summary was "removing parts of my previous post that were too personal and had no bearing on this issue".

Your own comment came a few minutes after that, and you promptly removed it when you realised that she had removed her own.

This looks to me like a case of bad blood between you and SlimVirgin. I'll ask you both to continue trying to avoid one another, and I really would like to see you drop these inappropriate and poorly founded investigations into a possible connection between two editors who are both in good standing and, even you seem to admit, not socks of one another. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

I can appreciate your efforts Tony, particularly on what information you may have, but I don't think this is an effective resolution. As I said, one of the problems here has been the two of them going from one article to another, revert warring, and then making accusations toward any others who arrive. This has recently been discussed on AN/I, as I take you’ve seen.[7]

My problem is that after first experiencing the way SV has often operated in disputes with Crum’s assistance (though largely failing despite the fully panoply of efforts attempted),[8] I ended up looking into it further, for the reasons given on SV's talk page.[9] Upon doing so I found a number of things. One was that Crum375 had added an edit counting script to their monobook within a week of editing. Another was the fact that Crum encountered SV within three weeks, [10][11][12][13] quickly editing numerous articles with SV,[14][15][16] from some amount of knowledge. I noticed that somehow during this Crum375 had actually added a direct URL to Daniel Brandt’s hivemind page on his bio (now deleted). When Phil Sandifer removed it, Crum then had this explanation for how they found Brandt’s page and why they made the edit, before suddenly realizing the problem with such a URL. [17][18] And yet, before this realization, Crum had left these two comments on SV and Flonight’s talk pages. I found that apparently Crum's first substantive edit to policy was on June 25 of 2006 on Verifiability to revert a "non-consensual edit by Francis Shonken" to a version by SV without any further explanation,[19] after Shonken had said to SV that jumping to reverts rather than discussion on the talk page was inappropriate.[20]

There are other things, most predominantly the sheer amount of editing they do together, across many completely unrelated topics. The point became clear that at some very early point Crum started following Slim around for the predominance of their editing and with very few exceptions. In this context, I saw that some of Crum’s early edits focused specifically on the history of science,[21][22][23][24][25] including to the portal on that subject,[26][27][28] one that SV had said in her first edit was one of her own primary interests.[29]

What does it indicate? Without getting into everything, I found it to indicate two editors who are at least close friends, apparently from before the creation of Crum’s account. I found this problematic for other reasons. I don’t go further, because I don’t think it’s sufficiently indicated or could be proved (or possibly needs to be, per some of the arguments that you’ve recently made). However, considering the amount of controversy that has surrounded this situation, and if there isn’t a response, I think that probably it should be discussed, and as well that there are probably few people with more standing to raise it. In that regard, I hope the discussion can remain reasonable, and focused on legitimate issues.Mackan79 (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This quote is interesting: "That WR is a site dedicated to destroying WP is not in much doubt. But do we want to prevent people from learning about our adversaries?", from Crum defending linking to so-called "attack sites" against those who wanted to remove such links. Later, Crum would become one of the strongest supporters of the BADSITES faction that favored expunging such links and demonizing people like me who defended such linking using pretty much the same line of argument Crum used himself before he changed his mind. *Dan T.* (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. The oddity of this is that after adding the URL, but before that explanation, Crum had already left these two comments regarding offsite harassment. It was also Crum's apparent quick change of mind that I noticed.[30][31]. One of a number of things, of course. Mackan79 (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except you did no such thing, did you, Tony? You didn't "ask SV" to avoid Mackan79 at all, not according to her User Talk page - you just decided you were going to "warn" one side of a dispute, but thought it best to paint it as an objective "I'm going to ask you both". Please refactor, or cite. Achromatic (talk) 04:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are misinformed. It strikes me that your faulty reasoning here is similar to that of Mackan79 and to some extent of Dtobias: adding 2 and 2 and getting 5.

SlimVirgin has assured me that she'll keep up her side of it. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 11:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In view of your disappointing responses and continued unwarranted personal attacks and baseless speculation about SlimVirgin, I am taking this matter to the arbitration committee. [32]. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Tony, this has to be one of the stupidest RfArbs I've ever seen. Best of luck with it,--G-Dett (talk) 21:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It will hopefully lead to some examination of the behavior of all parties, which may not work to the favor of the person who started it or the person he's trying to protect from alleged harassment. *Dan T.* (talk) 22:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I am responding, while I'll avoid raising further of the substantive issues in that response. It may be that the ArbCom could mediate in private; we'll have to see. Mackan79 (talk) 22:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether they'll accept it. In my experience personal attacks don't seem to merit arbitration. The nature of this one is unusual, however. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, I have asked FT2 to make a change in his comment[33]. Risker (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've started drafting an RfC that you might be interested in here. Please feel free if you'd like to participate in adding anything to it that you feel might be relevant. Cla68 (talk) 02:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your question regarding e-mails from IPFrehley to a arbitrator, I have no record of receiving such an e-mail from IPFrehley, nor do I have any recollection of him sending me that e-mail. I've been using that Wikipedia e-mail account since 2005, and there's no need to delete e-mails in G-mail (I've never been anywhere near my limit), so if I had received it, I should have been able to find it. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know exactly what sequence of events led to what actions, but if anyone does it's SlimVirgin, and I would trust SlimVirgin's statement's in these matters. And, as I said above, I have no record of receiving such an e-mail from IPFrehley, nor do I have any recollection of him sending me that e-mail. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mackan, I have always strongly supported WP's core policies and still do. They are far from perfect, but have produced a top-10 website, so they are obviously not that bad either. The case you mention where I disagreed with many editors had to do with BLP protection, which IMO trumps a local and temporary consensus. Crum375 (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see my action in the BLP issue you mention as an "edit war" — I was acting as an admin enforcing our BLP protection rules. Regarding my reversion of your edit, I used a generic "was reverted" because I was not sure at the time if other people had reverted you also, and didn't consider it important enough to check. I apologize if you found the passive voice offensive, that was not my intent. Crum375 (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My role is to follow the rules as I understand them, to the best of my ability, which I did. I also did participate in the discussion, and fully explained my actions. Crum375 (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warning. I didn't realize that WR was controversial. See my further comments at the noticeboard. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 03:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making arbitrary edits on the Rashid Khalidi page. There is an ongoing discussion that you appear to be ignoring possibly because yours is not the majority opinion. The source, the Los Angeles Times, is a hightly reputable one. You do not seem to have a reason for your edits beyond your unsourced challenge of the intentions of the Times reporter.Thomas Babbington (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Thomas Babbington[reply]

Thanks for defending him. Some of the users involved in the discussion are quite the silencers and don't like anyone who causes trouble by dissenting. Thanks for your honest unbiased opinion. I think you're the only one not involved at the expelled page that is commenting on NCdave. Therefore, you are the only unbiased opinion, and your opinion is that he is innocent. Thank! Saksjn (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [34] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most people as I can tell, take my talking-point in the Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed user-discussion page as some kind of nonsense about order in a wikipedia article. I'm not asking to delete anything! I'm saying everything has its place and category, and we need to bring the article up to speed on that. Paladin Hammer (talk) 00:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Talk: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 00:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mackan. Sorry you took umbrage with my message, but your being here for two years, in and of itself, does not make template messages on your Talk Page inappropriate. Blanking discussions from a Talk Page is inappropriate, and is not a legitimate part of "cleanup". As for diff's, they are certainly advisable, but not absolutely necessary for every template message, and I don't use them in every single one. Nightscream (talk) 03:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the History, I see that the edit in question was by Shoemaker's Holiday, who merely archived the discussion by moving that section to an archive (though I don't think he should've done so until after it died down). I apologize for the mixup. Nightscream (talk) 03:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Amoruso (talk) 02:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't follow most of what you said on my talk page. But regarding

Anyway, it's the fact that this is kind of an original thought (not totally original, I know) that made me think it should be attributed, even if only for standard academic reasons, don't you think?

The statement is attributed - there's a supporting reference.

When you change a simple factual statement into "NCSE says X", you completely change the meaning of the statement. It presents a simple fact as an opinion. That is highly misleading. Guettarda (talk) 03:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm simply saying that when it's a creative type of thought, you generally give the person's name in the text rather than simply citing it

And that related to this discussion in what way? We're talking about a simple statement of fact. Guettarda (talk) 04:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like you to respond to my reasoning regarding the edits being disputed here. Can you participate? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raul warned me for "disruptive editing." Could you help defend me on this one? See my talk page. Thanks! Saksjn (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was a reply to filll, but applies to those who disagree with it being called "Big Science" or more appropriately the scientific establishment. Yeah, I read your comment over, and yes I'd say we're in agreement. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 03:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking a break now, at least from ID-related stuff for at least a week or so. I simply fear if I continue on the Expelled page I might lose my temper and I don't think that would help anyone. I have managed to remain calm and happy for a long time now, but I need to refill my mana. Take care, Merzul (talk) 01:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Today we have much more polite replies on the talk page. While yesterday I was annoyed at the arrogant tone in some post, today it is NCdave's own interpretations of Darwin that I find annoying. It seems I can never be pleased :), so I'm now finally leaving for a Wikibreak. Best wishes, Merzul (talk) 12:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So much for my Wikibreak, but I like working with you, we reach consensus quite easily. ;) But I am amazed at the level of stubbornness on that article. That someone actually reverted you to a grammatically messed up version ... WTF? Anyway, I think I'm signing off for tonight. We'll see what lectures about policy they have for me tomorrow. Merzul (talk) 22:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the arb vote here the RFAR on User:JzG is now merged with this case and he is a named party. Also see my case disposition notes there. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly note on Tom Foreman. I replaced the {{primarysources}} tag you removed with the comment "cnn bio should be fine". Since he works for CNN, it's not an independent source. I do agree with removing the {{notability}} tag (and I have no idea why I didn't remove it when I de-prodded the article). --Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some time ago, you participated in a deletion discussion concerning Allegations of American apartheid. I thought you might like to know that the parent article, Allegations of apartheid, was recently nominated for deletion. Given that many of the issues that have been raised are essentially the same as those on the article on which you commented earlier, you may have a view on whether Allegations of apartheid should be kept or deleted. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination). -- ChrisO (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Lar. Thatcher 14:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A request for arbitration which you commented on has been opened, and is located here. Any evidence you wish to provide should be emailed directly to any sitting Arbitrator for circulation among the rest of the committee. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 14:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was away. I've replied on her talk page. Khoikhoi 21:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Thank you for your work at Naked short selling and related articles! Regards, Huldra (talk) 00:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for clearing up some of the issues, but the last paragraph of the lead to the NSS article is very badly sourced. It is one thing for these statements to be true and valid, but when a paragraph ends with a citation, it is expected that the paragraph is based on those sources, not on what is written all over the place. You can respond here, or on the article talk page. Thanks, Vesal (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A quick clarifying point re: your comments... The diffs you cited to were in regards to open proxies, i.e. where anyone can hop on and obscure their identity, even from checkusers. Open proxies are forbidden by policy, etc., etc. In contrast, SlimVirgin's "evidence" definitely mentioned using a closed proxy where I assume access was restricted - possibly even restricted just to SlimVirgin. I won't comment on how appropriate that may be, but I wanted to make you aware of the discrepancy since your comments were stricken and you were unlikely to get a response. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind.[35] I think your proposal has a lot of merit, and deserves discussion unmuddled by the current edit dispute. Cool Hand Luke 04:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Request for a special restriction at Naked short selling. Cool Hand Luke 03:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rashid Khalidi, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Avi (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heyo Mackan79,
I've noticed a mention that you were unclear to the use of the unsigned template. What needs to be written is {{unsigned|user name}}. You can also use {{Unsigned|user name or IP|time, date}} copy pasting the time and date from the history log.
Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There also is {{unsigned2}} which is formatted for copying off of the history of a page. -- Avi (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I know I've seen it, but somehow I'm never sure where to find these things. Mackan79 (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Care to comment on the addition of Joseph Massad's commentary in the Martin Kramer article? Why do I not see the same fervor from Wikidemon and others removing that paragraph. Can you explain why? -- Avi (talk) 22:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rashid Khalidi. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 16:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, that was unintentional. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 10:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have made a report to WP:AN/I regarding the edit warring / WP:BLP issue concerning Rashid Khalidi, here: WP:AN/I#Historicist edit warring on BLP violations. This is a courtesy notice only because you seem to have been involved in some edits or discussion on the subject recently. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are going to have to trim your evidence section. Your original submission was already at 1033 words. The additional post on the talk page had the same effect as expanding your evidence section (I may be messing which event was first, but the substance of the problem is the same). If you need help trimming it, I can work with you on that.--Tznkai (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you need help trimming your evidence section?--Tznkai (talk) 19:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mackan79! I already explained the reasoning for my post, and will repeat it here:

It's because he saw fit to single out Jayjg for this accusation, and later added similar accusations against others in different sections.

If a part of the explanation was not clear, please tell me. Also, please correct your post, as I never said that it was a personal attack, but a borderline-personal attack (two different things). Thanks, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you cannot understand my reasoning if it's confined to one line. My tip to you: sometimes less is more. The reasoning seems clear to me, but in case it isn't, I'll divide it into two parts for you:

1. It's because he saw fit to signle out Jayjg for this accusation—actually this relates to my earlier post in the same place, which says: Almost every editor in this dispute has accused almost every other editor (of the opposing 'side', I guess) of POV-pushing. What that means is that either Cla68 believes that Jayjg violated WP:NPOV more than every other editor in the dispute (for which there is no shred of evidence, so it seems like a bad-faith accuastion), or that Jayjg is the only editor who violated WP:NPOV on Wikipedia (which would be a bad-faith accuastion and also borders on a personal attack). Clearly this isn't limited to the Judea/Samaria dispute either, because Cla68 also posted an accusation against Amoruso, who isn't involved in any way.
2. and later added similar accusations against others in different sections.—yes, I do think he should've put all the very similar accuasations under one section. What he did looks like it was made to highlight the notion that Jayjg=plusbad; CM=bad; NoCal100=bad; Amoruso=bad; That's just not appropriate, especially because most of it is not supported by evidence. Cla68 is actually doing the exact thing he's accusing Jayjg of—making personal accusations without having solid policy-based evidence. He's not pointing to a general bad trend, but several specific editors, one by one. Sometimes it's appropriate to single out a single editor if he's severely violating policy, but Cla68's evidence proves nothing of the sort, and moreover does not indicate how Jayjg violated policy more than any other party to the case (if indeed he violated it at all).

I hope that satisfied your curiosity.

Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing standard about making two separate sections about one editor (both of them one-liners, so by your standard it's an ad hominem), and also posting a section about an editor who hasn't edited for about a year. I do believe it's bad faith, and I guess that's where we disagree. --Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if possible, with an Oliver Wendell Holmes jr quote on Living Constitution. It would be better if we knew where he wrote it, in a decision or whatever. Thanks., Rich Peterson75.45.98.190 (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you mean about involvement with editors - it has been a very long time since I have worked on anything with Slim Virgin, maybe years, although I wrote something in her defense when she was up before ArbCom. I cannot see ho that disqualifies me from acting responsibly now. Lar made a personal attack. I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt and i asked him what he meant.[36] He said what he meant and three other people said they consider it a personal attack. I let them know I would take appropriate actionhere and I did [37].

Now, Lar had ample time to take back the attack. Are you disagreeing that he made a personal attack? Slrubenstein | Talk 10:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is on Lar's user page:

My Admin Policy: I trust that my fellow admins' actions are done for the good of Wikipedia. So if any of my admin actions are overturned I will not consider such an action to be a "Wheel War", but rather an attempt to improve Wikipedia. If I disagree with your action, I will try to discuss it with you or with the admin community, but I absolve you in advance of any presumption of acting improperly. We should all extend the same benefit of the doubt to our fellow admins, until they repeatedly prove that they are unworthy of such a presumption.

Lar understands that I am acting in good faith - shouldn't you? By the way it gos without saying that if Lar retracts the attack the issue is settled, as far as I am concernes. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you, for getting me to reflect on my position. I wish someone could get Lar to reflect on his. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that there is nothing I will be able to do to persuade you, but I really am not duped by SV, nor acting on her behalf. When I wrote my defense of SV during the ArbCom thing, I was sincere and expressed what I thought. Not only was that some time ago - I can't even rememer how far back - but this is simply nother issue. If you go back to my posts to the listserve, back when I was on it (2001-2005) you will see that, whenever the issue came up, I spokeout clearly against the creation of any govening structure, central authority, or hierarchy at Wikipedia. I wrote the first draft of two essays (Wikipedia:Advice for new administrators and Wikipedia:The role of policies in collaborative anarchy) in which I tried to summarize my views. I believe I have expressed consistent views on Wikipedia governance since i have been here. And I believe every endorsement or rejection of any statement, as well as my own statement, at the current RfC is consistent ith these views I have held since I started editing. My point is this: the views I have expressed have nothing to do with Slim Virgin. They have nothing to do with any views I have had about SV in the past, and they have nothing to do with any history between SV and ArbCom or specific members of ArbCom. So I honestly see nothing that I have to "move past."

Ditto my relationship with Lar. As far as I know, we have no relationship. I see no impediment to collaborating with him on an articl or perhaps even a policy. I have had problems with many people at Wikipedia - there was a time (quite a while back, maybe a couple of years) where I collaborated closely with a user named Wobble - but if you had the time to look at our first interactions, we had a very antagonistic relationship and regularly reverted on another. We got past it. I think I have been blocked myself three times at Wikipedia, maybe four ...did you know SV was one of the people who blocked me? You may or may not know that Elonka and I also were in serious conflict a couple of years ago. later, she offered to help me manage the arhiving of my talk. As far as I know, she and I have a corial relationship, although we have not had any cause to ork together on the same article. My point is, we move past things all the time here.

Or are you suggesting that when Lar accused me of being the pawn of a demagogue, it is because he has not gotten over the statement I wrote defending SV when she was being investigated by ArbCom? Is that what you meant, that Lar hasn't been able to put that behind him? I honestly hadn't thought of that. I do not know what to say: I do not expect that of a bureaucrat and steward. If you really think that Lar holds that against me and that it motivated he recent personal attack against me, I beg you to try to mentor him ... if he cannot get past it, maybe he should resign as administrator etc.

But for me it is ancient history and I am not going to assume that he attacked me now for something I wrote over a year (?) ago. All I know is, he attacked me and my ability to act in good faith yesterday. And he needs to reflect on what he wrote, and its implications, and why it is unacceptable (as long as Wikipedia has NPA and AGF policies) and he should retract it. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

regardless of any disagreement, you have always been honest and courteous and I just want to thank you for that. I often do things I later regret, so I know I am fortunate and glad to know that there are people like you at Wikipedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me make this work: Wikipedia:Areas for Reform Slrubenstein | Talk 14:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making my head spin. Seriously though, that comment was a little snippy, and this particular editor has been adding mostly-unsourced info to his own biography for years. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Sock_puppetry#Interview_for_Signpost. - Dank (push to talk) 17:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have another response or two later, as I think through your comment, but here's an initial one: From the very beginning (see User talk:Noroton) I recognized that a CU could have a concern. My focus has always been on how I was treated once the CU had that concern. If you see my most recent comments at RFAR (and maybe you have -- I'm rushed right now and haven't checked; see my "@SlimVirgin" response), you'll see how I think the CU should have reacted. It simply didn't have to be with a block, a day of silence and an odd comment at ANI. And someone has to review Lar's communication with Versageek -- what was said, how, and when.

Policies aren't poems to be given alternate, equally valid, vague, impressionistic interpretations. They need to be clear enough for an editor to follow without an enormous amount of intepretive work, and if we're going to leave CU work for very trusted admins, they damn well can be expected to act with a minimal amount of tact. Without assuming bad faith on the part of either Lar or Versageek -- and by this point, who would blame me if I did? -- why don't you consider two possibilities: first, that one or both editors acted out of bad motives to try to influence the DRV by using CU and admin powers to make me look bad in ways far beyond any technical violations I'd committed; second, that one or both editors used the various tools, either in an acceptable way or a ham-handed way. I think those scenarios are all possible, but given that harm was done to me and given that the first scenario is at least as likely as the second, Arbcom should look into it. Given Lar's and Versageek's lack of response on their talk pages, my suspicions are heightened. Consider also the idea that I was acting malevolently vs. in good faith. There is no proof for the first, but plenty of proof for the second. I used the alternate accounts for a damn year and did no harm, but suddenly I meant to do harm here? It is so obvious, and could be figured out so easily that I don't think it falls within admin discretion.

And notice something else: You've got two CUs on one side and one editor on the other. If we're having trouble figuring out just what WP:SOCK permits and doesn't permit, which is given the benefit of the doubt -- the editor or the checkusers who need to know that policy inside and out in order to deal with socks? J.delanoy, a CU, will block if an editor makes a mistake, then demands of me that I prove Versageek's bad faith -- yet he would require no determination of bad faith on my part before he thinks I should be blocked. It's a double standard, and a typical one. New admins are sometimes told they can expect to make mistakes with the tools. Why not expect editors to make mistakes when policy is not always easy to decipher? What exactly was the justification for not assuming good faith here?

-- JohnWBarber (talk) 13:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "high drama" -- you find something useful in that phrase of Lar's. I find it absolutely arrogant. It also illustrates just how far afield Lar and Versageek are from policy -- that thing that editors and admins are supposed to be guided by. Policy is what admins point to when they tell you you've done something wrong. It's what Arbcom refers to when they make rulings. And yet there's nothing in policy about avoiding "high drama". Simultaneously accusing me of going against policy while using a strained interpretation of policy is -- an interpretation so strained that it actually contradicts what the policy actually says -- is arrogant on the part of Lar and Versageek. I didn't start that DRV for fun: I had a serious purpose in trying to help this project. There's nothing wrong and everything right about starting a DRV when a closing admin engages in outrageous conduct (even if only I thought the conduct was outragious -- but if you look at the DRV, you'll find that most editors commenting in it agreed on that point). There's an attitude (shared by Lar, Versageek, Delanoy, maybe others) that admins are some kind of demigods in Wikipedia and that policies are there to be bent or ignored by admins, and to criticize an admin is some kind of attack. My attitude is that if an admin can't point to a clear policy or a clear danger of harm to the wiki or some kind of harm to another editor, that admin is wrong to block, threaten to block or to use any tools or authority on me. I think mine's the right attitude and Lar's is clearly a bad attitude.
• "Shankbone" -- The only way you can have more than a tiny concern about me and Shankbone is by assuming bad faith. I commented briefly on him in two or three posts in the AfD, and those weren't unsympathetic comments either. It simply cannot be more clear to anyone looking at the AfD and DRV that my participation had to do with whether the sourcing was good enough and whether we should follow policy. It's obvious that's what I cared about. It's all I discussed after the first few posts in the AfD and it's all I discussed in the DRV -- that and the closing admin's actions. When my clean-start action was destroyed, not one vote changed in the DRV. And support for my position actually increased in the votes after that. How could my support for keeping the article be some kind of subtle attack on Shankbone when I originally wanted to delete it? And my change of position came automatically and was based on the same principles I voiced originally. I happened to have a new account when I saw the Shankbone AfD, I certainly didn't create the account a year before the article existed and resign from my original account weeks before the article existed in order to hide my identity so that I could somehow hurt Shankbone by opposing and then supporting the existence of the article. That my reasons throughout were perfectly understandable and consistent also makes the idea ridiculous. Look at Lar's comments in the DRV. He was enraged at me. That's why he didn't see it. My earlier conflict with Shankbone was rather mild. I was unnecessarily sarcastic (in, frankly, a nasty way) in a thread at Wikipedia Review (I was irked that he had said a Fox News anchor was gay in a post on his [Shankbone's] blog). During Less Heardvanyou's re-election as admin, I said he was criticizing LHVU for getting involved in too much drama while himself constantly getting involved in too much drama. He then quickly started a discussion on my talk page and I told him I wasn't interested in having a discussion with him -- and that point I decided I should apologize for what I'd said at WR. I also told him at that point that I remained "appalled" at his behavior and might comment again if I happened to run across more appalling behavior. I have a low opinion of his actions -- that doesn't mean I hate him or want harm to come to him. This last discussion with him happened months ago. When it came to WP having an article on him, I think it would have caused a lot of bother for a lot of admins and a different kind of bother for him. (I did have a conflict with him briefly about two years ago, he annoyed me by commenting on my talk page and by his comments about another editor.) This is hardly the stuff of hatreds and vendettas. We actually happen to know just how important my past conflicts with Shankbone were to people involved in the DRV: We know that it didn't make one damn bit of difference. No one changed their mind because of it. (Forgive the length, but you brought it up.)
• It seems to me that there's no prohibition on clean-start accounts commenting in things like DRVs for a damn good reason: It doesn't matter unless the situation is so bad that the editor with the new account is actually engaging in disruption. Using the phrase "high drama" seems to be meant by Lar to fudge the fact that "criticism" and "debate" are not actually synonyms for "disruption". Shouldn't clean-start accounts be allowed to do what policy doesn't forbid, especially if a clear case can't be made that they're doing harm? Isn't that just fundamentally fair? And isn't excusing bad blocks and smearing fundamentally unfair? Should this really be so difficult to see? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I crossed out the parts about "arrogance" above. Sometimes what looks like arrogaance isn't. JohnWBarber (talk) 04:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're at a disadvantage not knowing more about this situation. There are only two senses in which the JohnWBarber account was a sock: In relation to (a) User:Reconstruction and the other accounts I was using and (b) in relationship to Noroton. With regard to the other accounts, that apparently had nothing to do with the block, since Versageek has never referred to it. I agree that I shouldn't have participated in an AfD or DRV with anything other than my main account (technically User:Reconsideration after Noroton resigned and stopped editing on Oct. 5). Having those multiple accounts was a violation by this point, but only technically, since no harm was ever done by them (and no one says there was). Knowledge of the Barber account's connection with those accounts would have revealed nothing of interest to anyone. Regarding the connection between JohnWBarber and Noroton, there was not even a technical violation of WP:SOCK by this point. None. Not even under the "misusing a checkuser account" bullet item. In relation to Noroton, JohnWBarber wasn't a sock any more. So citing current policy doesn't get us anywhere: Not even under current policy was JohnWBarber's participation in the AfD or DRV a violation (with regard to Noroton) or a meaningful violation (with regard to being a sock of Reconsidera