Thank you for all of the warm wishes and generally nice thoughts sent in my direction. I have retired from all Wikimedia projects and turned in all my extra tools as a security measure (we all appreciate those now, don't we?). For those few of you who were disappointed at not getting a whole ton of gossip out of my explanation for leaving (and didn't think to ask me privately, duh) I can only offer this cartoon as penance. Best of luck to all of you and feel free to keep in touch (see above). Shellbabelfish11:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
mini-RFC on usertalk...
Hi Shell. Is there any chance that you could nip across to User_talk:Cerebral_Warrior#A_Proposal_by_crazyeddie? There's no trouble to speak of there, but per the subsection comments on the proposal I'm a little concerned by it's venue. It's a good idea, and could be fruitful in putting a final resolution to the issue, but it seems badly placed in my opinion. If you agree, would it be possible for you to move the section to its own page somewhere and merge history for it? I've left a comment on WP:ANI but nobody seems to have been interested. Thanks Crimsone22:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm..that's a unique way to handle the userpage concern. I'm not sure it needs moved yet though; its harder to ignore your talk page than a subpage. This is rather new territory so it might be worth it to give it some time and see how it works out; it can always be archived or moved elsewhere later when there's a consensus to do so. Shellbabelfish23:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem Shell. It certainly is new territory. I'm just worried that it might be considered inappropriate. Of course, reading your opinion here does make me feel a little better about it I must say. I certainly agree with the sentiment as you just described it, and I guess it is worth seeing how it all works out :) I'll answer my comment on the page appropriately. Thanks :) Crimsone23:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's going to be really interesting is if Cerebral Warrior decides to remove it from his talk page. Either this is brilliant or its going to cause a serious problem and I'm just not sure which yet. Shellbabelfish00:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, though I suspect that the offensive elements of the user page are going to get removed whichever way it happens - so in that respect it's certainly effective lol. To be honest, that would be the reason as much as anything that I wouldn't like to see a solid precedent from this in the future, although the idea itself is certainly on firm ground. Heck, it could even become the default process for userpage content issues, as it's certainly a quite tidy and fair way for a community to demonstrate it's desire over something. As I said though, the only thing that concerns me is that if the "new message" banner flashes up after every other edit, the user whos page is being discussed may opt to ignore it, making it inconvenient not just for the user, but for any user that needs to contack him/her. Either way, it's pretty fun to watch for now (oops, did I just say that? *naughty me* lol) Crimsone00:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to say that I had previously tagged the page Mina Khel as “Speedy Deletion” because the same was earlier (after reaching a consensus) "Redirected" to the parent article on Marwat. And it happened that you very graciously redirected the same. The User:A M. Khan has once again recreated the same page through another sock puppet and is also repeatedly vandalizing the page Marwat. He was earlier blocked by User:The JPS for some time but as soon as he came back to Wikipedia he has restarted this nonsense. We had a long war of vandalizing (by him) and restoring (by me) of the page Marwat. You can see it for yourself that he just wants to advertise his POV through Wikipedia. Please look into this matter, as I am once again tagging the page of Mina Khel with a speedy delete because being a Marwat myself, I know that there is no truth in what he is saying. As a matter of fact he had also tried to change the decision of Redirect to Keep on the same page and which I had also reverted earlier. You can also see this at the page history of Mina Khel. His other sock puppets are IP addresses 210.56.14.139 & 203.175.64.10, User:Lakki Marwat,and User:Ghazni Khel. I tried to warn him on his user page but he is still doing the same and laughing into my face. Since I am not an Admin yet therefore, it is my humble request to you to look into this matter and either block this person or stop this person from editing these pages. His other interests are to create pages for one Akhtar Munir Marwat, Anwar Kamal Khan, and Khan Habibullah Khan. I hope to see a befitting response from you. --Marwatt03:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll help keep an eye on the article - since consensus was to redirect, it should stay that way unless discussion determines otherwise. I've warned this new account Lakki Marwat about edit warring over the article. If you think that all these accounts are related and also using the IP addresses, I would suggest making a request at WP:RFCU to verify this which will allow us to deal with them as a whole and may lead to blocking several of the sockpuppets (if that's what this is). Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. Shellbabelfish03:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spinoza1111's talk page
This user was banned indefinitely for his continued ranting and personal attacks of others. It was suggested that if he returned to rant on his talk page again that it should be protected. He has returned and has been ranting on his talk page here [1]. Do you think you could protect his page? --Kf4bdytalkcontribs15:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Admin Coaching needs coaches!!! If you are an administrator, or even a generally experienced user, do consider signing up to be a coach.
Admin Coaching, now being coordinated by HighwayCello, is a program for people who want help learning some of the more subtle aspects of Wikipedia policy and culture. People are matched with experienced users who are willing to offer coaching. The program is designed for people who have figured out the basics of editing articles; they're not newcomers any more, but they might want some help in learning new roles. In this way, Esperanza would help keep hope alive for Wikipedia because we would always be grooming the next generation of admins.
What's New?
The Tutorial Drive is a new Esperanza program! In an effort to make complicated processes on Wikipedia easier for everyone, Esperanza working to create and compile a list of tutorials about processes here on Wikipedia. Consider writing one!
A discussion on how Esperanza relates to the encyclopedia has been started; please add your thoughts.
Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter.
The list of proposed programs has been updated, with some proposals being archived.
There is now a new program: the Tutorial Drive! Consider writing a tutorial on something you are good at doing on Wikipedia.
The suggestion of adding a cohesive look to all the Esperanza pages is being considered; join the discussion if you are interested!
In order to make a useful interlanguage welcome template, those involved in translation projects will be asked what English Wikipedia policies are most important and confusing to editors coming from other language Wikipedias.
Shreshth91 informed everyone that he will be leaving the Esperanza council as life is rather busy; his spot will be filled by the runner up from the last election, HighwayCello.
Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may add yourself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List.
Make a justice yourself.
I am about whom, User:Marwatt brought so many complaints, that are mentioned above.
I have nothing to say more about saying that please make a justice yourself.
I am guilty for something, I affirm. But whatever I am editing in article Marwat is based upon reality, fact and a trueinformation. The User:Marwatt got some personal enmiy with the people, who I mention in the article. I just don't want that enmity to be brought-up here, as WP is not the property of Mr. USer:Marwatt. I have no more evidence of being a true one, except requesting you to make an enquiry yourself and make a justice by being a nuteral one. Also read USer:Addhoc's comment on USer:Marwatt, you will know the frustration of User:Marwatt at me, automatically.
A sincere and humble request: Please don't start helping one against another editor, untill unless you don't have dialogues with both parties. This may make one hopless and other an aggressive.
Please!
If your position in the edit war is correct, you should easily be able to provide sources on the discussion page of the article that support your position. You should also be adding these sources to the article when you re-write it. Edit warring and making multiple accounts to keep reverting is not a good idea; both can lead to getting you blocked from editing for the disruption you're causing. Look over our page on how to resolve disputes: WP:DR. Start by talking to User:Marwatt and coming to an agreement on your differences. If this doens't work, you may want to ask for a third-opinion to help resolve the dispute. The dispute resolution page also has other ideas on how to bring in more of the Wikipedia community to help resolve your differences. Shellbabelfish23:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have a new admin coaches chair, and that person is doing due diligence to touch base with all those involved in the program. I'm taking my sweet time learning this stuff, and dipping my toes in deep water (AfD, RfC, 3RR) from time to time. When I do, I seem to hold my own pretty well (rescued an article on my first try!). Will do such more often. I think I will apply for editor review, and then proceed with learning more. I've recently taken on Military Science task force, and have volunteered for volunteer coordination support in Wikimania 2007, so I'm gradually working into deeper water. I'm just not in any real hurry. I have a challenging career; family matters and improved personal writing have occupied priorities, and I'm still making good daily progress in this project. I plan to spend more time in Simple English once I get more established here. So I could see myself running sometime next year. BusterD13:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have put myself up on editor review; if you'd like to provide feedback, I'd appreciate anything you might offer. Seems like a simple bar and a good foundation upon which to build. BusterD01:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are not being just
User Thulean is vandalizing, ignoring WP:POV and WP:CON and manipulating WP:Ettiquete to achieve these other goals. If I would have said he's a liberal or a communist or a tory, nobody would have said a word. But for some odd reason WP:Ettiquete protects people with a far-right ideology that are precisely those who most vandalize and in the most sophisticated manner. I am just stating the truth, and you should investigate if I am saying the truth or slandering him. It's not a matter of "name-calling". It's a matter of truth, honsety and protecting Wikipedia against vandalism and manipulation. --Sugaar22:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, another administrator has intervened in the dispute with a diferent attitude. You didn't post anything in the case but in my page. I'm assuming good faith and assuming you are in fact an administrator but I believe you should post your resolutions in the RFI relevant section too. Else it's quite confusing: for me, for you, for Durova and even for Thulean. --Sugaar23:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No actually Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy doesn't allow those either. Please try to focus on the content and not the contributors. If you're having problems of that level, I hope you're using dispute resolution. In the meantime, try to be patient and avoid labelling other editors. I was not involved in an attempt to resolve the dispute. Shellbabelfish12:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Other administrators don't think the same. I am appealing the warning. Please see relevant discussion in the corresponding RFI. --Sugaar12:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's not really anything to appeal. If other's don't think its a personal attack, that's fine. I'm just suggesting that you try not to let people get under your skin next time. Shellbabelfish13:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I see it I've not let anyone get under my skin. My comments on Thulean's nazism, etc. are not anger-motivated not intended to cause a name-calling war or anything. They are just descriptive of his ideology. For me and other editors it's pretty objective. It's not intended as a personal attack but as merely descriptive term. If I used "liberal" or "nationalist" nobody would put any objection, specially if there are descriptive terms. Why some (particualrly disruptive) ideologies are specially protected? That's the question I asked in the talk page of WP:Etiquette, why objective description, honesty, calling things by its name... is punished?
Why racism has special protection? It's relevant to the discussion to point out that certain POVs are such. It's also relevant to the integrity of Wikipedia to denounce politically motivated disruption and unilateralism when it happens.
Thulean is playing victim. Have you even asked him if he feels offended? He doesn't. He has read the WPs, chosen the most convenient and claimed protection not against insults (that he doesn't feel as such) but denounce of his (well calculated) disruptive attitude. He's claiming special protection for his ideology - and using the text of WP:Etiquette to protect his ideology from scrutiny.
And yes: the warn needs to be reviewed. I don't dare even to initiate an RFI on him while under warn. I also feel harassed by his constant threats of "you'll be blocked" and I don't dare to expose these users' attitude on fear that I may actually be blocked.
In other circumstances, I'd be less fearful of disciplinary measures but I've just started with other editors and ethnic wikiproject and portal and I think I must be around to push them ahead.
I'd also intervene in other cases of racist manipulation of articles (see Caucasoid, for instance) but now I feel threatened by the Wikibureaucracy and don't dare to act.
So your hasty warning, ignoring the objectivity of my remarks, is causing disruption and helping vandalism. And needs to be reviewed. Don't tell me that I need to be blocked before I can initiate an appeal. I don't want to reach that point but rather prevent it.
So yes: there's something that needs review. Specially as other administrators seem to see no fault (or at least no clear fault) in my actions. --Sugaar16:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point out what other administrators felt that labelling another editor and then continuing to use the term after they've complained is not a personal attack? Please note the policy we've been pointing you at WP:NPA specifically says: Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme. is a personal attack. The same page also mentions that its important to focus on the content and not the person who contributed it.
If you feel that another editor is pushing a POV or otherwise harming an article there are established methods to engage outside editors from the Wikipedia community to help resolve the problem. If you feel their behavior consistantly violates Wikipedia's guidelines, those same methods can be used to help resolve the problem. As a last resort, arbitration is available to impose enforcable sanctions and guidelines on editors.
The fact is that if you're not making personal attacks, you have nothing to fear. Someone could come along and warn me not to make personal attacks - since I try to avoid them, I wouldn't be concerned. I'm just asking that since he felt he needed to report you for consistantly ascribing his position to that of naziism, perhaps you could try not to use that term in the future and find another way to resolve your differences. Shellbabelfish16:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know about DR methods but I had to excuse myself from the ongoing Cabal because I feel I cannot express freely while your warn is in effect (still Thulean went to my user page and threatened me again with a block for that, when I have not used the forbidden words not gone even close to that - I've opened a new RFI for that). The matter of wether describing the ideological manipulations, consensus disruptions and POV pushing in clear terms is an insult is relevant beacuse I can't even speak (no matter what I say) without Thulean threatening me with a block (and that is probably scaring other editors as well).
I have also reopened the case against me that you so hastily archived because I feel it's not fully solved.
Durova clearly said (and you must have read it before your archived the case) that: I did a search on Yahoo and did find Nazi websites that use "Thulean" and "Thule" in their titles, so - strong as the statement from Sugaar was - it appears to be fact-based and valid. There are two sides to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA that apply to this particular discussion: first, standards of civility at Wikipedia do not depend on what ideology an editor holds; second, discourse on certain sensitive topics may require the judicious use of terms that would otherwise be eschewed as hot button and inflammatory (such as when the topic at hand actually is Nazism and racism). This is obviously in contradition with your warning and that's why I reopened the case in hope that the situation is cleared up.
You say I have nothing to fear but I, and possibly other editors, are now in fear of Thulean's "lawyer" tactics. I can't describe his POV as racist and I can't denounce the obvious agenda that drives his unilateral actions (on what other respectable editors agree).
I'm not trying to solve the POV dispute in the PAIN I'm trying to clear my name and know that I'm not gagged t speak up my mind in honest and direct terms.
There is no reason to remove yourself from participating in dispute resolution - this is the proper way to solve your issues. I've asked you to stop labelling him a nazi and you've said you won't do it, so I really can't see what more you want done.
I've pointed you to the specific wording in the policy that I feel you violated. Per the instructions on WP:PAIN, you're welcome to take this to the administrator's incident noticeboard if you feel its still not been resolved, but please do not continue readding cases to the personal attack noticeboard. Just because Durova understood where you got the label from doesn't give you license to repeatedly label another editor against his wishes to devalue his contributions. You did not say his editing was in line with nazi ideology, you called him a nazi - those are two very different things.
Thulean can do nothing to block you so long as you're not doing anything block worthy. You've agreed not to continue calling him a nazi, so what more is there to worry over? The warning I gave was only about the nazi situation and doesn't mean that any mistake you make will automatically get you blocked. Shellbabelfish10:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed Thulean's bogus warnings from your talk page and warned him against the behavior. I hope that will help resolve some of your remaining concerns. Shellbabelfish10:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As long as your warn is in effect my ability of free speech is gagged. How can I describe Thulean's ideology and motivations. Should I call them "liberal", "unspeakable"? Without mentioning it, I can't speak up my mind. It's not name calling it's accurate description of reality in the appropiate context. As I said your resolution and the other two resolutions are contradictory. Removing the issue is just hiding the dirt under the carpet, not solving anything.
Regarding your editions of my user-page, they solve nothing as you have not warned Thulean on them. In fact they may prejudice my case, as his misbeahviour is not visible. I am reverting that edit of you because, as this issue will probably have to go to ArbCom, I want all evidence available well at hand. If I just wanted them removed (hiding the dirt under the carpet), I'd do it myself because after all it's my user space. But until this is fully settled, I'm keeping all the evidence well visible for all to see.
I know perfectly that Thulean can't block me. I'm not a newbie around here. But I know that with administrators like you he can well do it by indirect means, manipulating the case in his favor.
I fear I have nothing left to do but going to ArbCom, unless you accept this dispute that is now between you and me to be mediated. You are allowing me no other options. If you are interested in mediation, please say so. --Sugaar12:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, like I said in the message above, I did warn him about the behavior and asked him to try to avoid messaging you until the content issue is resolved.[2]
Perhaps, like has been suggested and is in the policy I've pointed out multiple times, you should discuss the content and not the editor. For instance, you can say: "I feel this paragraphy is biased and presents a racist point of view". This is optimal since it avoids discussing the contributor at all. If you must, you could always say "This editor constantly pushes his POV by making edits like (give diffs); these edits seem to have a racist slant." Again, you've characterized the edits and chosen not to label the editor.
I'm not sure why you feel this needs mediation, but you're happy to ask for third party assistance if you feel it is warranted. I'm fairly easy to get along with :) I would have to suggest that ArbCom may be a bit premature since there are many other ways to come to a resolution; they typically reject cases without prior resolution attempts. Shellbabelfish12:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this issue needs mediation because there has been two contraditctory rulings: your's and Durova's (and another one that was more in the line of Durova's than in yours but was more ambiguous). But instead of keeping the case open till a consensual resolution was reached or whatever procedure is used in these cases, you are archiving the case, keeping me in legal limbo: I don't know if I'm warned or if my actuation was within the margins of WP:CIV, as Durova thinks. I don't know if I'm aquitted or sentenced, innocent or guilty. And I need to defend my innocence before I can discuss anything re. Thulean and his activties.
So my first choice was to try to keep the case open till that was cleared. But you instead prefered to brush it under th rug keeping my position in a legal limbo.
Therefore, I need to either reopen the case until the administrators involved can reach an agreement on which is the one ruling (there can't be two or three contradictory rulings, that's not serious) or to appeal it.
I'm absolutely convinced of my innocence and Durova saw the why I acted the way I did. Without justifying me she also admitted that it was a reasonable use of the terms that I cannot write because they were fully relevant to the discussion.
I'm also absolutely convinced that Thulean is not offended but just playing offended. The only thing that offends him is that I and others are putting obstacles to his unilateral and ideologically motivated disruptive activities.
But first of all I need the case reviewed and a clear resolution reached: either I'm warned or I acted justifiedly. But it can't be both ways.
So do I fill for mediation or do you prefer to reopen the case and try to reach a consensus with the other administrators involved? Both would be valid for me. What can't be is this juridical limbo with contradictory resolutions: one sentencing (yours) and the other absolving (Durova's and partly the third one). Either I'm guilty or not-guilty but can't be both. --Sugaar15:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think its important to point out that while Durova did understand where you were coming from, he did not choose to reverse the warning you were given. Also, the mediator for the article disupte has also warned you about insulting Thulean [3]. It is clear that you are continuing to attack Thulean in a manner that has caused more than one other editor to caution you against it. It would be best if you stopped referring to him and discussed the article content. Shellbabelfish17:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No.
Durova and the other administrator were apparently unaware of the warning because you made no notice of it in the case. I believe that Durova thought s/he was giving the first ruling. I haven't talked with her, so I really don't know for sure.
When I started this discussion with you was precisely because your lack of mentioning the warning was causing confusion to me, to Durova and even to Thulean. That's the first thing I wrote in this discussion.
I said then: well there are contradictory rulings: can you sit together and decide a simple one?
And no: I have not been attacking Thulean. I have been defending myself and the other serious editors, and Wikipedia itself, from his twisted tactics by all the legitimate means I could think of. I have never again used the forbidden words, even if that made for me impossible to discuss the issues at hand. As I say: I feel gagged and unable to express the dimensions of the problem. We are discussing racism in that page and how do you expect me to discuss it if I can't use that word?
Anyhow all I want is that Thulean's behaviour is investigated in depth.
I have also been informed that the correct way to appeal this uncertain ruling is to go to WP:AN/I. Of course, I'm willing the case to be mediated if you still want it. But I am very unhappy on how you handled the case: the hasty warn, the removal of the case without a clear ruling, not giving me info on how to appeal your decission, etc.
I've said before that I have no problem with mediation, but perhaps you should ask Durova to clarify first? There's no reason that more than one person can't warn you about your behavior - you displayed the same problems in the meditation as in your prior discussions that Thulean reported. You do not need to insult Thulean and his motives in order to state your case - I've tried giving you some suggestions on how to do so. I'm not sure what more you want out of this. Shellbabelfish18:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my point is that I was not "insulting" Thulean but "describing objectively". Nazism (or neonazism or white racism or white nationalism) is a real ideology. If I say that X is liberal or nationalist or communist or conservative, that would be no problem. But for some reason the people that has that unspeakable ideology is overprotected by WP:Etiquette (that anyhow is just a guideline) and can ask special protection from exposing their ideological motivation.
I agree that, in normal circumstances, denouncing each others' ideology is not polite nor constructive. But that page has been under consistent attack by (mostly anonymous) vandals of clearly nazi/racist ideology. Thulean and Dark Thicondrias have been the only ones in that spectrum to do it with a username. While DT is somewhat estabilished, when I first denounced T's attitude and ideology, he was a totally new user. He has just a couple of weeks in Wikipedia and he has already caused all this disruption. Imagine what can he do if left unchecked.
I may well talk with Durova after all but I hoped that you could discuss it between yourselves without need of me pushing it further. In fact I think it's your duty (as you archived the case) to clarify which is the resolution. As I am between three contradictory ones: your warn, a rather supportive resolution by Durova and a no-say reolution by the third administrator. Neither of them could know about your warn unless you (or someone else) informed them.
The noticeboard you're referring to is only for people asking for intervention because of ongoing personal attacks - it is not a substitute for our dispute resolution processes. Reports are removed after action has been taken.
I assume the reason you're continuing to discuss this is because you want me to remove the warning. I've explained why, regardless of your intention, your wording was accusatory, dismissive and used language to insult and belittle Thulean. There are no good reasons to break the personal attack policy regardless of whether or not you feel the comments were warranted. There are polite and civil ways to discuss article concerns without ever even having to mention the contributors. You will not agree with the viewpoints and opinions of everyone you meet in Wikipedia, so its important to develop non-judgemental and accusatory ways of discussing issues.
Please remember warnings are not a black mark, just a reminder that policy states that attacks should be avoided and the behavior can lead to you be blocked if you continue. Shellbabelfish21:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I realized it's WP:AN without the /I. Anyhow, I'll check those ways only if thre's no other option.
I don't want you to remove the warning. Well, of course I want the warn removed, but basically I want the case reviewed. I think you archived it too hastily with contradictory resolutions and you have only given wings to a vandal with that. I think that the correct resolution is that of Durova and therefore I think your warn is plainly wrong. Archiving the case with a confuse resolution has only brought more confussion to all the parties involved. The case must be reviewed one way or another.
The warn is just plainly out of place. As such I give no importance to it, but for the fact that it gags me and other users from denouncing explicitly the ideological motivations of certain (somewhat sophisticated) vandals. I believe in the assambleary principles of Wikipedia and therefore as I stated in Wikipedia talk: Etiquette I think we must be able to express ourselves honestly, specially when using such tags are necessary for the proper discussion of the matter in question. I think that "nazi" in this case is not an insult but an accurate ideological description. There are some (few hopefully) nazis among wikipedians, as there are liberals, conservatives, anarchists and whatever. Would you make an offense if someone called me anarchist? Of course I would not denounce it to the PAIN or anywhere, I make no secret of my ideological preferences, unlike others that pretend to be what they aren't.
I think that honesty is at least as important as politeness and therefore I demand that the case is reviewed, hopefully according to what Durova resolved, that was way more reasonable. Your warn was totally out of place and is only helping vandalism and POV-pushing against Wikipedia's principles.
The case has given wings to Thulean to keep trying his "legalist" tactics avoiding consensus-making usual ways (but keeping editing at will until the page has been finally protected).
I see no point in continuing this discussion here. Do you want to go to mediation or should I check for alternative ways of complain against administrative procedure? --Sugaar22:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Might I point out that you are, in your statement above, now calling the editor a vandal? I understand that you do not agree with his ideaology and editing, but this isn't the way to resolve your concerns. This type of attacking and incivility toward Thulean is precisely the trouble. I'm sorry we're not able to see eye-to-eye on this, but sometimes you must agree to disagree. If you feel that further dispute resolution is needed, I would be happy to participate. Shellbabelfish22:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's it. I've given enough time to Sugaar to understand why what he is doing is wrong. And why he shouldnt comment on editors but on the text of debate. I'll give him a warning (this time I hope you wont call it bogus) if he continues saying things like
"But that page has been under consistent attack by (mostly anonymous) vandals of clearly nazi/racist ideology. Thulean and Dark Thicondrias have been the only ones in that spectrum to do it with a username."
and then I'm going to report it him again. Sugaar,
Nazi
/naatzi/
noun (pl. Nazis) 1 historical a member of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. 2 derogatory a person with extreme racist or authoritarian views. [4]
When someone uses the Oxford English Dictionary to define white [5], you may think they are Nazi, but it's only your opinion, many people would disagree with you. So please keep your derogatory remarks to yourself, even if you think you are being honest. Frankly, I have my own honest opinions about you, but I dont voice them because despite being objective and honest to me, they may be very insulting to you. Thulean00:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See how I am gagged? Each time I try to speak my mind you (and Thulean) start lawyering as if I was insulting. I'm just trying to describe situations and facts.
I feel this discussion is going nowhere. Several days have passed since I asked you to agree mediation and you have only been talking in circles and accusing me of incivility each time I'm forced to explain things clearly.
I don't think I'm praticularly uncivil but just honest. I can't be a hypocrite and I believe it's totally against the principles of Wikipedia.
I'm not sure whether you are one of arbitrators involved in the "psedoscience" action, but if you are I'd like you to seriously look at the effort to ban me. I've summarized the situation on the "proposed decision" talk page.
I'm sorry I'm not an arbitrator. I would like to point out however that you have been rather disruptive to those pages, which is why, I believe, they are asking that you not edit them. There is nothing to prevent you from contributing your ideas to the talk pages though :) Shellbabelfish16:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi sorry if the removal was a problem it's that this is a childs programme which offered no gay suggestion and was sexless in so far as apart from friendships between the characters there was no hint as to sexuality. indeed they are supposed to be children themselves and to suggest sexuality is treading on thin ice.
1/ To quote a letter as a source is poor at best, i could write an outrageous letter myself and quote it here but it wouldn't make it right.
2 and a half... I find the notion that a mention of a tea cup storm made by small minded individuals should be included in a pen picture of a childrens TV show ludicrous at best but this comment is the only just comment with real founding.
3/ The outcome should be entered as i find it hard to believe it ever got to a courtroom.
1/ [edit] Tinky-Winky controversy
One of the Teletubbies, Tinky Winky, was the focus of a still hinted-at controversy in 1999 due to his carrying a bag that looks much like a woman's purse (although he was first "outed" by the academic and cultural critic Andy Medhurst in a letter of July 1997 to The Face).
2/ A February, 1999 article in the National Liberty Journal, published by Jerry Falwell, warned parents that Tinky could be a hidden homosexual symbol, saying "he is purple—the gay pride color, and his antenna is shaped like a triangle—the gay pride symbol."
2(and a half!) A spokesman for Itsy Bitsy Entertainment Co., who licenses the characters in the United States, said it was just a magic bag. "The fact that he carries a magic bag doesn't make him gay. It's a children's show, folks. To think we would be putting sexual innuendo in a children's show is kind of outlandish."
3/ In an incident reported in 2000, a girl's Tinky Winky toy reportedly said "I got a gun". Kenn Viselman, then chairman of the Itsy Bitsy Entertainment Co., claimed the toy acutally said "Again, Again". [3]
Can this section be removed on the grounds that it really has no worth and is trying to portray child characters as gay. Especially while using hinted and possibly.
The controversy, regardless of whether we think it has any merit, was covered by major news media - a big deal was made of it. In that sense, it makes sense that we cover it - that doesn't mean that we agree with it. Personally, I think its incredibly silly and agree that calling a children's character gay was a bit absurd. Please take a look at our policy on writing from a neutral point of view: WP:NPOV. It will help explain how articles are expected to show all major viewpoints on a particular issue. Shellbabelfish15:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. Just to expand. Medhurst who is cited is not a critic per se, he has published minor papers on the gay 'scene' as it were and as you can see from the link the whole Tinky Winky issue was born from a joke on what must have been a quiet news day. The fact that all concerned have distanced themselves is enough to at least acknowledge that the claims were baseless and since been retracted.
The balance in the section is not there and is full of suposition, all now foundless anyway.
I'm glad you agree with the silliness of it all however but think there is more than a slant towards the importance of the news coverage it really received. Thanks again, again.
I'm actually working on rewriting a great deal of the article to improve it. If you have any suggestions on how to reword the section or references for the later information about the statements being retracted, I'd love to have it :) Shellbabelfish17:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bogus Warnings
You have left a message in my talk page about my bogus warnings. I disagree. Sugaar has said this AFTER he has been warned:
"I can't intervene further. Thulean has initiated an RFI against me for denouncing his political motivations and I have a warn. Whatever I may say could be used by Thulean against me to force a block, so I can't discuss openly before the warn is removed. Nevertheless I will keep protecting the article against unilateral harassment by Thulean, who obviously is not interested in reaching any consensus but just imposing his opinion and (unspeakable) ideology by any means at reach. --Sugaar 16:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)"
And even our meditator warned him:
"Please do not insult Thulean. I don't care if he is or isn't Nazi (he probably isn't though), but you must respect him here. If you want to do that, do it on the main discussion page, not here. Also, please, could everyone read WP:NPOV by Saturday, so we may start this by then? | AndonicO Talk 17:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)" [6]
Yes. While he's not being incredibly civil, I'm not sure I'd categorize those as personal attacks. He's agreed not to call you a nazi anymore so hopefully the mediation can go forward. Shellbabelfish15:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you arent sure, perhaps you should ask me if I'm insulted. Or perhaps you should refrain from calling my warnings "bogus". His implication is clear ("unspokable ideology") and I made my warnings so he could stop speculating about my motives and concentrate on the text of debate. Thulean15:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read our personal attack policy, it should help explain why, while uncivil, nothing in the discussion was a personal attack. I'm sorry you feel insulted by it; that's why we ask that people focus on the contributions and not discuss the contributor. I hope the mediation helps resolve these difficulties. Shellbabelfish15:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did actually. Perhaps you can clarify:
"Examples of personal attacks":
"Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme."
"Accusatory comments such as "George is a troll", or "Laura is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom."
Clearly, he speculates about my affiliations and uses it to discredit my views. And I believe this is accusatory:
"I will keep protecting the article against unilateral harassment by Thulean". I wont press this further but I just wanted to make my point clear. Thulean15:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having seen more of the mediation page in question, I would agree that Sugaar is seriously pushing the bounderies of personal attacks and being incredibly incivil. It would appear that the mediator has already cautioned him and should continue to intervene should further assistance be needed. Shellbabelfish17:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to ask if White people could be semi-protected while mediation is going on. Editors are more concerned about having edit wars and accusing each other of attacking them, and not assuming good faith, than reading WP:NPOV so mediation can begin. Right now, all that mediation is is a second talk page for arguments, rather than a tranquil page for exchanging of ideas. By the way, I neither support Sugaar's accusations of Nazism, nor Thulean's RFI against him. Also, this Euskata has been editing almost, if not, excusively on pages involved with the White people article. His account was created November 9, and I suspect he is a sockpuppet. Where should I report that? | AndonicOTalk01:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given the edit history and the fact that the disputants have accused each other of having multiple socks and opened numerous WP:RFIs on each other, I've given it full protection for now. I was hard pressed to find a revision since the dispute started that wasn't a revert. If you think this is too much and want it scaled back to semi-protection, just let me know.
For now, I think full protection is fine; perhaps we can change it to semi-protected in a week or so, depending on how the mediation goes. Thank you for your help; it may speed things up a bit. By the way, I added a check user, like you said, of everyone involved here, including myself. I doubt there are sockpuppets (aside from User:Euskata), because they wouldn't argue so fiercly. Once more thank you for your help. | AndonicOTalk19:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism?
Can you help me to determine if these last edits in White people are vandalism? They keep changing cited metarial with uncited metarial. And then, one person added stuff which he was explained that it doesnt mean what he thinks it means. See [7] and [8]Thulean22:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The vandlism policy defines vandalism very narrowly. Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. These issues should be resolved through the current mediation. Shellbabelfish16:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of admin tool abuse by an aggressive pseudoskeptic
You seem to be one of the more responsible admins around,
having actually held ScienceApologist
(who seems to be able to get away with any policy violation without consequence)
accountable in one case.
I am writing to notify you that the admin JzG (signs as 'Guy'),
an aggressive pseudoskeptic like ScienceApologist,
has been abusing his admin tools and admin status to
harass and intimidate me (with blocking and libellous accusations)
because I had exposed the pseudoskeptics in
my statement on the pseudoscience RfAr.
He is working in conjunction with the admin Saxifrage,
who is making an unrelated dominance-motivated revenge attack on me,
and other users such as BenAveling (probably a pseudoskeptic,
else just a disruptive sadist) and Ronz
(another dominance-motivated revenge attacker, as well as a POV-pushing pseudoskeptic).
They particularly like libelling me by falsely portraying my actions and using the
convincing tactic of pretending to address me on my talk page
(when in fact addressing third parties, because both myself and them know
their statements to be false). They generally like to be cleverly convincing.
I wouldn't even be surprised if they falsely portray my relevant and informative descriptions
of their behaviors in this very message as being personal attacks.
I described all of the offenses on WP:ANI, in 2 different reports
(1. "Deceptive gang attack committed by Saxifrage, BenAveling, and JScott06" and
2. "Flagrant abuse of admin tools by JzG (signs as 'Guy') and the new admin Saxifrage").
I therefore think that this matter is likely to be of concern to you.
GoodCop06:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
