User talk:FeloniousMonk/Archive 8

Userfied Trolling

Cheers, I was actually a little concerned I might have overstepped the mark, but he really is getting out of hand isn't he. ornis 16:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Milloy article

Hello. Given ongoing developments (or lack of development) at Talk:Steven Milloy, I'm strongly considering opening a request for comment on the conduct of User:NCdave. I find his approach, at this point, to be tendentious in the extreme, and I think that outside input might help move things beyond the impasse at which we seem to be stuck. As I realized when exploring this option, this would not be NCdave's first RfC; that would be found here, having to do with NCdave's tendentious editing on Terri Schiavo. In any case, I would be interested in your thoughts on the subject. MastCell ^Talk 04:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Nate1478

I'm curious who Nate1478 was harassing and where was his indef ban discussed. Thanks. FeloniousMonk 07:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Over the last 3 days I have indef blocked 3 or 4 impostors of User:Nate1481. I rolled back back around a dozen edits by today's sock because the edit summaries referred to reverting non-existant vandalism by User:Nate1481. I don't think the user has been banned but the template refers to blocking as well as banning. Certainly, I'm not prepared to unblock an impostor who is harrassing a good faith editor. Have I done something wrong? Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article Review: Intelligent design

Intelligent design has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --FOo 09:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Please review this CFD result

The result of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_5#Category:Signatory_of_.22A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism.22 was clearly not delete. The comments there are about evenly split so there's obviously no consensus. Yet User:Radiant! claimed the conclusion was for deletion, closed the CFD and deleted the category. I've asked Radiant! at his talk page to explain how he came to his conclusion and am asking you to please undo his unjustified deletion. Odd nature 16:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Further to this, I have asked for a deletion review of Category:Signatory of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism". You might want to participate in the deletion review. Hrafn42 17:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#Writing in the FAQ proposes that this should no longer be policy. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ has already been hacked about and several section headings have been removed, with the result that half of the section links to it don't work any more: I've commented on the talk page. .. dave souza, talk 18:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Your challenge

I thought that your "challenge" on the DRV was right on point. I must admit that Kbdank71's dogmatic comments on this review (and some earlier comments indicating a contempt for gaining a consensus) make me question his suitability to co-administrate the CFD process. Hrafn42 05:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Take a stroll through my talk page and its archives; you certainly aren't the first to disagree with me, nor will you be the last. For the record, I don't have contempt for consensus, but I will always temper that against what is best for the encyclopedia, based upon common sense. It's clear you will take policy above all else, even to the point of keeping an attack category if consensus says keep [1]. --Kbdank71 14:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

If "Category:Jimbo is a poo-head is up for deletion, and everyone on earth wants to keep" I would consider myself to have far greater worries than wikipedia, and would most probably be looking for a new planet, where the dominant species had a higher IQ than the plant life, to inhabit and leave you want to play Canute the Great commanding back the tide. Your argument is a very silly (as in Camelot in Monty Python and the Holy Grail silly) argument. The trouble with common sense is that it is all too frequently not in common supply, which leads many people to mistake their own prejudices (which are far more common) for it. :D Hrafn42 15:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice side-step. All of that doesn't change the fact that you are willing to keep an attack category because consensus says so. --Kbdank71 15:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ummm no, I never said that. You are quite simply putting words in my mouth. What I said was that if the entire world was against you, you should start your own wikipedia (rather than futilely attempting to shove a deletion down everybody else's throat -- i.e. I'd be "willing to keep an attack category" because I would know that I had no real choice in the matter). "God grant us the serenity to accept the things we cannot change, courage to change the things we can, and wisdom to know the difference." If I was to take your favoured approach, I would quite simply have deleted the CFD and restored the category "for the good of wikipedia", and told you to take a long walk off a short plank. Satisfying in its intellectual purity perhaps, but strategically futile and likely to gain one a very bad reputation. Hrafn42 17:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No, but you implied it, and then you just stated it above. Just a hint, when trying to explain how you didn't say something, you might not want to go ahead and say it anyway. I'd be "willing to keep an attack category" because I would know that I had no real choice in the matter. No choice? WP:BLP. WP:BOLD. WP:IAR. Sure you do. Regardless, I won't bother FeloniousMonk any further. If you wish to continue this, you know where to find my talk page. --Kbdank71 17:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:AFD on DRV

Hi FM. Could you take a look at this comment [2] on the DRV. I made a total of four notifications (to Radiant!, to Odd Nature, to yourself and to Talk:A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. How is that violation of WP:CANVASS? How is Radiant!'s wild accusation not in violation of WP:AGF, or behaviour unbecoming of an Admin in a formal review of one of their decisions. Is the CFD the Old West or something, complete with 'hanging judges' and lynchings? Hrafn42 11:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

I have requested an Arbitration review on your behaviour against me,[3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iantresman (talk • contribs) 23:18, 15 July 2007

Don't make the mistake of thinking that by trying to portray this as some sort of personal matter you can avoid being blocked and left free to violate your RFAR probation. With your shabby history it would be no trouble at all for the community to indef ban you if that's what people really wanted. But the fact is you've been opportunity after opportunity to straighten up and contribute positively, sadly you continue to squander them. There are better uses of the community's time than another Iantresman RFAR filing. What's this one, number three this year? You're wearing the community's patience thin, Ian, and I'm far from the only one who thinks this. FeloniousMonk 00:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If Ian is determined to score an own goal, I don't think we should stand in his way. Raymond Arritt 04:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

A RFAR too far, it appears, Ian. FeloniousMonk 05:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That block

Well, see, the thing is, despite Hrafn's claims to the contrary we're not in fact involved in any kind of content dispute. Rather, in clearing xFD backlogs, I made a judgment call about the deletion of something I'm otherwise uninvolved in and don't have any particular strong opinions about, and he's been, for the lack of a better term, screaming bloody murder since then. Aside from that he made a series of nasty remarks against Kbdank, and other people disagreeing with him on this issue, and appears to have a history of doing so against other people. Note that an outside admin (Yamla) reviewed and endorsed the block. HTH, >Radiant< 08:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked LAEC

Informing you because not only were you already attempting to help this user understand what is and is not vandalism and how his approach was disruptive, he apparently has decided I'm your attack dog, or something. Full details on WP:ANI#Mentors wanted, where I have requested someone new (not open to accusations of lapdoggery) give it a try, as he shows no sign of comprehension that his behavior is at all a problem. While I appreciate your reticence to block and efforts to resolve this through dialogue, I believe his disruption has reached the point where unless and until he ceases, he is impeding progress beyond what is tolerable. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Woof, woof! Offtopic apology for altering your talk page comment, but the link to wikisource needed fixing in that the hope that our fixated friend might actually read Kitzmiller rather than a notorious blog. .. dave souza, talk 21:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Please see my comments here Raul654 21:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I've waited many days for your response; I need to archive my talk page. I believe the conversation now at Raul's talk page covers all the bases. I do hope you intend to make amends with at least Tim Vickers (even though he's not asking for it), and hopefully others as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that you have returned from a few days off Wiki, and am still awaiting your response to the charges you lodged on my talk page. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, please quit trying to make trouble. You turned up at an FAR insulting the editors who had written it, calling it "embarrassing." Granted, there might have been writing in it that you personally did not like, and it's fair enough to point that out. It's wasn't fair enough to insult the people who'd put a lot of work into it. You then started insulting Raul, claiming he had a conflict of interest when he promoted it. But when someone calls you on this, and the fact that several editors don't submit FAs anymore because of you, you start demanding apologies. My suggestion is that you apologize first to FM and the other editors of that article, and that you start writing some FAs yourself instead of only reviewing other people's, because that would give you some much-needed insight into how much work is involved, and how dispiriting it is when that work is aggressively attacked. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Raul's entitled to his opinion about you Sandy, I simply don't share it nor does my opinion in any way hinge on his. So I'm not sure what you hope to gain here. And my opinion certainly hasn't improved in the meantime considering you've since unilaterally reopened the closed FAR that was the source of your disruption that prompted my response in the first place. FeloniousMonk 04:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Raul is satisfied and the source of the unfounded, unsubstantiated rumors is now clear. However, you rolled three other people into the charges aimed at me. I am waiting for clarification of the charges you made about Marskell, Tony and Tim. That's why I'm here. FARs which are mistakenly closed are routinely reopened, as only Raul, Marskell and Tony Joelr31 close them; ID is nothing special and it's happened before. Running the FAR as all others are run was supposed to be for the benefit of the article, so that a clear conclusion would be reached and the article wouldn't be back at FAR in a month. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Struck and corrected mistaken name above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You must stay away from the situation, Sandy, as your behavior there has been unnecessarily aggressive and personal. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

AFA

Hi FM. I am discussing the pink swastika issue again in the AFA article talkpage. I welcome your input again if you have the time or inclination. Regards Hal Cross 05:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi again FeloniousMonk. It seems the Pink Swastika issue is being dealt with presently. I do have another issue that I think you could help out with on the AFA article. I am presently paraphrasing the issues section using information taken from the AFA article on issues:

http://www.afa.net/issues/

e.g. [4]

I realize my paraphrasing may have my own biases involved. I also realize its not an easy job, and welcome your input whether its editing or comments on my editing. I also realize I may have got off to a shaky start, but I would like to state that there is an effort to edit and conduct discussion responsibly on the article. I certainly would like the article to be as close to neutral as we can realistically get it and I see you obviously also have that in mind. Hal Cross 10:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

*Poke*

I haven't seen you editing much lately and I'm getting concerned. What's up? (You can respond to me privately by email if you want) Raul654 17:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of Chinese apartheid AfD

Following your recent participation in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 30#Allegations of American 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 15:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Interrupting conversations

I have seen several cases, including one involving yourself, in which an admin used a very abrasive and harsh tone in reprimanding a relatively new contributor's disregard of an arguably minor Talk guideline, the reprimand itself resulting in an even more combative and hostile environment for all involved. In at least two cases, the new contributors left the project. In general, that does not help the project. --Otheus 00:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

As for me, I do appreciate being reprimanded for my specific violations of WP's policy and guidelines. However, when the violation in question is concerning a gray-area or a very obscure guideline, I would appreciate it if you at least prefix your reprimand with "Please", especially since you and I have in the past (and apparently in the present) exchanged hostilities. It is also a good idea (for the benefit of your credibility) to refresh your memory of said policy/guideline before issuing such a reprimand. --Otheus 00:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as the specific violation... In this edit summary you cite WP:Talk about not interrupting conversations: "don't interrupt short comments of others with your responses". Here is the guideline, where "common sense should apply", as stated under WP:Talk#Others.27_comments:

Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:

• Interruptions: In some cases, it is OK to interrupt a long contribution, either by a short comment (as a reply to a minor point) or by a headline (if the contribution introduces a new topic). In that case, add "<small>Headline added to (reason) by ~~~~</small>". In such cases, please add {{subst:interrupted|USER NAME OR IP}} before the interruption.

I'm not sure if you see where I'm going with this, so I'll spell it out:

• The list of examples is not exhaustive. (Presumably common-sense is to apply.)
• The guideline says it's okay to interrupt a long contribution. It does NOT say it is NOT okay to interrupt a short one; nor does it say it is ill-advised to interrupt in other cases.
• The guideline leaves no guidance as to what might count as long or short.
• Your comment was not short: It contained two completely separate complaints.
• Had your comment's second complaint been the first one, I'm sure you would agree that my response to it would have indeed been a short interruption.
• Nothing in WP:Talk says its okay to move another's comment without permission, excluding exceptions, none of which address the situation in which you moved my comment.

Note on the last point, I don't mind that you moved it, under grounds of common-sense. But if you are going to stick me with the letter-of-the-law, which I don't mind you doing, please lead by example. --Otheus 00:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not taking your bait here. If you're so convinced that you're on solid ground spliting up the comments of others with your replies, then by all means, please carry on then as you have. FeloniousMonk 00:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Bait?

Yeah, I don't see anything wrong with it, as long as it's clear who's arguing with whom and when. What objection do you have? --Otheus 01:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Denial and Denialism

OKay, it's time you and I had a serious conversation about this, rather than reverting each other on tangential topics. You have my permission to move this conversation to a denialism talk page, or to a separate user-talk page.

Here's the first thing: You can't go around calling everyone who disagrees with you "crazy". And "denier" is just a euphemism for crazy -- it's referring to someone who is in denial, which is most often associated with psychiatric problems of depression, dissociative disorder, etc, -- because they disagree with what "everyone else" says. Now -- maybe (and often) it's true! But can't you see that it violates BLP? --Otheus 02:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is the second thing: let's be consistent. Anyone who disagrees with the scientific consensus on anything should be labeled as "denier". You got a problem with that? Good. Let's make a list of articles of Living Persons who still believe:

• Sylvia Browne (guess that includes Larry King)
• John Edwards (I think that includes Oprah)
• Moon landing was a hoax (luckily, very few, I'm sure)
• Water dousing works (might get a few more here)
• Homeopathic treatment (ruffling some feathers now)
• Chiropractic treatment (crushing toes...)
• 9/11 conspiracies (like 80% of non-americans)
• OJ Simpson did not murder Nicole Brown
• The 2000 prez election was stolen
• pre-2002 Iraq had no ties to Al Queda
• Jesus was conceived by a virgin and later rose from the dead

Now, maybe you do intend to link all such articles to denialism. Why not, right? --Otheus 02:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is the third thing: As WP is read by many many people, including kids wishing to become interested in science and other areas of research, what are they learning from reading that a dissenting scientist is in denial? I don't want my kids thinking that science is all about agreeing what all the other scientists think. --Otheus 02:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

PR on Community sanction noticeboard

considering this block log, you might be interested in making some statement on this community noticeboard. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Since PR's block log has come up again, is there any chance you could quickly discuss the severity of his first block? A month seems awfully extreme, and the block comment doesn't shed any light on the severity. Mark Chovain 05:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion please

Hello. As an admin previous involved in the Gastrich [5] affair, I wonder if you would be so kind as to weigh in on the Kearny High School, San Diego [6], talk page and the inclusion of one of Mr Gastrich's privately-owned domain sites as a reference for the page. Thank you. - Nascentatheist 04:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

user:Filll

He says that jossi re-blocked him. Since the original block was so manifestly unjust, can you unblock him or is that inappropriate? ornis (t) 04:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

He's not blocked. The block you mention is in neither Filll's nor Jossi's log. Filll must be mistaken. FeloniousMonk 04:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That's what I told him... ornis (t) 04:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...

... for undoing the vandalism to No free lunch in search and optimization. I wish it were possible to get email notification of changes to pages on the watchlist.

Tom, ThomHImself 10:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of tags on Image:Darwin on Trial.jpg

Please do not remove the dispute tags before the issue has been resolved at fair use review. Also, under no circumstances should the {{non-free reduced}} tag be removed, as the old high-resolution revision(s) must be deleted no matter what the outcome of the fair use review is. --Pekaje 13:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

1) The images were never actually listed, 2) one image tagged as high resolution has been reduced, the others were not high enough quality to count as high resolution. Get your fact straight. FeloniousMonk 13:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I do have my facts straight on the high-resolution part. You removed the {{non-free reduced}} template several times while the high-res version (and yes it really was unacceptably high) still existed in the history. I see you have now deleted that revision, which is all fine and good, but it is actually a bit out of process, as one generally waits 7 days for objections (as there might be a valid reason for a higher resolution, and the rescaling might have been improperly performed). As for the dispute tags, I would suggest you wait for some sort of consensus on fair use review, where the debate is still going on. --Pekaje 14:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

How to use the main template

Hello, I'd just like to inform you that Template:Main is not placed at the top of articles. I've seen this occuring a bit lately and have removed it each time. I checked with the template guidelines just now and it indeed confirms this: "It should not be used at the top of an article to link to its parent topic. Such links should be a natural part of the article lead." Instead I recommend you add Template:Summary in to article talk pages. By the way, I've readded the globalize template as well, since the article has in no way dealt with the issues raised. This is hardly an issue limited to the US only, and we need to do much more research into it. Richard001 07:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirect Disco to Discovery

Somebody tries to mock the name. Please comment for speedy deletion[7]. Thanks.--יודל 19:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Ombudsman

Would you be kind enough to nominate an ombudsman or mediator to resolve a perplexing conflict between myself and User:Hrafn42 regarding potential violations of the WP:BLP "Do No Harm" clause? I am concerned about the recurring publication of libelous and defamatory falsehoods causing serious harm to scientists and academics with whom I am affiliated. Please feel free to E-Mail me if you need further information. Many thanks.

Moulton 23:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Regnery Publishing

You need to read the sources. Both available sources state that the resignation took place on March 21, 2006. The plagiarism was not discovered until March 23. There is no way Mr. Domenech could have resigned from Regnery because of the plagiarism scandal. Neither source claims that the resignation was linked to his plagiarism; rather, Wonkette's source claims that Domenech's WaPo job gave Regnery an excuse to remove an underperforming employee. FCYTravis 05:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI

First the Discovery Institute, now Larry Fafarman: [8] You know you've hit a nerve when the dedicated cranks single you out for honors. Thanks for nailing the sock puppeteer. Odd nature 18:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration request

A request for arbitration involving you has been filed here. Please view the request, and add any statements you feel are necessary for the ArbCom to consider in deciding whether to hear the dispute. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

DrL/FNMF

Back in March you blocked FNMF (talk · contribs) because, among other things, the user was exhibiting the same problematic behaviors as DrL (talk · contribs) and Asmodeus (talk · contribs). For a variety of reason, it appears to me that BCST2001 (talk · contribs) is the same as FNMF. I realize you're probably not eager to engage in old disputes, but it would help me if a user more familiar with the previous accounts could look this over. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Unfortunately, RFCU won't help since the other accounts haven't been used in a while. The most obvious signs are the involvement in similar articles and the strident tone. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

ChristiaNet poll

FM, I've reverted your undo, because the fact is that ChristiaNet is the world's largest Christian portal with twelve million monthly page loads; there were 500 Christians surveyed; and its press release is posted on some of the most notable news sites there are, including Yahoo!News, LexisNexis, UPI, GoogleNews, MSNBC, and others. This is both notable and reliable. --profg 15:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Your interpretation of notability is amusing. That aside, demeaning an admin is not wise. But please, continue. I'll love to watch. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"Demeaning an admin is unwise"? First of all, I'm not "demeaning" you; second of all, being an admin is no excuse for lack of civility. Thank you. --profg 16:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) Firstly, the poll has been soundly rejected after an exhaustive discussion on the article talk page, so I trust that's a moot point. Secondly, I fail to see where anyone has been uncivil to Profg, so his "lack of civility" comment is hard to fathom, but we can ignore that as well, since it seems to be a hobby of his lately to use "uncivil" as often as possible (I suggest you get another one, though). Thirdly, Profg, considering that you've been edit warring against consensus, ignoring talk page guidelines, and otherwise having difficulty learning how to behave on Wikipedia, I would think you would want to make as few enemies among admins as possible. There is considerable leeway about when we block, how long we block, etc. There is also considerable discretion about unblocking. If an administrator remembers you as a pushy, rude, CON-ignoring POV edit warrior who is uncivil and attacks and undermines others yet constantly complains about others' civility, it is possible that you will, should you in the future commit a blockable offense, be accorded less slack. AGF is not a suicide pact. If you're disruptive, you're not going to get much trust from the community. And thus far, you're being fairly disruptive. Please read the links people keep offering you, and attempt to be more civil and less disruptive yourself, and follow the WP:RULES. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar'd!

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Without a doubt the best username I've seen on WP. I lol'd out loud. faithless (speak) 16:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

attack sites

Are you aware of [9] and [10]?

At some point I hope you will comment there.Slrubenstein | Talk 19:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:California Mille logo.gif

Image Copyright problem

This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:California Mille logo.gif. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 20:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI

See here please. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 09:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you get involved ...

...in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:No original research - where several editors are rewriting the policy (some in good faith). Slrubenstein | Talk 10:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your chiming in but I fear most people active on the page will just dismiss your comment. I don't know if you went through the whole talk page but I proposed a revision here that I thought would appease the critics without changing the fundamentals and it was mostly ignored .... I am feeling beleagured... Slrubenstein | Talk 15:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

That was a fucking terrible call

Banning Ferrylodge based on an "overwhelming consensus"??? No other steps in the dispute resolution process were even attempted. Plus, there were only a dozen editors commenting for the period of less than 24 hours. This was a fucking terrible call. Yes, if you were counting votes, the outcome would appear to be "Ban him"... but banning is supposed to be a last resort.

But anyway, the call was made. I dispute the decision. What is my next step? Feel free to answer here, I'll keep an eye out. Mahalo. --Ali'i 19:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Section broke, so Felonius can see and answer my question. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

IMHO and my POV is that Ferrylodge has a long history. The patience of the project was gone. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Should an editor who is skillful at staying just below the threshold for administrative actions have 1 year of disruptive editing without sanctions? 2 years? 3 years? How many productive editors should be driven away to allow one POV warrior to take the field? This editor has a long long history of disruptive behavior (at least 9 or 10 months).

This action can be reversed. It is not irrevocable. However, this editor has shown a tendency in the past to attack other editors who even suggest he has done something inappropriate, and tie them up in horrible false charges and nonsense. He is a drain on the productivity of the project. He is a definite negative. Let's consider his record without his attacks and interference. If it is determined that he has been unfairly vilified, then of course let's welcome him back.--Filll 19:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yay, drama! You're not exactly dispassionate in your support of Ferrylodge now, are you? What are we to make of that? You know what was a genuinely terrible call? Your comment here, specifically, your tone and choice of words. Oh, and your support of a chronically disruptive POV pusher and agitator, that was another bad call too. Sorry, that's two. Odd nature 20:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not intending to start any drama. I just think the call was a fucking terrible one. And I'm allowed to express my opinion. I don't even know Ferrylodge... I think I've run into him maybe once at Fred Thompson, but there were just so many things wrong with how that played out, that I am perturbed. "My tone and choice of words"??? I simply stated my opinion (that it was a fucking terrible call), and asked what to do next. I don't "support" Ferrylodge. I just think he got Quickpolled, and deserves better. Mahalo, come again. --Ali'i 20:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

If it was bad, it will be reversed. In the meantime, editors discussing it will not be attacked and harassed by him.--Filll 20:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Not when it's insulting and vulgar, you're not. Say hello to WP:CIVIL, since you two seem to not be acquainted. I'd seriously consider rewriting your comments here unless you want to be a topic of discussion rather than a participant in one. Your not helping yourself or your friend with your tone and language. Odd nature 20:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind the f-bomb. I don't even mind Ali'i's opinion on the matter. I don't think Ferrylodge deserves any further attention or wasted bandwidth. IMHO. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I second that. Let's move on. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Question...

Okay, since I am not special enough to break the section above, I would just like to make sure that you see my question about what to do next. And e kala mai for this second section. Mahalo. --Ali'i 21:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I make it a rule to not respond to those who take the tone seen in your comment above with me. Next time try to be civil, you'll get further. FeloniousMonk 16:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not a "good example"

In reference to this reversion, I would like to contest your claim that it is a "good example":

1. the example is only marginally relevant to "the indirect method" which is described above in the section as "presenting all the evidence, both for and against, evolution" (i.e. Teach the Controversy);
2. to call it an "incomplete quote" is misleading -- the quote is not out of context, if framed differently -- a reframing that they're quite open about; and
3. it is a very obscure example based on a document written by one of the DI's least notable members -- Casey Luskin. As far as I can see, this document has disappeared without leaving any trace, and is referenced nowhere else except through this article and web.archive.org.

The full paragraph from Alberts is:[11]

For all those who teach college biology, the current challenge posed by the intelligent design movement presents an ideal “teachable moment.” I believe that intelligent design should be taught in college science classes but not as the alternative to Darwinism that its advocates demand. It is through the careful analysis of why intelligent design is not science that students can perhaps best come to appreciate the nature of science itself.

(I've italicised the part that Luskin quoted)

Also, I am sick to death of attempting to engage in discussion of things like this, only to get ignored until I actually edit the article. Talk:Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns#Indirect method example has been sitting unanswered for a fortnight. Doesn't anybody read the talkpages anymore? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Hrfan, FM is one of the good guys. A couple of points. I've probably got 700 articles on my watchlist, and I'll bet FM has a few thousand. The problem is we can't possibly read everything that's ever been posted on those pages. I thought I had most of the Creationist BS articles watchlisted, and I didn't even know about the above. I don't think any of us will willingly get into a battle with you, because we're all on the same side of these NPOV issues. Maybe FM had another idea in his mind. I'd ask in a different manner. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

OM: it isn't inattention that I'm objecting to, it is extreme differential attention -- attempts at discussion get ignored for weeks, edits get instant attention (and instant reversion without any attempt at discussion). But the talkpage is on the same watchlist as the article itself. If one is noticed, one would think that the other would be too. As to who is "one of the good guys" -- I was basically being treated [in this instance] like I'm some creationist troll, to be reverted without any attempt at engagement, after I'd bent over backward in attempting to discuss it first. I don't think it's unreasonable to be a tad miffed at this. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC) [Clarified Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)]

Since we all know you're not a creationist, and you have been very supportive of editors like FM, you probably should assume some level of good faith towards those of us who have worked with you frequently to remove POV problems. That's all I'm saying. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Your edit summary that "not OR, as the source proves" is erroneous. The sole source is a primary one -- the 'Teaching Guide' itself. Under WP:PSTS, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source." The paragraph includes such interpretation. It does not include a secondary source. Therefore it is OR. Therefore I am not misusing {{or}}. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

AFA page

Regarding this edit to American Family Association, the content wasn't actually deleted - it was moved to List of American Family Association boycotts. Orpheus 05:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Question...

Okay, since I am not special enough to break the section above, I would just like to make sure that you see my question about what to do next. And e kala mai for this second section. Mahalo. --Ali'i 21:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I make it a rule to not respond to those who take the tone seen in your comment above with me. Next time try to be civil, you'll get further. FeloniousMonk 16:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a great attitude for an administrator to have: Don't even try and cooperate with those that disagree with you (even vehemently, using naughty language). That really helps us people. Whatever. Issue's basically dead. TTFN, HAND. Feel free to archive this now. Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit to D. James Kennedy

If I see a violation of ASG and NPA against me like this edit summary again, I will have no qualms with reporting it.

In regards to the edits themselves, the fact tag is completely appropriate (an assertion is made with no reference to back it up) and the Coral Ridge reference does not bear out the use of "books and DVDs" because (A) there's no ID books there and (B) there's only one video about ID there that's available in both DVD and VHS.

Seems like you're the one who's "white-washing." Jinxmchue 17:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh noes! Don't report me. You're fast on your way to being the subject of a community discussion as it is, perhaps you should bring it up there. FeloniousMonk 04:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You horrible person!

[12]

Why did you have to go and do something cool like that?

You leave me with no other option:

		The Original Barnstar
		For displays of sanity above and beyond the call of duty.--Kim Bruning 20:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

--Kim Bruning 20:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

Hi FeloniousMonk, I have filed an arbitration request pertaining to your indefinite ban on me. Here is the link.Ferrylodge 23:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi again FeloniousMonk. I would like to remind you about my arbitration request. You are named as an involved party. Would you please say whether or not you plan to make a statement? I think the ARBCOM would benefit from such a statement from yourself, seeing as how you are the person who imposed the ban in this case. Thank you.Ferrylodge 03:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

If you do choose to make a statement, I hope you will at least answer the following two questions. You told me in June: “I suggest that you avoid throwing around inflammatory accusations like ‘KC's … summary is blatantly false.’ They constitute personal attacks.”[13] Will you please acknowledge that KC started using that phrase “blatantly false summary”?[14] And will you please acknowledge that KC’s incorrect summary was ultimately corrected by another editor?[15]Ferrylodge 12:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Why the reversion?

The ID article said a Zogby poll of scientists stated X, but linked to a poll of Ohio voters. I removed the link and added "citation needed", because the link should connect to the poll of scientists. Why revert this? How did the poll of Ohio voters act as a reference? Sad mouse 04:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 16:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has presented evidence that you are the puppetmaster of Odd nature (talk · contribs) in the Ferrylodge arbcom and that you have been using this account disruptively.[16] B has also proposed remedies in the workshop based on his evidence that range from you being restricted to the use of one account to an indefinite ban.[17] I noticed that you haven't been exactly active since late September/early October so you may not be keeping up with the arbcom case and may not be aware of this. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC) The preceding was reworded from [18]. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

And how does one respond to flights of fancy? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Like the attacks on Evolution which require a faith in a supernatural being, which is inherently not falsifiable, how does one falsify a flight of fancy? Oh I know, FM should say he really really really isn't the sockpuppet of Odd nature, because that third really, really does it. Or maybe he should dignify the flight of fancy by pretending to have faith, begin editing in POV statements to the Evolution article, saying that it is ONLY a theory. And then the right wing henchmen will then believe they've claimed another soul for their war against science and reasoning. There we go, I've discovered the true path for FM. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh one more point. Bobblehead, I don't know what form of dictatorship you think runs Wikipedia, but B has made an accusation, and as such, there is no presumption of guilt. You are proposing the execution as the remedy, rather than the possibility that B might be on a vendetta or made a big fat mistake. Notice that B has "retired" because he probably knows he screwed up beyond belief, or he's letting others do his dirty work, I don't care which. But you ought to reword your accusation from be de facto guilt to a presumption of innocence. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that B probably retired to avoid having his user talk page filled with personal attacks. He could very well be wrong, but his evidence is stronger than previous arbitrations have required to make a finding of socking. I also don't think that three full denials by FM would be required. A single denial would be sufficient to wrap one's good faith arms around, but as far as I can tell, no denial has been made. In many ways, I am impressed by your loyalty to FM, but I am also disturbed at the lengths that you and your group will go to to intimidate participants in the arbitration that you do not agree with 100%. I would suggest that this behavior is not helping the situation for anyone, and may only cause the arbitration to go further afield than it already has. The committee always reserves the right to fully investigate the behavior of any editor who is or chooses to become involved with an arbitration case. - Crockspot 17:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Intimidation? So now you're now accusing us of harassment. Amazing the lack AGF seen with you and that gang. Odd nature 18:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Which gang? I am not part of a gang. I am merely making my own observation, such as I did when you attempted to discourage Ferrylodge from even going to arbitration, which I brought to your attention at that time. Such as discussions where several of you agreed upon the goal of "getting rid of B", not-very-wisely expressed on wiki. Taken all together, yes, it does appear to be a somewhat organized campaign of harassment. While I am not sufficiently motivated so, I am sure I could build a convincing case to present to the arbitration committee. I would prefer not to have to do that, as I do not wish to be seen as defending Ferrylodge's root behavior problems. However, I feel very strongly that every editor, no matter how badly he has behaved, is entitled to avail themselves of the due processes that are available, without fear of harassment or intimidation. It would be better if everyone just chilled, and allowed the process to play out. I don't have any personal issues with any of you (at least that I can recall) in the past, and have been in disagreement with Ferrylodge before, I just happened to disagree with the way his ban was meted out, and support his right to seek a redress. And frankly, if I had not been approached off-wiki months ago with concerns of a sock relationship between you and FM, I would probably not give B's evidence a second look. However, I do defend his right to bring his concerns and evidence forward, unmolested. - Crockspot 19:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

If such calls have been made, and I have not participated in any nor would I, they would be no surprise to me considering the deliberate manner in which User:B went about leveling his inflammatory and ultimately empty accusations despite his back channel RFCU coming up empty handed. Odd nature 22:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a determination of "ultimately empty" has been made yet. That's up the the committee to decide. As the accused puppet, you do have a right to defend yourself, and I support that. I just hope that everyone on the periphery could comport themselves civilly and maturely (myself included). There has been some very unpleasant personalizing behavior. It isn't necessary, and it doesn't help. - Crockspot 23:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. If B wants to launch such baseless accusations and then "disappear" then it really says a good deal about his motives and his case. The people on the "periphery" are merely demanding some sort of accountability for these actions. Baegis 00:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

How one responds to an accusation of sockpuppetry is really up to the person that accusations are aimed at. FM is perfectly within his rights to ignore the accusation, or he may choose to comment in some manner, I was just notifying him that the accusation had been made and attempted to word notification as neutrally as possible. It was certainly not my intent to imply that the evidence provided by B proved in any manner that ON was FM's sockpuppet. If that is the interpretation that you have gotten from my notification, I apologize for my poor choice of words and will gladly reword the notification to remove the implication of guilt. Although, I am having problems identifying where such implication has been made, so if you could point out where the implication is made, that would be great. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Haven't you heard? Friends are the new sock puppets. Be careful. Odd nature 17:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Icons of Evolution

Since you readded the section I removed, can you explain how the "Holt, Rinehart and Winston" discussion is related to the book Icons of Evolution. NNtw22 02:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop getting your friends to revert things for you

i.e. here. 67.135.49.158 (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's one way for an "anon" to draw attention... dave souza, talk 19:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't know FM had friends. I'm shocked. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you guys didn't know? FM and I are going into business together. Going to open a seedy bar in a small midwestern town. I'm going to be the sheriff. Baegis (talk) 04:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I better get free drinks when I show up. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Great... another establishment I'll get kicked out of. ;-) --Ali'i (talk) 21:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Dominionism

As you participated in the prior TfD, I thought you would be interested that it has been proposed for deletion once again. You can find the discussion here. SkierRMH 02:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:Dominionism

Hi FM. The Template:Dominionism TfD, on which you commented, has been closed with no consensus (default to keep). Although the TfD debate touched on several issues regarding the form the infobox should now take, much seems unresolved. I invite you to participate in further discussion on this topic. Thank you. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi FM. I appreciate your recent constructive edits on Dominionism and the list. I think (hope) we are moving towards a version that we can all accept. Regarding the navigational aid, I would very much like your input on this proposal. I hope you like it; and if you don't, I think it's very important that we talk directly to find something we can agree on. Thanks, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Incivility?

Please see my reply [19] to your warning. I thought it best to keep your warning and my reply together. Frankly, I'm glad to see that someone else (besides me) cares about civility and I hope that you and many other editors will issue warnings about incivility - even though I think it was unwarranted in my case. Sbowers3 04:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your additional comments. Please see my reply at the same place. Sbowers3 06:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

lol! "Baseless allegations"

I made no allegations. I simply pointed something interesting out. Gosh, I must've really hit a tender nerve with you. I mean, you could've simply explained it politely as a bizarre coincidence or that one of you just copied the other. Instead, you chose to fly off the handle and throw out a paranoid accusation and threats. Nice. 67.135.49.158 17:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Your reverts on the Phyllis Schlafly article

Hello. The link I reported as broken was the one about the Gloria Steinem article, which has been much discussed by Roger Schlafly. I'm not defending him, but since there's no source for the Steinem citation, I thought it would be right to remove it.

Therefore, as I wanted to keep the balance in the article, I looked for another source. Pia de Solenni's article seemed fine. Yet you removed the source claiming it's non-notable and that it's a blog. You're very wrong. It would be good for you to check things out before editing.

Sincerely, DUKERED^{FREE SPEECH} 01:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, we're talking about different links. Note that when I added the link on October 14 it worked - the BuzzFlash link. When I replaced it, it wasn't working (now it is - I'll re-add it as Time magazine makes no mention of Gloria Steinem). | DUKERED^{FREE SPEECH} 17:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

FM, we may have occasionally run askance of each other, but I wanted to commend you for your comments on the MONGO 3 RfC. You're right on the nose there. - Crockspot (talk) 01:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Eagle Forum

Hi FM. Someone else beat me to the rrv, so I'll say here (and expand on) what I was going to say in my edit summary. It is common courtesy to provide a substantial explanation when you revert. I don't mind that we disagree. I'm happy to talk about it. I provided detailed reasons for my edits.[20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] In response, you offered nothing substantial but rather accused me of a "white wash" -- as if I cared one whit about defending Eagle Forum. Let's please concentrate on correctly representing what the sources say. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 06:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

My last had an EC with your latest edit to EF. This is at least constructive. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 06:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

"Somebody"? Don't play coy here. You and I both know that User:Schlafly, his mother Phyllis Schlafly‎ being the founder of the Eagle Forum, is far too personally involved per WP:COI to be editing Eagle Forum or Phyllis Schlafly‎. I've been selling him rope long enough, and he's done a fine job of hanging himself with it. As for my revert, your "detailed reasons" or not, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm not likely to be drawn into long talk page disputes when I feel that one side is more interested in tendentious stonewalling than compromise. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Whenever someone close to the subject of an article objects to the article's content, we should consider WP:BLP right alongside WP:COI, should we not? I have no interest in defending User:Schlafly, but I do think that we owe it to any such interested person to state things fairly and accurately, and also to make clear that criticism comes from the sources we quote, not from WP.

Are you accusing me of being "more interested in tendentious stonewalling than compromise"? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 06:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Proper sources being provided, BLP is not the issue there, but a red herring, as you and I both know. The tendentious stonewalling is coming from Schlaffy; you I can work with. But I've been dealing with Schlaffy for over a year, and his history indicates conclusively he's not interested an article that treats all sourced views fairly, as a read of his blog posts detailing his ongoing POV promotion prove. FeloniousMonk (talk) 07:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

When the current dust-up began earlier this month, I thought Schlafly had a legitimate complaint in that the cited sources did not support the text as it was written, and thus I thought it was legitimate to consider BLP. Again, this is not an endorsement or criticism of any person; I take things on a case-by-case basis. Now I agree that the article is properly sourced. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Committee has found that Ferrylodge (talk · contribs) has a long history of disruptive editing on topics related to pregnancy and abortion, but has edited reasonably on unrelated topics, and that he was blocked after a discussion on the Community Sanction Noticeboard that did not have a clear consensus. Ferrylodge is unbanned, but is put on an indefinite editing restriction: "Any uninvolved administrator may ban Ferrylodge from any article which relates to pregnancy or abortion, interpreted broadly, which they disrupt by inappropriate editing." The Community is urged by the Committee to develop a coherent policy regarding the method by which community bans are to be imposed. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 00:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

responded

I responded on my talk page. WAS 4.250 (talk) 08:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Jinxmchue

Is it really necessary for you and OM to be tag-team tagging his page with a sock template? There is no rule requiring an editor to log in to edit. One IP has been blocked once, which he is not evading. He is feeling harassed, and I don't blame him. His activity does not rise to the level of "abusive sockpuppetry", and I will revert the adding of that tag myself if necessary. - Crockspot 05:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Jinxmchue's editing from these IPs consists of edit warring only. This has resulted in multiple 3RR vios, disruption and a block. He's using IPs to avoid having his bad behavior not associated with his main account, Jinxmchue. That falls under the defintion of sock puppetry at WP:SOCK.

How about doing something more constructive than reverting to remedy the disruption he creates, that is instead of enabling him. FeloniousMonk 18:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I thought. You can't back up your baseless accusations against me. Jinxmchue 02:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it uncivil to use the word "baseless" here?--Filll 04:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

How is this behavior of his permitted? It astounds me! Apparently, he is now pushing that Michelle Malkin is a credible source for ID and her blog is on par with Panda's Thumb. Baegis 04:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Christian POV-warriors ignore all rules to impose their thought control. Best to ignore their crap. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 09:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. After a while, their stunts start to get old. The same stupid things over and over. No wonder people start to lose patience. And I guess since CS was not able to cow me sufficiently, and realized he did not have much of a leg to stand on, he left. I feel slightly bad since he did contribute here, but somehow he decided that all the editing on creationist and ID pages was biased and this needed to change to reflect his own interpretation of what NPOV is. It is a shame. I have my own views, and they often disagree with the NPOV stance or the position of other editors, but I just realize we are writing an encyclopedia together here in a group effort, and each of us cannot always get their own way. And so I just compromise and accommodate and try to reach consensus. Why can't they?--Filll 16:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

I have mentioned your username in evidence presented at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence. Your contributions were mentioned as one of many participants in an edit war. GRBerry 00:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

A very gentle reminder

Hi, could I draw your attention to my comments here? There is much less chance of drama if somebody else does it - apart from accusations of an admin clique, of course! Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Dembski TDI review comment source

I discussed my exchange with Skyrms here. Is that sufficient? --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrey T. Kuhner

Can you help with the discussion at the Jeffrey T. Kuhner page? I have filed a COI complaint against User: Steve Dufour because I don't think that he can objectively edit Insight magazine and the Kuhner article, due to his affiliation with a religion that owns the conservative magazine (Insight) for which Kuhner is editor in chief. In past discussion, he has also expressed strong conservative leanings. I don't necessarily care what stance you choose to take; I just want to stop the stalemate.Athene cunicularia (talk) 05:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I also just wrote this on the talk page, but he removed it as a "personal attack."

I don't think that helps at all. This seems to me more like COI on your part. You should recuse yourself from editing articles about organizations owned by the the Unification Church, due to your close affiliation to them.Athene cunicularia (talk) 05:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I've commented at the COI noticeboard. I'll help as much as I can. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm having the same kind of trouble with User: Steve Dufour on a number of other sites related to Unification Church and it's media holdings.riverguy42 (talk) 01:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll be looking this over. Thanks for the heads up. FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Encouraging the disruption at Doc Glasgow

Your comment on Viridae's talk page about being reverted (rightly, I'll add) at Doc's talk was simply wilfully encouraging disruption. Brandt is banned, as you both know. When banned users avoid their block to post to Wikipedia, the correct response is to remove the comment and not hinder others doing that and certainly not to encourage them to continue. There's a limit to how much disruption via enabling banned troublemakers the community is willing to put up with. Do not continue to enable or help others enable banned editors to ignore their bans and continue to disrupt Wikipedia. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I made no qualitative judgement nor any recommendation to Viridae on the reversion by CBerlet. It was just a notification of what had occurred. Viridae is an admin that I respect, so I was letting him know that someone had reverted an action that he had taken. So, since you didn't WP:AGF with me, I guess I'll return the favor...are you looking for flimsy reasons to add gratuitous warnings to my userpage? Cla68 (talk) 06:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal NPOV tag from Expelled

Hi FM.

You removed the NPOV tag from Expelled:No Intelligence Allowed. I had been cooling off from the article over the weekend, and had not been able to reply to several new points brought in or reply to substantitive edits made by dave souza.

I think its important to let the objecting party fully explain themselves in the light of new additions before reaching a decision to remove such tags. Tags don't actively harm articles.

That said, I am fine with removal of the tag in light of dave's edits. The article is now countering the right sort of points rather than a mish-mash of creationist jabber and then a disjointed slice of science/truth/justice thrown in to make it seem balanced.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This reversion on "Expelled"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Expelled%3A_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=178655958&oldid=178651440

I have introduced the topic the talk page. [26]

My statement that "Expelled is unequivocally a documentary" has received no counterpoints for four days now.

I have twice said that given no dissent I will restore the documentary links. No one batted an eyelid.

How is this not consensus?--ZayZayEM (talk) 05:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because we do not want to argue further with you does not mean we agree. You had our arguments against this before. And so...--Filll (talk) 15:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge

I have requested clarification concerning your ban of Ferrylodge here. Please feel free to comment if you have information to share. --Yamla (talk) 17:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

sourcing @ Dominionism

Hi FM -- I realize that you've been working for a long time to keep this information available & organized for people, and you have had to deal with a lot of people from other political perspectives who may have other agendas. That can be incredibly frustrating as I well know. But please don't assume that's my agenda, as well. I got drawn into this particular dispute because I follow a select set of science/religion articles on WP -- I'm an atheist among other things and I do patrol for pro-religion and anti-science bias. I saw the edit warring on the List article and thought a relatively neutral person who hadn't been involved might be able to cut through some of the chaff. It looks like a lot of the complaining is about the sources, so high-quality sourcing will make the article much less vulnerable to that sort of thing, and enhance the article (and its survivability on wikipedia) in the long-run. Feel free to be annoyed with me for the substance of my comments, but please don't assume my motivations. Lquilter (talk) 19:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm an atheist. That says it all.--Filll (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 03:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Please Help

Trying to stop vandalism. Larvatus (talk) 07:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)larvatus

Happy New Year

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Protection of IP userpage

Hi, can you offer some explanation for this (placement of the template and protection of the page)? I hope you're familiar with the Meta privacy policy - editing as an IP is not "disruptive sockpuppetry", especially when the user whose privacy you're possibly violating is not blocked or banned. What purpose does the template/page protection serve? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 07:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Jinxmchue is a chronically disruptive editor. He posted his identity on each of the three IP user pages beforehand, so adding the tags does not violate his privacy. His IPs are tagged because he used one to evade a block of his main account:

1. 1st block of Jinxmchue for 31 hours, 1 December 2007
2. Editing from the IP during the block on 3 December 2007
3. 2nd block for evading the first, 3 December 2007

Editing from an IP to evade a block is sock puppetry, the tags are warranted. FeloniousMonk (talk) 14:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not understanding your reason for protection here - editing with an IP is block evasion, not "sock puppetry". See the privacy policy; policy allows people to edit while not logged in. Also, your evidence above seems to not add up in regards to either. On 30 Nov 20:17, Adam Cuerden blocked the IP for 31 hours for edit-warring. So far as I can tell, neither the IP nor the account edited anywhere except talk pages until that block expired. Nonetheless, Guettarda blocked the account on 2 Dec for "block evasion", though there apparently wasn't any to speak of. Then Guy blocked the IP for "sock puppetry".

Regardless of the justification for a block, can you cite the part of the protection policy (or any policy) that justifies leaving the template against a user's wishes and/or protecting the page? I'm particularly concerned because you seem to be involved in a dispute with this user when you used your admin tools on the page. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I placed a request for unprotection here. Also, I mentioned you here, wanted to give you a chance to respond. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I see you're online now - anyway, could you please point me toward the part of the protection policy that justifies your action above? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Full_protection. FeloniousMonk (talk) 02:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

? Which part? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"Preventing abuse of the {{unblock}} template or other disruptions by a blocked user on their user talk page." Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Full_protection. An editor such as Jinxmchue who evaded a block and is removing sock puppetry templates properly placed per Wikipedia:SOCK#Tagging is clearly is "other disruptions by a blocked user." FeloniousMonk (talk) 02:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the user talk page, which you didn't protect, but the userpage, which you did. Also, I think I earlier pointed you toward the Meta privay policy - editing while logged out is explicitly not sock puppetry. As a counter-example, User:Guettarda earlier admitted to editing with an IP which was vandalizing Natalie Erin's userpage - should we force him to accept {{IPsock|Guettarda}} on that IP's userpage? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Only if Guettarda is evading a block or ban as was Jinx. Are you intentionally missing the point, or just using hyperbole? I don't think you have a firm enough grasp of the issues, policies and facts to be slinging the mud you have been today. FeloniousMonk (talk) 02:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm much more aware of the policies involved than you are, please go back and read them again. I have no content dispute with editors as you do. Look more deeply into the situation above - there was no ban, and I don't even see any block evasion. Yes, the user and/or IP edited during Adam's block (I don't think Guettarda's block was legit, based on the evidence, and besides he was also involved in the content dispute, a big no-no), but it was only to user talkspace. However, nothing you've mentioned above seems to justify protection of the user's IP page - are you intentionally obfuscating this? Why did you protect the userpage? What type of disruption to the encyclopedia was it intended to prevent? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a ban for 31 hours, made on 1 December 2007 This is him violating the ban by editing WP:AN/I (6 times total) from the IP during the block on 3 December 2007. Here he does it again at my talk page, twice. Tell me what part of these diffs and the policies they relate to, Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Enforcing_bans, Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Evasion_of_blocks, Wikipedia:SOCK#Blocking, and Wikipedia:SOCK#Tagging are not clear to you and maybe I can help you understand them better. FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

<Can you please explain how any of the above relate to protection of the userpage, which is what I originally asked you about? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I already have, please see above. We need to talk about your behavior, now. Your knowingly baseless TFD filing violates WP:POINT and foundationless multiple gripes on JzG, Geuttarda, Jimsch62 and myself while enabling a well established chronically disruptive editor are disruptive to the point of spreading and becoming an actionable issue. How about you moving on and finding a nice, quiet way to contribute positively to the project now. FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It's apparently impossible for you to give a straight answer divorced from your point of view; i'll disengage now. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Union of Concerned Scientists

Is there any chance you could help to settle a dispute and clean up the criticism section of Union of Concerned Scientists page?Athene cunicularia (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you take another look here? The user also seems to be getting more and more uncivil in his disagreement.Athene cunicularia (talk) 04:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of theological problem section

With the removal of the section devoted to theological problems, the article is incomplete in presenting a thorough and comprehensive perspective of intelligent design. Would you please comment on this? In the quote from Johnson, it is established that Johnson does not concern himself with the theoretical needlessness for the presence of a God (or intelligent designer) should the "gaps", however unlikely, eventually be explained through natural means. Surely, as the article stands, there are numerous references to intelligent design acting as a "uniter" of religious stances, and there is no reference made to it being anti-religion, which is certainly a legitimate concern for those who are religious and perhaps did not pick up on the delicate points made by both Slifkin and Miller. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it's harassment

Evading a block at best, there is no evidence of sock puppetry that I have seen. Adding those tags and "evidence" to a user page and then protecting the page is not typical admin duties. It's abusing your power to harass another editor. Turtlescrubber (talk) 05:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You need to read WP:SOCK again then because evading a block by logging in or out is by definition sock puppetry. And there is a longstanding convention of temporarily protecting the user pages of disruptive former editors when their pals show up to delete templates, evidence or warnings. Until which time you better understand our policies regarding dealing with disruptive editors, I suggest you steer clear of deleting any admin-placed content from user pages associated with your pal, and also avoid making baseless and incivil comments about me or any other admin there. Continuing to do so you will run the risk of being deemed a disruptive editor yourself. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

A request to stop harassing me

You keep calling me "disruptive" when you disagree with me. I wish you would stop doing that but just say why you disagree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intelligent_design&diff=prev&oldid=182555522 is simply incorrect. I did not "attempt" to have Intelligent Design unprotected; I got it unprotected - by the same sysop who had protected it. And that sysop agreed with me that "parties declared the matter resolved.

It's not "disruption" to announce that parties to a heated discussion are agreeing to proceed in a consensus manner. I would call this "calming". --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It did not look disruptive to me. I think an apology is in order. TableManners ^U·T·C 04:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks pretty clear to me that FM had a point. Page didn't get locked until Ed came walking in and ran through the same tired ID logic that has been discussed several times already in the archives. Putting out the fire you started is not grounds for applause. Baegis (talk) 08:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Ed, are you pretending that you have a good history on this topic? Are you under the impression that you are subject to arbcom probation because you have a good record as regards disruptive editing? If not, then I fail to see why you think it was somehow harassment for me or anyone else to identify you as being disruptive, which other, trusted members of community who've reviewed this case agree you are. It's not as if your very pronounced history as a disruptive editor with a problem with that particular topic is irrelevant to the fact that the article has been protected as a result of your participation. Identifying disruptive editing as being disruptive is neither harassment nor irrelvant. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

How about a truce?

How about I stop complaining and you stop accusing me of sockpuppetry (i.e. intentionally changing my IP address to edit abusively)? That's not "I'll stop if you stop." Just plain "let's stop." I think Wikipedia will be better off for it. 67.135.49.211 (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

John Gohde 2 Arbcom

FYI, I've mentioned you in my evidence, since it was related to my attempts to get him to engage in proper dispute resolution with me. --Ronz (talk) 00:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

ANI ban

You may know more than most people. Your description of what's happening, with diffs, would be more useful than just a "I support a ban". Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

There is an extensive >12 month record of disruption and administrative actions. And now the same editor has announced that he plans to organize more intentional disruption.--Filll (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Your name came up in some vandalism

Someone altered my arbitration evidence at the Matthew Cuerden case to make it appear that I was accusing you of running sockpuppets. I've started a thread at ANI. Perhaps you know who might have pulled this stunt?[27] Durova^Charge! 00:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Looks like a blockable offense. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding warning

You recently placed a warning on Levine2112's talk page. Could you explain how he provoked SA? Is it a comment or comments on Bleep? Do you believe that Levine somehow provoked SA on that page? Thanks. Anthon01 (talk) 17:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Explanations of your recent deletions

Please come back to the various plant articles from which you recently removed knowledge about homeopathic uses and explain your rationale. I am unsure about the application of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE here. Thank you. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

People use genera to refer to species all the time. We don't disambiguate genera to species. Guettarda (talk) 06:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yet we do just that at Aloe. Suggesting similar treatment. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

At Aloe? No, we don't. Have you read the Aloe article? Guettarda (talk) 07:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

you might want to consider

[28]--Filll (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

I wish to thank you for being supportive of my effort to regain my adminship. Though it was not successful, your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 06:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin Noticeboard

Sure I could agree with you, if I thought the archive template was entered properly instead of prematurely, as discussion was still on-going and it really didn't look like there was consensus to end it. And if I thought the comments left afterward were horribly inappropriate considering all the nonsense spewed up to the point, which probably was even more inappropriate. And if I thought that excising user comments was valid in the first place, which for the vast majority of cases, it isn't, imho. I have a problem with all of that, but as you can see, I'm not about to make an issue out of it. I just don't agree with the way it was handled. The whole thing was unseemly and they should have taken it off the board long before.Wjhonson (talk) 10:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Request

Hi Felonious, I am respectfully asking you to remove yourself from the list of admins enforcing the Homeopathy probation based on your vote to ban User:Whig here and User:Abridged here. A community ban seems like a pretty serious step, and there didn't seem to be any consensus that those bans were justified. Abridged ^talk 23:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh really ? I see.--Filll (talk) 23:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Fill, with all due respect, that's not very helpful. I am trying to civilly express what I feel is a legit concern. Abridged ^talk 23:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me, whatever do you mean? I mean no disrepect or incivility. I take affront that you would suggest such a thing. I am just learning about this matter.--Filll (talk) 00:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Also, some evidence of involvement in the general area of homeopathy based on these edits: [29], [30]. (I'm not saying I agree with the edits or disagree; they may have been entirely appropriate, I'm just concerned that you have involvement in the subject area). Abridged ^talk 23:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

My apologies

I will stop. I was justing trying to get him to stop making false claims against me. Anthon01 (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Would it be inappropriate for me to apologize to him? Anthon01 (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Your accusations on WP:AN/I

I think it would have been more courteous, at the very least, to ask me directly about the issues regarding Pallywood before posting accusations to WP:AN/I. I'm also wondering why you didn't extend me the courtesy to notify either myself or Kylu about the serious accusations you were making about the two of us. I was under the impression that responsible administrators seek to get the facts before making accusations, particularly when the accused party is a fellow administrator who's been around a lot longer than you. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Responsible administrators don't game the system to gain an upper hand. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed the message in bold at the top of AN/I: "Before posting a grievance about a user here, it is advised that you take it up with them on their user talk page." I suggest you bear this in mind in future. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You've sufficiently established for me that my bringing the matter to the community's attention first was the right course of action. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Remember Jinxmchue?

See this, and the following reverts (which I changed back to before my IP addition). Even though it'd be symbolic, maybe it's time for an indefinite block on the main account, so we can block IP's as block-evading sockpuppets. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 00:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Do it. Try to get me indefinitely banned. I want to see this played out.

We'll present all the evidence to an impartial group of people and see if you are justified in your baseless accusations and biased threats. 67.135.49.211 (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The anon at Move America Forward

Hi FeloniousMonk. The anonymous editor making changes to Move America Forward has returned and is asking awkward questions that I don't have enough experience to answer fully. Could you take a look at Talk:Move America Forward#Reason. The anon is basically saying that the article is biased and he or she doesn't see why they should create an account just for that (amongst other things). Capitana (talk) 13:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll weigh in as I can, but I'm not optimistic our anon friend is dealing straight after that bogus COI allegation. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for expansion of Ferrylodge Arbitration remedy

Hello. I've filed a request at WP:RfArb for the expansion of remedies from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge. Briefly, I'm asking that the sanctions allowing Ferrylodge to be banned from specific articles for disruptive behavior be extended to apply to all pages (talkspace, projectspace, etc) where his conduct is disruptive, rather than applying solely to articlespace. I'm notifying you as an involved party in the original ArbCom case. MastCell ^Talk 21:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Riana's RfB

Hi... I've replied to Pedro's oppose, which I think is also in a way a reply to your concerns. I would appreciate your serious consideration of what I say to Pedro... as your oppose was very early, and has become one that others cite. That means it is possibly pivotal to the RfB failing. Your points raised are valid but I don't think they necessarily imply that she will have bad judgment around closes, renames, and bot changes, so I would ask you to consider changing to neutral or support. I rarely do this (in fact I can't recall the last time) but I do feel strongly about this, Riana is, in my view, one of the best candidates to come along in quite a while. Thanks for your consideration, all the best. ++Lar: t/c 11:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The incident in question showed, in my opinion, irredeemably poor judgement to the extent that it would call into question any other action she would take. That, combined with the Crum375 diff is more than enough to say she shouldn't be a Bureaucrat, particularly as there is no pressing need for new Bureacrats, and there are better candidates available. FeloniousMonk (talk) 16:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge amendment

I have filed a new request at WP:RfArb for the Ferrylodge case sanctions to be amended or clarified to apply to Ferrylodge's editing in all namespaces, rather than solely in articlespace. This is a courtesy notification as you've been an involved party to the original decision; your statement or other input is welcome at the WP:RfArb page. MastCell ^Talk 18:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:California Mille Start.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:California Mille Start.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rossrs (talk) 04:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Also Image:California Mille road.jpg Rossrs (talk) 04:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Archiving Jimbo's talk page

I'm hardly going to edit war with you about it, but I object to your archiving of the "no story" thread on Jimbo's talk page. You must have been reading a different thread than the one I read, because I saw largely (though not exclusively) thoughtful comments about a serious issue that affects Wikipedia, not "palpable schadenfreude oozing out" as you suggest. You should also be far more careful with the terms you bandied about so loosely and thus applied to most everyone who commented there. I commented there. (see here). I am not one of "Jimbo's most vocal critics" - I can't even recall if I've ever criticized him before, though it's possible - and if you read my comment I don't think you'll find any cheap shots or anything even remotely approaching trolling. I don't know you from Adam, but you seem to have had a problem with Giano's comment. Giano was of course largely defending Jimbo so I'm not sure what the big deal was, but I resent your removal of good faith comments like mine within hours after they were written just because you don't like the thread and/or the tone of the person who started it.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well as I was writing that Giano restored the section. I would ask that you allow the discussion to proceed so long as it does so in a civil fashion. If Jimbo does not want it there he can always archive it himself.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll second it. Hiding discussion is beneath us and should be beneath you. Cla68 (talk) 07:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course you would, given your long standing position vs. Jimbo. The fact remains that disruptive, unproductive, and trollish discussions on Jimbo's talk page, or any talk page for that matter, can and should be archived per Wikipedia convention, guideline and policy. I'm opposed to anyone, including and especially you, using others personal matters and misfortunes as opportunities to make hay in long-running campaigns against others. FeloniousMonk (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You're again painting with far too wide a brush. I did not say anything "disruptive, unproductive, and trollish" and neither did most other people so characterizing the entire discussion in that matter is inaccurate and quite frankly a bit uncivil. You're the only one so far who sees a need to immediately archive that discussion, despite the objections of several others. I guess you don't care for Cla68 either, and that combined with your apparent dislike for Giano strike me as the main reasons you insist on archiving this thing. Again, I won't revert you because it's hardly the end of the world. Like you I'm just a user who cares about the project (check my contributions, there's a few thousand and they go back over a year and a half) and wanted to express honest concern about something on Jimbo's talk page about which other good-standing members of the community have also been expressing concern. Apparently you find such discussion unacceptable, but I'm at a loss as to what gives you the right to decide that clearly good faith comments must be removed from Jimbo's talk page post-haste. I would again ask you to consider reversing course. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the comments of well-meaning editors have been archived; that's yet to be seen. But if so, consider it fallout caused by those acting without the community's best interest at heart. Furthermore, their participating there shows a lack of good judgement because no matter how you spin it, airing the dirty laundry of other editors is never an acceptable use of Wikipedia. The facts remain that creating drama is by definition disruptive editing and Wikipedia talk pages are not for rehashing the misfortunes of others. Gloating about those misfortunes doubly so. Anyone who want to discuss Jimbo's personal imbroglios should take it offsite; This isn't the place for it. FeloniousMonk (talk) 16:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

So you say, but some think that this is an issue that affects Wikipedia whether we like it or not and therefore worthy of discussion. You're entitled to think otherwise but ought not impose your belief on others. I did not "air dirty laundry" - the press and some bloggers did that. I am not remotely interested in rehashing the misfortune of others and pointedly said so in my comment on the talk page. The negative press about these issues can indeed have a poor effect on the encyclopedia and that's all I'm concerned about. Your statement "Perhaps the comments of well-meaning editors have been archived; that's yet to be seen" suggests you could not even be bothered to read the whole thread. I find it strange that you can so surely characterize a discussion as disruptive and trollish when you apparently did not even look at the full content. But I won't bother you any more here since I doubt I'll convince you of anything.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, some do say that, and they're either mistaken or have some agenda. Either way, they're simply wrong. Wikipedia is not the place to be discussing anyone's dirty laundry. Period. FeloniousMonk (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Your sort of cliqueism, FM, is about a trillion times as destructive to the community of Wikipedia as is anything the people you are objecting to are doing. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Another voice who thinks that discussion should be allowed to run its course. I think I have my blog topic for today, actually, because if you think Giano isn't speaking with the community's best interests at heart as he sees them, now and always, you are very much mistaken, sir. ++Lar: t/c 19:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed this discussion on my watchlist.

Jimbo used to have this text saying that he'd rather not have people delete or archive comments off of his talk page. (this is rather important, as archiving or deleting comments from a user talk page can cause all kinds of blowups, as you can see above). I don't actually see that text anymore, so I'm not sure what happened to that, if anything has changed, and if so, what. So that's my useless 2 cents ^^;; --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC) The reason I advise people against deleting things from user talk pages is because people tend to assume bad faith when you do so because "it looks bad". So to all the folks here who actually *are* assuming some level of bad faith here: Please accept that Feloniousmonk probably actually acted in good faith.

And is saying that anybody who disagrees with him is "either mistaken or have some agenda" a good faith thing for him to do? Or to categorize people and their ideas by which "crowd" he perceives them to be in, as he's doing throughout this exchange? FM has a long history of this sort of bad-faith cliqueism. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply about Jimbo's talk page censorship

As you know being part of that crowd, the discussion was started, restored and is being continued by several long running ax-grinders with Jimbo both on and off site. Transparently using 'concern' as a reason to air Jimbo's dirty laundry and create drama is by definition that is disruptive editing. For that reason alone it can and should be ended and archived. You want to discuss Jimbo's personal imbroglios? This isn't the place for it; do it offsite. FeloniousMonk (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The cliqueism whereby NPOV is put aside to judge people and their ideas strictly based on which "crowd" they're part of is something I had hoped had been thoroughly discredited lately. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss it? Why isn't it? You don't seem to realize that the best way to put something to bed is to discuss it expeditiously and openly, not treat it like it's radioactive and relegate it to off-site forums or a private mailing list that only a few Wikipedians are allowed to or choose to belong to. Cla68 (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The archiving was overdue, thanks FM. Ax-grinders can grind their axes elsewhere. After all that is what blogs and forums are for≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I may have missed it but I didn't see any ax grinders participating there, only people who have the best interests of the project at heart, people who are, for the most part, free of any taint of suggestion of conflict of interest. I would suggest that the use of the term ax-grinder is a bit pejorative, jossi. ++Lar: t/c 22:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it was a nice gesture to clear certain perceived-to-be-unpleasant comments from Jimbo's talk page; but at the same time, I also think that doing so might be counter-productive in the long run. Removing someone's comments from one's talk page forces them either to go away or to meatball:ExpandScope, Tip: Humans are the most dangerous animal; don't give a human ideas about Expanding Scope ;-) .).

This position probably leaves me hanging somewhere in the middle between all parties. :-/ --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

My request for bureaucratship

Dear FeloniousMonk, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats.
I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your concerns about my candidacy. Unfortunately very few of the opposes gave me advice on points I should improve upon (bar the examples of incivility), and I ask you now, very humbly, to visit my talkpage, should you have any concerns about any of my actions here.
I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. ~ Riana ⁂ 06:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

My RfB bar comments

To be honest, at the time it seemed quite ludicrous that someone would assume that simply because a user was a bureaucrat, that they would have access to checkuser data.

I'm sorry to have "explained" myself in such a blunt fashion on the RfB bar page. I am afraid that my personal outlook on permissions assumes an intimate familiarity with how the permissions system on Foundation wikis work, which is not in fact the case everywhere.

On most wikis, for instance, your concern would not only be healthy but obvious. By default, bureaucrats assign and un-assign all permissions, not the limited subset of abilities that they hold here, and it would not only be possible but typically taken for granted that a bureaucrat would hold checkuser status. I, in fact, have such positions on non-Foundation projects and should have remembered this at the time.

Wikimedia Foundation projects, however, have a far more strict interpretation of the role of bureaucrats: They retain the "normal" abilities of bureaucrats such as changing bot flags and renaming users, but have restricted roles in permission-setting: They can only grant the bureaucrat and sysop flags, not remove them. Here, the ability to remove these two permissions are strictly relegated to the stewards on Meta and the developers. It's quite easy to obtain bureaucrat on most Foundation wikis, but significantly harder to obtain checkuser, in my opinion. Before a user is granted checkuser access, they must agree to abide by the privacy and checkuser policies on Meta, identify themselves to the Foundation office, and either show consensus on the project they're requesting access or be appointed by a Foundation-recognized Arbitration Committee.

I do not have checkuser access at the moment, but do have bureaucrat access on a small number of our projects, and when dealing with those who have the checkuser permission, attempt to do my best to allow them to adhere to the promise they've made to keep such information confidential. I expect that any other users with elevated access would strive to avoid any leak of information that they're not authorized to have, and that checkusers not give out that information except strictly where required.

While I stated it on the comments page, I'll emphasize it here, as it's quite important: If you do have any evidence that checkuser has been abused, you should contact either the checkuser ombudsman or the Board regarding the incident. They do take such breaches of the privacy policy seriously.

Again, you have my apologies for my assumption. If I can be of help in any way, please contact me. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Advice needed

Hi FeloniousMonk. I'm not sure if you are aware of the disputes going on over at Eric Lerner's page, but I want some advice from you since I vaguely remember you as being pretty knowledgeable on Wikipedia policy and neutral on the subject. I'm concerned about my participation. Please look over my talk page[[31]] and let me know if I should stop editing the Eric Lerner page as suggested by ScienceApologist. I do have a WP:COI since I am a partner of Eric Lerner, but as I understand WP:COI, I can still edit the page as long as I do so appropriately, which I believe I have. Maybe I'm wrong, so that's why I'm asking you as a third party. Please let me know if I am off base. I'm not trying to drag you into the argument. I'm just looking for advice on my participation. You can answer me there and I will do whatever you advise. Thanks. ABlake (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

your "warning" to NCdave

FeloniousMonk, on 17:54, 22 March 2008 you accused me on my user page of incivility and failure to assume good faith "over the past 24 hours" at Expelled: No intelligence allowed and on "several user talk pages." You also threatened me with "topic ban for you at that and any related articles and a block for distruption."

But you did not tell me what edits or comments I made which concerned you. I replied by asking you, "Would you please point out the examples of incivility and failure to assume good faith which concerned you, FeloniousMonk?" But you have not done so.

I've been trying very diligently to apply the golden rule in my wikipedia contributions, and if I have slipped up I'd very much like to know when and how. Perhaps you did not notice my reply on my talk page, so I'm asking again here: Would you please tell me what article or talk page edits I made over the 24 hour period ending 17:54, 22 March 2008 that you believe were uncivil or uncharitable?

Or, if you conclude that you were mistaken, would you kindly note that fact on my user talk page, and <s>strike</s> your warning, because it is embarrassing to have that sort of accusation on my talk page.

Thank you. NCdave (talk) 06:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk, NCdave continues to disrupt the Expelled article. Not being familiar with the subject matter is obnoxious, but his ongoing campaign to slap the POV tag on the article has become a distraction. What should we do? Angry Christian (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Angry Christian, I understand that you are angry, but I think you know that many editors have opined that the article is not neutral and balanced. That being the case, the {{POV}} tag is in order, and adding it is not "disruption."

The correct approach is not to simply remove the tag w/o consensus, but, rather, to work with the editors who think the tag is justified, to find compromises that all can live with, and then remove the tag. That's why the tag, itself, says:

"Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved."

Will you please do that? NCdave (talk) 00:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Continually placing a tag against the consensus of the vast majority of editors on the page, except of course the very few that agree with you, is a classic trademark of a disruptive editor. You would be advised to stop doing this, NCDave. Baegis (talk) 00:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Baegis, many editors have noted that the Expelled article is far from balanced. You need not agree with that to admit that the neutrality of the article is disputed.

FeloniousMonk, will you please reply to my request for clarification? It has been over four days. Are you on a Wikibreak? NCdave (talk) 08:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk, I see that you've been active on Wikipedia recently, so will you please point out the examples of my incivility and failure to assume good faith which concerned you? You put that blot on my Talk page almost a week ago, but you've still not told me what you viewed as incivility and failure to AGF on my part. (Note that I've recently been accused of "insincerity" for being too friendly - sometimes you just can't win.) NCdave (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

They'd been pointed out to you repeatedly before I was asked to look at them and you and I both know exactly what they are. Also, about your repeated demands here; I'm not likely to respond to those that I suspect to be less than forthright or that are trolling me. I simply refuse to invest any more of my time than necessary if I have verified to my satisfaction that the person I am dealing with is less than genuine. To avoid being so labeled, I suggest you stop badgering others, start assuming their good faith, and tread more lightly at the Expelled article. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)