User talk:TheChief/Archive1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Chief Forever!

This is an archive, please do not edit, but rather add comments to My talkpage.

Hail to the Chief


Welcome Message[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, TheChief/Archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  D. J. Bracey (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding D. J. Bracey (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Capitol project[edit]

I am happy that you have found out about this project. As stated in the introduction, the project was started on August 14 of this year, so it's fairly recent. As you might have discovered, the creator of the project ran into many difficulties with another WikiProject and I don't know if that user will return.

I am in the middle of other projects myself, so my contribution with this may be limited. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Pentawing 00:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rankings[edit]

Thanks for your comments. I replied to you on my talk page. Jawed 19:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For those interested, the conversation is taking place at Jawed's talk page. TheChief (PowWow) 21:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail[edit]

Hey, you can put your email on your preference section. Your e-mail is not displayed, however, a person would click an "e-mail this user" link, and you would get a message marked "Wikipedia" e-mail. I'll show you. D. J. Bracey (talk) Image:St. Petersburg, Florida seal.png 23:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I sent you an e-mail. D. J. Bracey (talk) File:Image:Flag of California.png 23:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your thoughtfulness and overall enthusiasm to edit Wikipedia has wanted to make me grant you this Exceptional Newcomer Award.

Take care, D. J. Bracey (talk) 23:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFC[edit]

Hi there! I have openend an RFC on Tony Sidaway's frequent incivility and poor response to criticism. I would appreciate your opinion on the matter. If I understand correctly from his talk page, you have recently tried to discuss this very issue with him, and it didn't really resolve anything. I hope that an RFC may be more fruitful. Yours, Radiant_>|< 12:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

100 Edits[edit]

This message constitutes my 100th edit. Hooray! TheChief (PowWow) 19:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Old Dominion University[edit]

Hi TheChief: I noticed your message at WP:ANI, and just wanted to let you know someone is responding! I didn't protect the article, since the vandal is long gone by now. From the article history, it looks like he also only made two vandalistic edits, so page protection might have been a little overkill in that case.

If you ever have a problem with repeated vandalism to an article, it's best to list it at Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress, and let an admin take care of any blocking or page protection that needs to be done. You could also try listing an article at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection in the case of a long-range case of vandalism or an edit war. Posting on the admin noticeboard probably won't get a very fast response. I'm glad to see that you're contributing! Feel free to post a message on my talk page if you need any other help or any questions answered. Cheers, Bratschetalk | Esperanza 21:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well in that case, you still have to follow normal RC patrol procedures. Whenever you encounter anyone making an edit that could be vandalism, and should be reverted, go ahead and revert. Then, place {{subst:test}} or {{subst:test1}}. These templates continue to {{test2}}, {{test3}}, and {{test4}}. The template {{test5}} is used when the vandal is actually blocked. With each successive case of vandalism, add the template to the user's talk page, increasing the number. For an example, see this page for an example. Admins really aren't supposed to block if the vandal isn't appropriately warned. If the page gets vandalized again, drop me a note. Hope this helps. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 23:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I did a whois on the ip addresses, and they all from different universities and locations in the US. They also aren't open proxies, meaning that there is no real blockable offence. All you can do is use the test templates on their talk pages, revert the vandalism, hope they'll stop, and if not, contact an admin to protect or block. Sometimes it can be frustrating to see such childish actions, but usually, vandals stop after a warning. Thanks for the help, Bratschetalk | Esperanza 20:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Sidaway[edit]

He has said he won't even read the RfC anymore. Where do you intend to proceed? The RfC has convinced me that he is being irresponsible. TheChief (PowWow) 20:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He said that to the first RfC. (I invite you to read it.) He is extremely active in this second RfC. To the point that he is signing in agreement or responding against each and every opinion given on the second RfC. Check out the second RfC talk page for even more. As to what to do next? All he's doing is making himself look worse with each response that totally disregards any criticism and he claims huge acceptance of his actions despite all that you see against him. - Tεxτurε 20:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Check out his latest action to alter or delete my comments: [1] - Tεxτurε 21:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's quite a bit of evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 2. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You also might want to talk to User:Agriculture. He's interested in starting an RFA against him. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where all this is going, but you might want to take a look at Talk:List of biomedical terms and User_talk:RoySmith/Archive01#Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion.2FList_of_biomedical_terms --RoySmith 02:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have no interest in being further involved in actions against Tony, as my differences with him have been resolved. Thank you for contacting me, though.--Scimitar parley 14:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked?[edit]

I seem to be blocked, and I am not quite sure the reason. I would appreciate an explanation from someone. TheChief (PowWow) 17:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Check your user page. David Gerard has blocked you as a sockpuppet of Agriculture. He reached this conclusion by checking your repsective IP adresses. Your best option is to attempt to contact him (email).--Scimitar parley 18:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well I am not a sockpuppet. Any conclusion based on IP address, I would appreciate in e-mail form as I find it highly suspicious. I have been the sole user of this computer since perhaps August or September, and if someone else is accessing my machine it would be a violation I need to be made aware of. If someone could contact David Gerard for me and ask him to forward me this information it would be most helpful. TheChief (PowWow) 19:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note, please don't post IP information here as I do not wish to expose my IP to possible attacks. TheChief (PowWow) 19:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course you don't. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sorry? I don't quite understand. TheChief (PowWow) 20:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm just saying - it's clear that the reason you don't want to prove all of these sockpuppetry accusations wrong by signing out from this account, posting a message, signing into your account and then signing the message (and asking agriculture to do the same) is obviously based on the fear that people are going to attack your exposed IP address. Clearly. I'm saying this without any sarcasm, whatsoever. And if you doubt me, I WILL RFC YUO. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your comment doesn't make any sense. I simply asked that the evidence be e-mailed to me by an administrator so that we can talk about it privately. I do not wish to test the security of my firewall by having my IP exposed. The administrators have access to my IP information, and they are free to check it. I invite such an invitation and would like to see the results myself. However if users such as yourself with whom I have never had contact feel the need to read my talk page, I feel uncomfortable with that information being exposed to the public. TheChief (PowWow) 20:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Admins don't have access to your IP address- only David Gerard and stewards do. We have to operate on what they tell us.--Scimitar parley 22:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting an alternative route to clearing my name? If so, I am not certain I understand. TheChief (PowWow) 00:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Log out, post a message, log in, sign it, convince agriculture to do the same. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hipocrite, I do not know who you are, nor from our conversation do I wish to make your aquantance. You are foolish to even demand such "proof". I could easily use two different computers to do so if I indeed were both users (which I am not). The only evidence with any bearing what so ever will be past evidence which other users have access to. As you are not in a position to help my current situation I would kindly ask you to refrain from further comment here. TheChief (PowWow) 00:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er, guys, this debate here is a bit pointless. According to David Gerard's talk page, TheChief does not share an IP address with Agriculture anyway. As he said, "IPs from the same city. Looks like one was work and one was home". Radiant_>|< 16:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I took a glance at both users' edits and this edit shows that they are not likely to be work and home of the same person:
      • (cur) (last) 01:04, 23 October 2005 Agriculture (→My 2 cents)
      • (cur) (last) 00:59, 23 October 2005 TheChief (→My 2 cents)
    • Five minute difference between both users edits on the same page. (Tony's talk page.) In case this was a pattern using two connections I checked for any other similar "talk to myself" discussions on tony's page and found none. At most these two users communicate by phone, email, or IM. At least... they don't know each other. - Tεxτurε 19:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions[edit]

Somehow I seem to be labeled a "new and poisonous user". I find this very depressing and confusing as I have tried to maintain an air of cordial discourse in all of my dealings. I am utterly confused as to my block but if this community has decided I am no longer welcome for whatever reasons it seems I have no options.

I will check here regularly for the next week in case some explanation is to be tendered or some alternative avenue of appeal is granted to me. On the whole this is very depressing as I thought I had found a community of like minded intellectuals who were indeed interested in contributing to the sum total of knowledge. My initial reception was kind and warm and I hope that I have left some positive lasting result on the community. TheChief (PowWow) 19:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN/I[edit]

I would appreciate it if someone could present the following points for me at WP:AN/I in my defense since I am unable to do so.

Looking over the RfC in question, I feel moved to contribute this observation to those who for whatever reason believe I was somehow coerced by Agriculture to add my endorsement there.

  1. Agriculture endorses the RfC, I do not.
  2. Agriculture writes a fairly harsh statement, I do not endorse his view.
  3. I write an outside view, significantly different from Agriculture's view. I add an addition to my view based on Tony and my conversation. Agriculture endorses neither of my views.
  4. Spinboy says he cannot assume good faith with Tony, Agriculture endorses, I do not.
  5. Xoloz writes a fairly harsh view, Agriculture endorses, I do not.
  6. Ambi writes a view, Agriculture endorses, I do not.
  7. Friday writes a view, both Agriculture and I endorse.
  8. brenneman writes a very harsh view, Agriculture endorses, I do not.
  9. Agriculture suggest an ArbComm case, I do not endorse.

It hardly seems that the two of us see eye to eye. At the risk of breaking civility, Agriculture appears disruptive, rude, and in general in constant breach of the rules here governing civility. I hope I have not given such an impression. He and I do not agree on the case of Tony Sidaway as I feel Tony is a good faith editor who simply needs to be made aware of his failings and asked to examine them. My study of Agriculture's opinion lead me to believe he wants to see him blocked. TheChief (PowWow) 20:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to WP:AN/I[edit]

Hoping someone there will see this. I am following the debate here. While I cannot speak for User:Agriculture, my IP address will show as either being from Champaign, or Urbana (I am not sure which). Naturally I edit topics from there, just as I edit topics relating to Ithaca, NE (my home town), and St. Louis (to a lesser degree) where my brother lives. I also edit a handful of articles related to institutions with which I have some affiliation (Northwestern, Washington University). I of course also edit topics related to the U of I, as should be evident by my screen name.

I edit typically during the day, as I wake up late, and either study, or hit the bars in the evening. I do not "work" per say at a normal 9-5 job as I am as you would guess a student at the University of Illinois. The University is home to some 40,000 students aged 18-30 all in Wikipedia's main demographic and the cities have some 110,000 residents not including students (roughly). I don't find it hard to believe that Agriculture also is in the same area, as I have met many other users here from the U of I and several of my friends edit Wikipedia. All told I know of ten fellow students who are semi-regular editors. To the best of my knowledge none of them is Agriculture as I know their names. TheChief (PowWow) 02:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Further Addressing AN/I[edit]

I am not sure how to get Agricultures contributions to compare his edit summaries, but I will note my edit summaries are typically obtained by editing a portion of an article, and are in fact simply the default edit summaries as generated by the article. TheChief (PowWow) 03:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the supposed evidence presented at [2] I would like the refute the points, as they are not evidence, simply presented convincingly. Having found how to view user contribs I would refute the following:

  • I begin editing August 17th, when I am introduced to Wikipedia. I edit

nearly every day until August 26th, when I leave the country for a bout one month.

  • Agriculture edits frequently throughout August, even on days I do not

edit. He does not "slowly begin to edit again" as claimed by Tony Sidaway, but indeed edits during the entire period of my term, and throughout the end of August, and all of September.

  • I do not edit from the 8th to the 16th as I am again away on travel.
  • Agriculture most certainly does edit from the 8th to the 16th. I note

he takes a break on the 17th, whereas I do not.

  • I do indeed declare association with UIUC. My screenname itself

declares that very association. I have admitted it from the beginning. Do you realize there are 40,000 current students here as well as literally millions of alumni?

All of this evidence is circumstancial, and I really do not know why I have been singled out. I have e-mailed numerous admins and they have not responded. I am guilty without trial even though to my knowledge:

  1. My IP did not match Agricultures IP.
  2. We have different editing patterns.
  3. The intersection of the articles we edited were rather small.

As for there always being a time gap, that is flat out falst, many nights do I have edits going beyond midnight local time. The fact of the matter is, I do not have a computer in my dorm. Yes, amazing isn't it that there are people like that. I do not doubt my edits overlap with his at some point or other.

I demand justice through formal hearing. I am outraged by my treatment here. TheChief (PowWow) 18:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations[edit]

If others would be so kind as to list all formal accusations here under this topic, I will gladly answer each of them. I have faith that if given a chance I can easily clear my name with the simple facts. TheChief (PowWow) 19:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly 48 hours[edit]

Nearly 48 hours have passed since I was tried, sentanced, and executed by a secret court for crimes I did not commit. No one has come here to answer my plea for a fair hearing. This is not justice. TheChief (PowWow) 22:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Contact with Scimitar[edit]

Scimitar has e-mailed me the following:

One of you or Agriculture will continue to be blocked. I'm of the inclination to unblock you in the next couple of days, as soon as I talk to Agriculture.

Here is my response:

While I appreciate your trying to do something what you suggest is as unjust as what is happening now. Though my limited dealings with Agriculture have led me to believe he is a divisive element on Wikipedia who may need to be dealt with in a punative fashion, I cannot condone further injustice as would result for his banishment for crimes he didn't commit. I assure you we are not the same user and to punish him on account of an assumed relationship between us (which once again I assure you does not exist) is no different from punishing me for the same.

What I am looking for is an attempt at justice, a formal hearing. The charges against me are untrue. What you are suggesting would not only maintain the current injustice, but it would propagate it. If I were to condone such an action it would make me just as guilty as the ones who blocked me without trial.

No, I'm sorry, but while the sentiment is, at least I believe, in the right place on your part what you are suggesting is wrong at the very core. I cannot allow myself to participate in any action so based. While I enjoyed my brief career at Wikipedia, I would rather it be ended than be on the side of the unjust. Perhaps that is my problem. I came here assuming the society at Wikipedia was based on what I would consider normal standards of right and wrong, justice and injustice, and the idea that all were innocent until proven guilty. I suppose from seeing the various Arbitration cases and requests for comments that the society at Wikipedia valued justice and knew right for wrong, that it did not take the word of a few users operating in an opaque fashion without further hearing the evidence and investigating the situation.

I suppose I was simply mistaken.
TheChief

Even if nothing else happens, I hope Wikipedians will read my response and reflect on the meaning of what I wrote. TheChief (PowWow) 18:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Although you shouldn't have published that email without my consent first, that's a minor issue. Here's the big one- the circumstantial evidence against you is massive. I mean, massive. Your edits don't overlap. You edit the same kinds of articles. You both have negative views of Tony Sidaway. You're from the same city. The timing of your account creation coincides with Agricultures first Wikipedia departure. This means that, beyond a reasonable doubt, you and Agriculture are likely the same editor. I have yet to recieve a reply from Agriculture, who claims he has left permanently. If you aren't willing to accept the offer I made, that's your perogative, and unfortunate for you. Your "trial" is common knowledge among admins, and nobody other than me has made any effort to unblock you. That should tell you how the community views the evidence. Regards, Scimitar parley 21:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • My apologies, I thought since you had posted similar content elsewhere on the Wiki it would not be an issue. Regarding the "evidence" it is either easily explainable, or simply does not exist. It certainly is not massive. I will address your points here, and hope you will respond with any questions you may have.
      • Your edits don't overlap - First of all, I have no doubt my edits do not overlap with a great number of people. I also note Texture has submitted evidence of a gap of approximately 5 minutes between my hitting the save button, and Agricultures doing the same. I have no doubt other such instances, or in fact overlaps do occur but I don't know how to go about looking for them in any reasonable fashion. I edit during the day, and on occasions in the evening, as I do not have a computer in my room.
      • You edit the same kinds of articles - No we do not. We both edit articles on the Champaign-Urbana area, and central Illinois in general. This is most likely because we both live in that area. David Gerard has indicated we show up as being in the same city, thus that we would both edit such articles is hardly evidence at all. I will note most of my contributions have not been to these articles but rather also to articles dealing with Nebraska, some in St. Louis, the now deleted article on Midwestern Ivy League (preserved in my user space as I intended to make it worthy of a spot in Wikipedia), the movie Serenity, and some minor edits to articles dealing with Virginia educational institutions mainly in the form of protection from vandalism (I have very little knowledge to contribute in the area, but have a friend who attended University in Virginia and asked for my aide in some conflicts). Agriculture edits none of these things, in fact a short investigation of his interests turns up a very disjoint set to my own. No doubt your edits and mine overlap Scimitar, does this make us sockpuppets?
      • You both have negative views of Tony Sidaway - incorrect, I feel Tony Sidaway is a positive editor who edits in good faith. I just believe an administrator needs to call his attention to his recent inappropriate dealings. My purpose in maintaining an evidence page was to present the evidence to Tony, and perhaps another administrator so that the problem would become obvious and Tony could change his habits. I have no negative opinion of him in the least. I note that you however seem to. Does this make you and Agriculture sockpuppets of each other?
      • You're from the same city - I live in a city of some 110,000 (Champaign, IL and Urbana, IL) with an additional 40,000 students (of which I am one). I would note that even barring the 110,000 who live in my city, there are 40,000 in Wikipedia's main demographic. I personally know of 10 friends here who edit regularly. I have met many more here who I do not know but claim to be from the same city. Are we all sockpuppets, or is it simply a matter that we all live in a city which is very Wiki friendly? I would also note that I likely have the same editing habits as these people, and that our interests converge along the same lines as mine and Agricultures do.
      • The timing of your account creation coincides with Agricultures first Wikipedia departure. - The facts show otherwise. I began editing Wikipedia on August 17th. I edit 9 times that day. According to my count Agriculture logs 102 edits that day. You claim this is when Agriculture left, yes? Why then on August 18th does he make 117 edits? I make a simple 19 edits that day. Agriculture does indeed then take a break until August 21st... a break which coincides exactly with the weekend. When he returns on Sunday, he makes 19 edits. August 22nd, Agriculture makes 9 edits. August 23rd he makes 3 edits. August 24th he makes 3 edits. August 25th he makes 3 edits... is this becoming clear? It doesn't appear if my arrival coincides with anything. Agriculture was editing the entire time and indeed never takes a break from Wikipedia. This claim is outright false.
      • This means that, beyond a reasonable doubt, you and Agriculture are likely the same editor. - Given my refutations and the fact that there is no evidence what so ever that stands up to investigation, I must respectfully disagree. There is far more than simple reasonable doubt. There appears to be no reasonable belief that the accusations are true.
    • Now coming to your final comment, Your "trial" is common knowledge among admins, and nobody other than me has made any effort to unblock you. That should tell you how the community views the evidence, I must ask this: is there not an agreed upon way to have a formal hearing here? I am asking for a hearing based on the actual facts, to be viewed by those who have no bias against me, to hear a formal account of all evidence and charges, and for the entire process to take place in a transparent manner such that I can be assured a fair and impartial trial. All that your statement tells me is that you, and Texture, are the only admins who have taken the time to think about the core issue of justice which we are dealing with. I have the utmost faith that you and the community will eventually realize what is the correct way to handle this situation, that I will be given a fair chance at a hearing, and that this will all soon be an unpleasant memory. TheChief (PowWow) 01:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More contact with Scimitar[edit]

Well, that was a pretty good refutation. David Gerard, who performed the IP test in the first place, has unblocked you, upon further review of your IPs. I am curious though- you seem to be inordinately familiar with Wikipedia for such a new user- have you had an account here before?--Scïmïłar parley 14:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about that since your second signed edit already has a color signature. Your first signed edit is also your third edit in general, your first edit is uploading an image, and you found Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. state capitols within a day and joined. You don't exhibit any of the newbie signs on your initial edits. (Small simple edits, no signature on talk, little interaction on talk pages) And you immediately developed advanced user concepts such as color signature, user subpages, immediate watchlist use and understanding, and an immediate policy regarding "watching all pages you comment on". (":Don't know if you're watching my user page, so I'll respond here (I watch all pages I comment on FYI).") If you just started an account and just started talking on talk pages why would you already have a policy on checking your commented pages?

Now... step back and don't take this as an attack. This all points to someone who has either been a registered user under another name, an anon who's been editing and interacting for some time, or someone who is being helped by an existing user. Perhaps you discarded another user name for whatever reasons. Have you been an anon user for some time? You can get credit for anon edits mapped to this user name if you want. Do you have a friend in Wikipedia who is helping you start out? I figure if you have a RL friend who is a Wikipedia contributor there would be no talk traffic with them and could explain your independent knowledge of Wikipedia.

I'm not here to take you to task. These are the questions we are pondering and an answer would calm the waters with those who take issue with your edits. (I am not one of them.) Thanks. - Tεxτurε 16:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I take very few things as attacks, and your questions are very good ones that deserve an explanation. I want to have a dialog with Wikipedia about this entire issue so that the waters can be cleared and any problems can be fixed.
No, I haven't edited Wikipedia under a different name, or as an anonymous user, but I do have some friends who have been here for a bit (not much longer than me, but some time), and they have given me some tips (like recently finding another users contributions). My experience with Wikis in general, however, is fairly extensive. We use both TWiki and MediaWiki for several classes I have taken as a sort of central shared communications tool. While I generally prefer TWiki to MediaWiki, MediaWiki has emerged as sort of a University standard for profs wanting collaboration space with their students. Not something as organized as Wikipedia, but so similar there really is no fundamental functional difference. The political difference is something I still obviously have a lot of work to catch up on.
On the subject of the political difference, I am disturbed by David Gerard's classification of me as a "poisonous user". Can someone please let me know why this is? I don't believe I have breached WP:NPA or WP:FAITH, and I think my contributions have been substatial. Why I am then labeled as disruptive? TheChief (PowWow) 16:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That explains a lot. I've used TWiki at work and I use Swiki on my laptop for collecting and organizing info. I don't think "poisonous user" was directed at you but rather at Agriculture and his suspected puppet. Now that David has doubts I don't think it is directed at your actions. From what interaction I've seen you are a positive addition to Wikipedia. Welcome! - Tεxτurε 18:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words, I appreciate it. On the off chance... you don't happen to live in Illinois yourself do you? I have a friend (who to my knowledge doesn't edit Wikipedia) who uses both TWiki and Swiki for that very same purpose and in that very same manner. It would be an odd intersection of fate indeed if this were true. TheChief (PowWow) 18:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've been to Illinois exactly twice for a combination of fencing competitions and fencing training camps. (Years ago.) I think a lot of people use TWiki in the developer workplace because it's smaller than MediaWiki but good for open development. Swiki is limited to personal or small website use. - Tεxτurε 18:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ban lifted - protected user page lifted[edit]

Based on David Gerard's revised view that there is insufficient evidence of TheChief as a sockpuppet I have unprotected TheChief's user page and removed the sockpuppet notice. - Tεxτurε 15:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: An invitation[edit]

I notice you seem to have a negative opinion of my, and no doubt you still have some lingering questions. I would welcome your comments on these matters should you wish to join me in a discussion on my talk page. I wish to find the reason for your negative opinion as I have tried my best to observe WP:FAITH and WP:NPA, as you no doubt have good faith reasons for these opinions it would help tremendously if you would discuss them with me so a compromise can be reached. TheChief (PowWow) 17:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I remain unconvinced that you are not Agriculture. Perhaps a frank and honest admission of the relationship between the two of you would be helpful. It is simply improbable that a user, new to the Wikipedia (as you claim) would have a clear knowledge of our dispute resolution practices or such a strongly held set of opinions in such clear synchrony with Agriculture's without at least a relationship between the two of you. I realize that you probably do not want to admit to this relationship because it leaves you open to an accusation of meatpuppetry. However, you have very limited community support at this time, so you have very little to lose by coming clean with the truth. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That you have lingering doubts is of course understandable, and I appreciate your coming here to have a formal discussion. Is it possible I know Agriculture? Yes. But I very much doubt it. I have discussed the current situation with many friends of mine, and none have had, or at least indicated, any prior knowledge of Tony Sidaway or David Gerard, additionally unless any of them have a "sockpuppet", they are not Agriculture as I know their ID's. Given the 40,000 students on this campus I think the chance of us knowing each other is slim.
I question why you would think I have a clear knowledge of the dispute resolution practices here as I feel I have been flailing blindly. I had no idea (and I am still unsure of the proper manner in which I could have proceeded) how to deal with the accusations that were leveled against me. I had to be told that RfC's were not punative. Perhaps Agriculture also has demonstrated a lack of knowledge in these areas but if that is the case I submit to you that it is simply because neophytes are unfamiliar with the process here.
As for my opinions being in synchrony with Agricultures, I dispute that point quite fervently. My study of Agricultures contributions seem to indicate (and I hope I am not violating WP:FAITH and WP:NPA by saying so) he is hostile and abusive with a direct vendetta against certain users. I merely think Tony Sidaway has acted in an inappropriate manner, though most likely with the best intentions, and I do not support any punative actions against him. He merely needs to give the complaints of others full weight and to think about what he is doing wrong. My understanding of Agricultures position leads me to believe he and I do not see eye to eye and what would satisfy me would leave him unsatisfied. I note my opinion is shared by numerous other users as shown on the RfC. If I am missing your point, or you have other queries along this line, please clarify so we can continue this line of discourse.
On the subject of community support, I hope to build it with dialog. I am new here and it is understandable that there would be some level of Xenophobia. I do not think my record, however, indicates any reason for suspicion. I maintain that I have no relationship with Agriculture unless he has kept his identity a secret from me. I will press my friends who edit Wikipedia on this point. If any turn out to be Agriculture, I will of course let you know. TheChief (PowWow) 17:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your response is not forthcoming. "Is it possible that I know Agriculture? Yes. But I very much doubt it." Either you DO know Agriculture, or you DON'T know Agriculture. Don't beat around the bush; answer the question. This sort of evasive, nonresponsive answer makes you look like you're trying to be deceptive, and that tends to reduce the willingness of others to assume good faith. I suggest you cut it out right now. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would request you change your tone. You are coming to this open discussion in a fashion which could be interpreted to violate WP:FAITH. My response is both forthcoming and honest, if you would read it without bias you would see so yourself. My statement clearly indicates that, to the best of my knowledge I do not know Agriculture. However I am admitting that, yes, it is possible that I know him and he has not told me that he edits Wikipedia under the name Agriculture. I doubt that this is the case given that I have not had any discussions with anyone that would lead me to believe they are Agriculture as none of my friends who edit Wikipedia had any knowledge of Tony Sidaway or David Gerard before I told them about what was happening.
The fact of the matter is, it is not clearly either I "DO know Agriculture" or I "DON'T know Agriculture" as you so clearly put it. The third option is that I do not know that I know Agriculture. It would be dishonest of me to not address this possibility. I do not believe I know Agriculture but in the interest of honest dialog and full disclosure I will point out it is a possibility, however remote or unlikely.
I do take direct offense to your claim that I am "trying to be deceptive". I am doing the exact opposite. It would be dishonest for me not to point out the possibility. I am here to have an open and honest dialog, as such I am exploring all possibilities. This is the exact opposite of deception.
Finally, your comment to "cut it out right now" walks the line of WP:FAITH in a very dangerous fashion, and may even cross it. I encourage you to be more civil in your discussion and to come here in the manner in which you were invited to. Without bias and open to a civil discussion grounded in good faith.
To reiterate: To the best of my knowledge, I TheChief, do not have any associations with Agriculture. TheChief (PowWow) 18:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly suggest that you stop trying to use WP:FAITH as a club with which to batter those who are suspicious of you. The circumstances under which you appeared here caused you to lose the assumption of good faith. If you wish to regain it, you should behave in a manner which will lead others to trust you. Demanding it without having first earned it will merely serve to annoy, and will make it that much less likely that you will ever get it. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Asking for civility, which is required of all users here, is hardly using a club to batter users. All I am asking is that you be respectful in your tone and act in a manner which is appropriate for adults in a discussion. If you do not have an assumption of good faith with me, you are at least required to be cordial in your dealings with me. I fail to see how "the manner in which I appeard here cause me to lose the assumption of good faith". When I "appeared" here, I simply edited articles, I later became involved in a dispute when I saw another user acting in a manner in which I thought was inappropriate. I have acted civily and cordially throughout this process, I am simply asking for the same consideration in return. Perhaps you disagree that people should be civil in all of their dealings. That is of course your option, but I would ask you to reflect on the issue. TheChief (PowWow) 19:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kelly, nobody has to first earn WP:AGF - it should be an assuption. TheChief, Kelly is right - using WP:FAITH as a club against suspicion won't get you anywhere and immediately draws into question the good faith of the person weilding it. - Tεxτurε 19:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My intent, Texture, was not to use it as a club. My intent was to point out that her tone of "typing", using phrases such as "cut it out", etc, was not conducive to a proper discussion. How can we hope to examine the issues at hand if phrases like that are used? Is there any reason to breach civility? Does using such language help the discussion? No, absolutely not. The one thing I have no tolerance for is lack of civility in one's dealings. Kelly is a guest here, an invited and welcomed guest, yes, but still a guest. I have invited her here for a constructive discussion, all I am asking is that she be civil in the discussion. I hardly see this as "using a club". It is simply common decency. TheChief (PowWow) 19:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit, "Is it possible that I know Agriculture? Yes. But I very much doubt it" took me three reads to understand. I took it the same way on the first read. It looks evasive and smacks of something patronizing. I doubted that would be your intent (how could it possibly benefit you) so I tried again and I think you are saying that Agriculture is likely another student who you'd have no way of knowing if you knew?

More or less, yes. If he lives in Champaign-Urbana, it is unlikely we know each other, it is a fairly big town with a lot of students. I am simply saying that to my knowledge, I do not know him. I don't mean to sound evasive, I tend to be more verbose than other people due to my background. I find I have trouble conveying thoughts without thourough explanations. TheChief (PowWow) 19:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You state that some friends you know are helping you with tips on using Wikipedia. I think Kelly and others think that Agriculture is one of those friends. Are you familiar with the term, meat puppet? No one has said it but clearly it is on their minds. I'm not sure it matters if Agriculture is one of your friends since I know friends who use Wikipedia and probably most of us do. I don't always agree with my friends but then they aren't registered or refuse to tell me their user names so it hasn't spilled over directly.

I've recently become familiar with the term (from WP:AN/I). Of the people I know who edit Wikipedia, none of them are Agriculture, given his conduct here, I doubt he and I would get along in the real world anyway. I have zero tolerance for breaches of civility, given his behavior here I would hazard to guess he and I would not get along what so ever. TheChief (PowWow) 19:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest avoiding philosophical answers such as "who knows - either of us might know him in real life..." and stick to direct discussion if your intent is to clear the air with Kelly and others. A direct answer would be "No, I don't know Agriculture".- Tεxτurε 18:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but I tend to ascribe to the notion of telling not just the truth, but the whole truth. When one doesn't, what one doesn't say often comes back to haunt one. I would rather describe the situation as fully as I can think it through so as to dispell any doubts as to my truthfulness. TheChief (PowWow) 19:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understood that line the first time. If the question had been, "Do you know Kelly Martin" or "Do you know Aaron Brenneman" than there is no room for equivocating. But "Texture", "TheChief", and "Agriculture" could all be my mom and I wouldn't know, so I would probably have answered the same way.
  • However, as several recent episodes have demonstrated, people often miss the subtleties of what I'm saying as well. I'd recomend that in dealing with people that you're not chummy with, and expecially with someone who starts off borderline hostile, that you use short declarative statements.
    brenneman(t)(c) 00:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's try it this way - How did you become aware of Tony? Your first contribution to any page where it appears you would have interacted with Tony was this violationg of NPA, unless I missed something in the editing history. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am sad to say I was acting in an immature fashion and copyed his comment, assuming it was a common slur for Tony. I had been following the problems users were having with Tony via [WP:AN/I]] and had added his talk page to my watch list. It was a mistake as I ended up loosing my temper over Tony's treatment of others. I was wrong, and was even more wrong to consider the users sided against him, such as Agriculture, to be innocent victims. It was immature of me to post a slur of any kind, especially a parroted slur that I only assumed had merit without checking for the truth (my further study shows it does not have merit). TheChief (PowWow) 19:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why were you reading AN/I? Why are you discussing having watched Tony's talk page when the comment you made was on AN/I? Other than this one discussion on AN/I, where else had you seen Tony discussed? Why were you watching there? How did you find AN/I? I am not interested in me culpa's for why you wrote what you wrote, but how you found and why you were interested in the minutae of aricle undeletion. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was interested because I am and was wholely unfamiliar with Wikipedia's process. I became interested in article undeletion due to the deletion of my own article on Midwestern Ivy League. Wanting to have it eventually undeleted I had been scanning the undeletion archives and discussion areas. This lead me to AN/I, Tony's talk pages, and complaints about Tony. To a neophyte just browsing the undeletion area, it did seem that Tony was violating consensus decisions as per the rules as I understand them. Does this answer your question? TheChief (PowWow) 19:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am satisified but not convinced. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you have other questions, feel free to ask them. Open and civil discussion is always welcome here. TheChief (PowWow) 19:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other similarities[edit]

Welcome back. I don't want to make a bigger deal of this affair than has already been done, but I want to draw your attention to a post I made to WP:ANI a few days ago:

  • While the evidence is wholly circumstantial, I would point out two similarities that I believe are fairly convincing that at least some direct connection exists between the two editors:
(1) On August 14, 2005 User:Agriculture created Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. state capitols. On August 17, 2005 User:TheChief made his first edit on Wikipedia. The following day, August 18, as his 12th edit on Wikipedia, User:TheChief joined Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. state capitols. To date, there are only three members of that project, so it is very odd that two of them are User:Agriculture and User:TheChief.
(2) Both edited extensively at Old Dominion University which User:Agriculture described as "a school of low academic standing." [3]. Since that university is geographically far removed from Champaign-Urbana, it is very odd that two editors based there would independently take such interest in "a school of low academic standing."

I'm all for moving on, but unless there are some better answers to some of the questions raised, I think there will be a lingering suspicion that some connection exists between you and Agriculture. I don't feel that you have been abusive in any way, so I am satisfied that lifting the block was appropriate but I do think that there will be doubts in the future if you and Agriculture expect to be heard as two voices. -- DS1953 talk 20:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome any discussion on the issue. It's best to settle things now than to leave them to linger.
  • On the issue of Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. state capitols, I direct you to my history of edits [4], look back to my first edits. I had just come back from a weekend in Springfield, IL as part of an educational trip to visit the capitol there. I had wanted to add something substantial to the article, but only succeeded in wikifying a few areas, as the article itself was already fairly thourough. Following on to the Illinois State Capitol page, I found there was nothing for me to add there either, but the talk page yielded a link to the Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. state capitols webpage. As I have a sort of fetish for all things relating to law and political structure I signed up in the hopes of contributing to the project. Sadly I haven't had the time to visit local capitols and investigate them further. Hopefully I will return to that soon.
  • As per Old Dominion University, I have a friend who goes to school in Virginia and was complaining about the Wikipedia entry being uncalled for, saying that the program was being maligned for having a correspondance program. I have little personal knowledge of the University beyond what I know from having attended a program at Norfolk Navy Base, which is why I have not made any substantial edits there. I have simply: reverted vandlism: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] , and weighed in once on the topic of correspondance programs (which UIUC has as well, so the notion of it being a negative aspect is absurd): [14]. I would hardly call my edits substantial as I simply posted a single opinion on the correspondance school (I would argue it is not a school of low reputation, but simply one of average reputation. I have heard of it, and its association with Norfolk Navy Base is of note), and dealt with Vandalism I saw via my watchlist.
Do you have any further questions? TheChief (PowWow) 20:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, one more. Are the Fighting Illini going to win any Big Ten football games this season or do we have to wait for basketball season to open before we see another victory? -- DS1953 talk 20:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've got some hope we're going to beat Purdue... but truth be told, they're a better team than us (compare our respective games vs. PSU it is sad). Basketball is our only hope of salvation. Its really unfortunate that we have such an easy lineup. I would love to see what Webber could do. Are you an Illini fan by chance? TheChief (PowWow) 20:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Check this edit [15]. -- DS1953 talk 22:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I live in Evanston near our in-state nemesis (although I do now back Northwestern against anyone except the Illini). -- DS1953 talk 23:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And the award for most-eye-gougingest message bar goes to...[edit]

Chief,
(I'll omit the definite article for now, but if that's not what you like just let me know.) Well, you've had it a bit rough, eh? As you may have seen at WP:ANI, there's been plenty of talk about you if not much to you. There's no excuse for that, but I've been guilty of it, too.

First of all, it really did look bad, the whole you/him thing. And, to be honest, unless both of you suddenly post scans of your driver's licenses, to some degree it will probably take a long time for the stigma to fade. Agriculture has cut a wide swath, and you've seen that some people are willing to judge an action merely by the fact that he's involved. And, while I'm being honest, I must admit that I flinched a little bit every time he agreed with me. But that's jake, and for me to fail to offer you any support was even worse.

So, belatedly, hope you don't blow a blood vessel over any of this. Your recent messages have demonstrated good grace, so kudos to you.

Here's some unasked for advice: Back away from Tony. Utterly. Try to take a long view, that you'll hopefully be a contributor here for a very long time, and that there aren't many things that have to be sorted out now. In a few months, or years, you might have the experiance and the network to affect some changes that you'd like. But if you head down the path that you're heading, you'll likely end up with lots of stress and very little result.

Cheers,
brenneman(t)(c) 00:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about?[edit]

You'll have to link me to the comment I made in which you felt insulted as I don't recollect it. Thanks.--MONGO 23:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition building is something I frown on: (from your contributions)

  • 18:40, October 30, 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Daycd (Evidence of Tony Sidaway's Misconduct)
  • 18:40, October 30, 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Fvw (Evidence of Tony Sidaway's Misconduct)
  • 18:39, October 30, 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Karl Meier (Evidence of Tony Sidaway's Misconduct)
  • 18:39, October 30, 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Splash (Evidence of Tony Sidaway's Misconduct)
  • 18:38, October 30, 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Ambi (Evidence of Tony Sidaway's Misconduct)
  • 18:37, October 30, 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Tony Sidaway (Fine)
  • 18:36, October 30, 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Zoe (Evidence of Tony Sidaway's Misconduct)
  • 18:36, October 30, 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:RN (Evidence of Tony Sidaway's Misconduct)
  • 18:36, October 30, 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Texture (Evidence of Tony Sidaway's Misconduct)
  • 18:35, October 30, 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Scimitar (Evidence of Tony Sidaway's Misconduct)
  • 18:35, October 30, 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Agriculture (Evidence of Tony Sidaway's Misconduct)
  • 18:34, October 30, 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Radiant! (Evidence of Tony Sidaway's Misconduct)

MONGO 23:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unfamiliar with what you mean by coalition building, I was simply soliciting for evidence to prevent to Tony about his actions. I am not familiar with all of the evidence so I asked. But I am more confused why you would deem this "disruptive". How does is it disruptive? Perhaps more disconcerting is that you would say between Agriculture and myself, I am more disruptive. My exploration of his edits reveals a string of foul language and personal attacks, numerous breaches of WP:FAITH and almost no substantial contributions. I'm just curious as to your reasoning here. TheChief (PowWow) 23:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated before, I frown on coalition building. If you weren't aware of all of Tony's supposed transgressions, then what was the purpose of soliciting help all about. It seems that your time would have been better spent editing articles and reverting vandalism than worrying about Tony Sidaway. Your last 50 or so edits have been to user talk so it's good to see that you communicate, but this place isn't about making new buddies...we're trying to build an encyclopedia. I found your solicitation for opinions on Tony to be coalition building, which I frown on.
I understand that MONGO, you've said so. What I am asking is how you view this as disruptive, given the dictionary definition of the term which I am supposing you are using. I wasn't aware of all of his trangressions, but I was aware of his lack of civility and breaches of WP:FAITH. I was merely trying to collect all examples of such behavior to present to him. I am, for the moment, abandoning that project, but I think it is important when you tell someone they are doing something wrong, to show them examples. TheChief (PowWow) 00:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I did provide examples...above...there already was a request for comment on him and plenty of evidences either proving or disproving his errors(?) there. I recognize you are relatively new so I won't continue to badger the point. I am about to head out and won't probably be around again until after the 9th so we can resume this at that point if you need to. Happy editing.--MONGO 00:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I wasn't accusing you of not providing examples, merely indicating that was what I hoped to do. I realize there was an RfC already, but he bluntly stated he was ignoring the entire thing and was very uncivil when asked why. Additionally, I don't consider you badgering, this discussion is helpful and I appreciate your comments. Enjoy your break. I would enjoy to debate the merits/etc when you return. TheChief (PowWow) 00:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-automated template substitution[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheChief/Archive1&oldid=1080302671"