User talk:SheffieldSteel/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

List of New Religious Movements Talk

Hi, I know that you have commented at least twice (Could be more) on the talk page. One of the comments was there has been no citations that are anything but synthesis (or WP:OR).

Would the citations from the Anderson Report that I cited still be considered Synthesis, as well as the ruling from the German Republic? I will admit since I have fallen off of being an editor here for a few years, and lack some of the insight that newer editors may have. Thanks!! Groupsisxty (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

If you provide a reliable source saying Scientology is a supremacist religion, the debate will end. In my opinion, acceptable sourcing would include phrases such as, "Scientology is a supremacist belief system", "the supremacist nature of Scientology", "Scientologists are supremacists", "the supremacy inherent in Scientology" and so on. However, rather than providing such material, you appear to be engaged in synthesis, effectively saying "My sources describe Scientology as having certain attributes; here is a definition of supremacist belief which corresponds to those attributes; therefore Scientology is a supremacist religion." The problem is that it is you - the Wikipedia editor - making the connection, when our no original research policy requires that the connection must have been made by a reliable source. I hope this helps. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It helps much. I was under the impression that since the majority of the list is comprised of OR, it would not be an issue, and if so, materials provided by the RTC (Religious Technology Center) stating such a position would be appropriate. Also, the German report characterizes Scientology as an "Extremist Organization", so I thought that would hit it. So, I'm continuing to research the matter. Thanks a bunch :) - Groupsisxty (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Just fyi

[1] Exploding Boy (talk) 17:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Just zOMG! SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

She's nearly exclusively a single issue editor, brand new here, and behaving badly. It's only a matter of time.... Exploding Boy (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

List of new religious movements

Hi. Please revisit Talk:List of new religious movements#Recap and see if you agree with my placement of your comment in my recap. Thanks. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I still disagree with the inclusion of Scientology within the "Supremacist" section, for reasons given here. While I don't mind you copying part of my post, I would have preferred it if you had copied the whole post (the synthesis argument being central to my position). SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but that was just meant to be a recap seeing as the topic had gotten waay too tl;dr. Thanks for the look. --Justallofthem (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Signatures

I've just told another user off for that. And I am about to tell some more users of for that. I am not about to change my signature.--Andrzejestrować Zajaczajkowski Plecaxpiwórserafinowiczaświadzenie Poświadczyxwiadectwo-Bjornovich (talk) (contributions) 16:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh! Sorry

Sorry, I thought that the attack was the first edit on the talk page, sorry my misstake Theterribletwins1111 (talk) 13:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No harm was done. Thanks again for your good efforts. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Cast788

Thanks for noticing the sneaky canvassing by Cast788 (talk · contribs). I think it smells sockpuppet from far away, thinking of opening a case on the issue. take care, --Soman (talk) 13:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; this is clearly a "bad hand" single-purpose account. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I've posted a sock report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kashmircloud. There are some other accounts that I suspect can be of the same user. --Soman (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Justice can you please help with the massive network of canvassing for the POK article im just asking you to alert some admin users please thanks i dont really know how to alert admins so im frantically choosing editors at random in the hope they turn out to be admins 86.158.235.148 (talk) 13:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. The important thing is that there's a record of canvassing at the AfD itself. The closing administrator will take this into account, and will only consider arguments based on Wikipedia policy. Canvassing by one side only serves to discredit that viewpoint. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

cheers guess ill just have to wait for a while untill the people with authority come to a conclusion cheers again for help freind 86.158.235.148 (talk) 14:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

List of New Religious Movements

I added a proposal to the [[2]] and would like for you to take a look at it. Thanks. Groupsisxty (talk) 05:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in on the page :) Groupsisxty (talk) 05:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Sorry I had to oppose. You may still get sufficient support for the change, which I do think is an improvement over "supremacist". SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 05:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MAL01159

Hello. Just to let you know that this RfC has been closed. You are welcome to read the conclusion established at the page. I am notifying you since you certified the basis for the dispute. Wizardman 15:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the conclusion, and for the notification. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Question about Deleted Article

Hello,

I am new to Wikipedia and have been editing an article about J.P. Turner & Company which was recently deleted. I've tried, without much success, to determine if I can update the article and have it reinstated or if I can just create a new one. It seems, after reading the deletion log, that the main reason for deleting the article was because there are no high ranking third-party search results. I'm still navigating Wiki and appreciate any assistance you can provide.

Thanks! Heidi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hw2008 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Short answer: Find more sources which write about the article subject, and get back in touch.

Long answer: There are three critical issues that a Wikipedia article must meet to survive an AfD debate. These are set out in the core content policies notability, verifiability and neutral point of view (which, if you have not read, I cannot recommend highly enough). There is considerable overlap in the criteria needed to meet the first two; essentially there must be multiple independent reliable sources providing non-trivial coverage of the subject. In this context, "independent" means no company press-releases "advertorials" or other promotional material, "reliable sources" are those with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (see WP:RS for more), and "non-trivial" means that the source is writing about the subject not just mentioning it in passing. As for neutrality, the available sources must provide sufficient views of the subject to enable us to write a neutral and fair article. It is not unknown to find multiple reliable sources writing about a subject which nevertheless only provide negative opinions or views; typically an article should not be written (or should be deleted) if a neutral presentation of the available sources would result in a non-neutral article. I hope this helps explain the closing of this AfD. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for responding so quickly. I'll identify independent articles that will assist in verifying J.P. Turner and be in touch. Thank you for your feedback. Heidi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hw2008 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Center for Asian American Media (2)

Hi Sheffield,

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I have been away but would like to continue our discussion. I have copied and pasted the archive of our discussion we had in August. Here are my follow up questions for you.

1. How would we be able to get the Center for Asian American Media to exist on Wikipedia. I have an archive of what was slated to be deleted. Can I alter this in order to take a more neutral stance? The Center is definitely in integral part of the development of Asian American Media. I know you are looking for an article and we can try to work on getting that to you. What are some other ways we can show the significance of our existence? Please advise.

2. Are we able to create articles on other key Asian American filmmakers and those of high influence in Asian American media? Are we, at the very least, able to list key film and media makers on a "Center for Asian American Media" article? Please advise.

Thank you for your assistance. It is of great importance that we exist on Wikipedia in order to foster the education of Asian American Media to the society. I greatly appreciate your help and will do all I can to work with you and Wikipedia to make this work. I have full desire to adhere to the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia to make this work. Thank you for your help.

Here is a copy of our previous discussion. (text removed - see archive) CAAMwiki (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what to suggest apart from the general guidelines that apply to all articles (paraphrased from above section):

There are three critical issues for a Wikipedia article, if it is to avoid being deleted. These are set out in the core content policies notability, verifiability and neutral point of view. Luckily, there is considerable overlap in the criteria needed to meet the first two; essentially there must be multiple independent reliable sources providing non-trivial coverage of the subject. In this context:-

• "independent" means no company press-releases, "advertorials", or other promotional material;
• "reliable sources" are those with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (see WP:RS for more);
• "non-trivial" means that the source is writing about the subject not just mentioning it in passing.

As for neutrality, the available sources must provide sufficient views of the subject to enable us to write a neutral and fair article. It is not unknown to find multiple reliable sources writing about a subject which nevertheless only provide positive or only negative opinions or views; typically an article should not be written (or should be deleted) if a neutral article cannot be written given the available sources.

Hope this helps! SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Sheffield. That was greatly helpful. So in reference to the article we have from Oliver Wang, if we are able to reference the source article, would that suffice?

Also, please advise as to how I would go about writing an article on Asian American filmmakers? Would I even be able to do this? Thanks again. CAAMwiki (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that a single article is going to constitute sufficient source material to demonstrate notability (which doesn't quite mean the same thing as "importance", but is more a meaure of how many observers have "taken note of" the subject). I don't know what to suggest, if you can't find other souces, although you may also be able to get more knowledgeable help and advice from editors at Wikiproject Films. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. I will see what I can find. So if I were to write about other filmmakers, would I need to list my sources from where I pull my information? How would that work? Please advise. Thanks. CAAMwiki (talk) 19:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, our Verifiability policy says you need to cite your sources. How-to instructions can be found at WP:CITE. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Great so as long as I write 100% factual information from a completely neutral point of view (not endorsing, embellishing, promoting, etc.) and I publish from at least 2 or 3 independent/third party published articles, and cite them, this should pass the Wikipedia standards of excellence in article writing? I apologize for all the questions. I just want to make sure I follow and respect the guidelines to the T. CAAMwiki (talk) 19:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That's right. I just realised that no one sent you a welcome message yet. I apologise for that and I'll take care of it next - it does contain some useful links for new editors, it's not just a matter of bureaucracy. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Should I run articles by you (at least the first one or two) before publishing them so I don't risk it being deleted? I don't want Wikipedia to, for any reason, think that I am trying to create unpublishable articles.67.101.216.186 (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I presume you're going to write up a draft on your user page (or a sub-page) and send me a link when it's ready for review. If so, go ahead. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If that's the best way to do it than I that's the way to do it. I haven't gotten anything written but this is good to know for future reference.67.101.216.186 (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Admin?

Your RFA happened when I was away and I missed the fun. Congrats, and support! Guettarda (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :-) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Nice chatting with you. Thanks for your neutral opinions. Docku^Hi 23:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It's nice of you to say so. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hersfold

hi freind i have ran into a editor who seems to get very offended when i add the administered tag to indian administered kashmir he also sides with indian editors while ignoring me so i have to keep messaging them. Let me explain i have added the disputed tag on srinagar because another ip added it to the northern areas of pakistan but when i did this the indian editors swiftly pounced ad ran to hersfold "claiming in being abusive" whats so abusive about that another thing is that he lets vandals and socks of the hook like kashmir cloud i think he has a grudge against pakistan and favours india could you please tell how to file complaints about users to Top administraters as he doesnt relent in his bias towards me i give you another example in The Battle of Chawinda pakistan clearly wom however he states that india won if that aint anti abusive and lies then what is i urge to tell me how to report him to higher authoritys i know you dont want to get involved and i dont want you get into trouble so you can delete this messahe if you want as hersfold will probably claim your in it with me and try and block you too cheers 86.151.127.43 (talk) 09:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

My alleged sock puppet case

Hi:

Thanks for authorizing the user check in my alleged sock puppet case; you should find that I have a hard IP address owned by PacBel (SBC and/or ATT depending upon timeframe) out of San Francsisco, CA, which comports with the 94022 in my handle (Los Altos CA a suberb south of SF). I have no idea what is T2s IP address, hard or soft, but I am certain it is in the European Union area due to the obvious time zone differences when we sleep.

T2 and I are just two editor who happen to agree about an issue and disagree with the instigators of the case.

I would appreciate it if in addition to the user check, you look at the quality of the evidence presented by the two proponents and provide your objective and unbiased statement as to the quality of the case and the reasonableness of the evidence. Do you think the evidence was sufficient to justify the case against me? Please note that after raising the case against me as a sock puppet, the instigator piled on other purported sock puppets, but the original case and all the evidence posted is about my editing.

I will watch this page for any questions and look forward to your results and comments on the case page.

If you are unlucky, this request will result in a long series of arguments from at at least one of the instigators; I apologize in advance for their rudeness. Tom94022 (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for posting. I have tried to avoid getting involved in the SSP (suspected sock puppet) case as far as possible (partly for reasons explained here); my concern is with the disruption by IP contributors documented at the Request for Checkuser. Clearly there is abuse by one or more editors using dynamic IPs to avoid scrutiny, and hopefully the Checkuser will get to the bottom of it. I only listed your username there for completeness, since some of the disruption occurred on the SSP page. For what it's worth, I do expect the Checkuser to say that you are unrelated to the IPs causing the disruption - not least because they seem be in Germany - which should also wrap up the SSP case nicely. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This case as originally posted consisted of charging T2 as puppet master and only me as puppet. The now disruptive anonymous editor(s) seem to be responding (inappropriately) to this unfair accusation against T2 and me. If you check a little further, you will find that the instigator of this case is rather free in charging sock puppet against editors that disagree with him. I wish these anonymous editors had stayed out of it because their vandalism will tend to confuse the issue of whether the instigating editor has behaved appropriately. BTW, having now been accused of such, I find the whole approach to SSP cases to be highly biased against the accused - shouldn't there be a minimum level of proof before anyone can make an accusation? I have probably spent 6 hours reviewing the so-called evidence. I suppose I should have just done like T2 and ignored the whole thing knowing I am not a SP, but what would have happened if we coincidentally lived in the same time zone (as does one of my accusers) or i didn't have a fixed IP address or ???? Could it be that some of the other so-called SPs accused by this guy have been wrongly convicted and are now (inappropriately) acting out? Tom94022 (talk) 23:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Tom you seem to think this sock puppet report is made because I'm "charging sock puppet against editors that disagree with him" and you are completely wrong to state that because it has nothing to do with what you claim, so I expect you to retract what you wrote because it is useless ad hominem. Also do not in future repeat any similar misrepresentation because if you do then then the conclusion will be that you are doing so deliberately. Question my arguments or the evidence presented, never try to question my motives. Now for the real reason of the report, this I have already stated on the page previously to your edit by the way. When I make a sock puppet report it is a way of bringing suspicious or obviously abusive behaviour to the attention of someone on the outside who will look at the evidence and then decide to issue blocks if needed. If you really want to help then I suggest you stop trying to attack those providing evidence and instead you attempt to provide a valid argument or just wait for someone to handle the report. I added the other sock puppets to the report because as explained when "anonymous" editors suddenly appear to disrupt a sock puppet report it is suspicious behaviour. Those other cases where blocks have been handed out are obvious confirmed (often with checkuser) abusive editors. Specifically the actions of the IP user before and now after the blocks prove the case and blocks issued are completely warranted. Fnagaton 09:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I take it the case is closed, are u the one to remove it from the open case log? Can I interpret your statement, "I only listed your username there for completeness," as an agreement that the charge that I was a sock puppet of T2 is without merit? Thanks for your efforts Tom94022 (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That was evil

But I like it. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Abortion debate

On the Abortion debate talk, I've proposed removing the "Church And State" section. As a contributor to the article before, I'd like for you to weigh in on the article talk page. Thanks. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Replaced post on IC discussion page

I'm not sure exactly what about my post prompted you to remove it based on the soapboxing policy, but I replaced it. The discussion threat I started specifically regards the construction of the article and why I assess that it should be assembled differently. My last post simply end caps my argument and reasoning for the change. As you will notice, most other posts above about how the article is/should read also include similar arguments. I would be glad to discuss this further if you need more clarification. Otherwise, please be courteous and do not remove the post without speaking with me first.

Thanks, Strobels (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Responded at Talk:Irreducible complexity. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Note on "disputes: uninvolved administrators"

"For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of sanctions." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/September_11_conspiracy_theories#Discretionary_sanctions

A quick check on your contributions to the 9/11 talk page over the last month or so shows that you are not exactly an "uninvolved administrator".

Frank Freeman (talk) 09:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with that assessment. I have not disputed any content. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Masonic ritual and symbolism

Hi, thank you for your kind words on AN/I. On the issue of the subject Masonic ritual and symbolism, what can I do about this? The situation is:

• Nominated by MSJapan for an Afd in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masonic ritual and symbolism
• Kept as No concensus, with the comment that whether the page should be kept, merged or redirected should be a matter for the talk pages
• Redirected without further discussion by MSJapan
• Redirection reverted by me
• Redirected again by Blueboar
• Discussion opened on talk page of redirected page (after second redirection)

I think that this is highly irregular, but I may be wrong. However if I revert anything done then I'm only likely to start some sort of edit war.

What should I do?

JASpencer (talk) 09:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The only thing to do in this situation, in general, is to discuss the matter politely with other interested editors at the relevant Talk page. If you can't achieve a consensus, you may get some help from the dispute resolution guidelines. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Page Protect

Thanks for protecting my userpage... While my vandalism count won't go up, it's good to know that I won't have to check my page constantly. Again, thanks! DARTH PANDA^talk

No problem. Hopefully your antagonists will get bored and wander off. Let me know if the problem recurs. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there any way to request permenant protection? It may be easiest, considering I annoy many many vandals. DARTH PANDA^talk 19:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've indefinitely semi-protected your user page (note that IPs will still have access to your User Talk page). Let me know if/when you need that protection removing. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much!DARTH PANDA^talk 20:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Mood_(city)

Why the deletion? It seems to be a valid article... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It looked like a simple G7 candidate. Now I'm not so sure. Having deleted it quickly, I'm in no hurry to make another mistake. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Being Blocked

Hi SheffieldSteel,

I am VERY new to entering info onto Wikipedia and would like to know why I've been blocked. I actually work for Bramwell Tovey and I'm trying to put the info from his press kit to the site but you keep telling me that this isn't allowed. There are numerous things on his page that are out of date or wrong information and he keeps asking me to change it. Could you please help me understand what I can and cannot do and how I can take some of the incorrect info off right now? Thank you so much. Rogers & Cowan LA (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Replying on user's talk page. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the reply. Instead of challenging or overturning, can you (or I if need be) just suggest the option to one of the admins? Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 08:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Filed a Complaint Against Me?

You said if I had any questions or concerns to contact you, so ok, thanks.

So, you reported my comments on the "9-11 Attacks" Discussion Page? I was merely explaining and defending my case, this including answering people's questions posed there (which I never asked them to ask of me.) Perhaps some of my posts were over-long, perhaps the conversation went a little off-topic, but if you had any problem with this discussion topic you could have requested that it be removed. Instead, you report me personally as abusing the rules and now I am awaiting judgement. I can only hope that that person is reasonable and doesn't do the quick, easy thing without relaxing and looking clearly at the situation.

You could have easily asked for the topic to be edited or deleted, instead you go after me. Do you have a problem with me or were you just having a bad day? Neurolanis (talk) 21:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I have not reported you to anyone, I have not gone after you, I do not have a problem with you, and I was not having a bad day. All I've done is let you know about a decision by the arbitration committee, how it might affect you, and how to avoid any trouble. Now you know the ground rules that everyone is expected to play by, that's all. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, well then I apologize for assuming that you had reported me. Those comments thus apply to that person and not to you.

Ground rules? I'm beginning to read between the lines. Thanks. Neurolanis (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

SheffieldSteel, I was wondering if you were able/willing to give me any idea as to how long it might take until I hear from this 'arbitration case' about me? Neurolanis (talk) 11:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your concerns on my talk page

I can easily change my opinion here and probably will. So please don't try and read too much into what I am about to say. Based on our recent interaction with me, I must admit don't respect your comments or judgement much at all. And in any reasonable mind I believe it calls into question all your edits (I realize that's a "violation" of WP:AGF as it's "popularly/commonly" interpreted). I believe that in my case you have abused whatever authority you may have on wikipedia (and your doing so may be or even quite probably completely innocent) Nevertheless, I certainly don't think that WP:AGP is a requirement to respect all other editors beliefs and opinions or talk in a "politically correct," non-personal, non-judgemental way, all the time (it's not a sanction for a band of 1984 orwellian thought/behavior-police), especially as any persons beliefs and opinions are moving targets/boundaries for everyone. I do respect authority, so I will try and find positive aspects to your behavior, which no doubt exist. Right now, I'm excited and I would ask that you not compose any more strange sounding "warnings" on my talk page. --Firefly322 (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm restricting my comments here to your contributions to WQA, and to issues of failing to assume good faith...

• [3] You accused User:Verbal of being a troll and of purposely baiting editors, and you implied (I think, though the wording is not clear to me) that you are entitled to do so.
• [4] You imply that the other editors at WQA are abusing WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL.
• [5] You accuse the other editors at WQA of baiting, and/or going along with that practice.

As should be clear to any observer of the WQA thread, several uninvolved editors (myself included) have tried to help resolve this issue and your response has been to accuse them of acting in bad faith, one way or another. That is why I issued you a warning. If you believe I have acted wrongly, I urge you to request a review of my actions at the Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard - I always welcome constructive criticism. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Those comments are fine and reasonable given the stated scope. However, when one takes into account the contents causing the dispute and do a quick check of the issues. One finds that there is a current disscusion going on at [[6]] where several editors have raised just the kind of WP:tendentious editing concerns that I have expressed in opposition to User:Verbal's placement of the tag. Since that placement is at the heart of this dispute, the initial discussion's strong defense of this issue made the wikialert's page appear highly partisan. All the same, I must apologize my undue and unfounded generalizations, which I obviously made in the heat of that discussion. --Firefly322 (talk) 20:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I cence a disturbance in the Force.

*Makes lightstaber noises while swinging his arm around* HalfShadow 21:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I hope you consider yourself suitably chastised. Also, heh. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I still have both my nuts. Oh wait, that's castrated. Oh dear. I may have done the wrong thing when they asked me to chastise that kid for breaking windows. HalfShadow 21:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Unhelpful?

Ehm - why was my comment unhelpful. It's what's going on. Have you been watching it as long as I have? 79.155.245.81 (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

[7] Let's see... you accused TC of being a sore loser (blatantly provocative); you made a statement about the content dispute which is at odds with the draft WP:BISLES (inaccuracy tends to derail discussions); you said that TC is determined to insist that he's right (an invitation to entrench himself further); you implied that he would employ any tactic to win the argument (a bad-faith view that's unlikely to inspire anyone to take the moral high ground); you attributed aims and motives to him rather than commenting on his actions (violations of WP:NPA and WP:AGF tend to contribute to a downward spiral); you finished up with a lengthy expression of pessimism regarding the inevitability of the failure of the discussion process itself (a viewpoint which is welcomed by remarkably few projects).

I hope this helps explain why I considered your contribution unhelpful to the dispute resolution process. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Except that the page where I made the remarks is supposed to be "a non-binding noticeboard where users can report impolite, uncivil or other difficult communications with editors, to seek perspective, advice, informal mediation, or a referral to a more appropriate forum. For incidents requiring administrator attention, refer to this link in the introductory text below. For mediation or other formal procedures, refer to the dispute resolution info-box on this page. Wikiquette Alerts depends on the help of interested editors to provide neutral viewpoints. Everyone is invited to participate in responding to alerts." The whole point of the page is to call it as you see it. That's how I see it. How the heck is one supposed to contribute to a Wikiquette alert page if it's not allowed to be critical? In any case, that's what I believe is happening. You may make of it what you will. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 22:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

When you're reporting users for being impolite or uncivil, in an attempt to resolve a dispute, it should go without saying that your own post ought to be polite, civil, and not likely to inflame the dispute further. "Describe the problem or issues as neutrally as possible. Avoid emotional content that could cause the problem to escalate." SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

FF1234

Well, I could've sworn that I blocked him, but apparently not! Thanks for fixing that :) Black Kite 17:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No probs :-) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Query

Hi Sheffieldsteel, I have quick question. One of mates who shares the same wifi at home and internet network at work has joined wikipedia and has good knowledge on history and culture. My worry is that this person can be on a later date be thought as my sock. We have agreed between us that we will not involve in voting in the same page, unless we have oposing view points and 3RR to be considered between us as one. My question is, do we need to declare this somewhere before any problem arises? Looking forward for your help. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 21:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that you need to say anything on either user page about this. You are doing the right thing by having separate accounts, as shared accounts are expressly forbidden, and what you've said about not voting together or exploiting 3RR is also encouraging. However, using the same IP addresses at home and at work might get you in trouble, particularly if another editor files a request for checkuser naming either of you. There's good advice to be found at WP:SOCK and related pages (mostly this tells you what not to do). Hope this helps! SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts

I could be way off base with this one, but I appreciate your attempts at dialogue with the user. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The best way to teach AGF is by example, I am thinking :-) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

hello SheffieldSteel

If I'm not mistaken you said the sources don't verify the claims; the claims are direct quotes from the sources. So I guess I'm missing something and maybe you could fill me in. I hope this is not a oligarchical gatekeeper type of move and there actually is a basis for not accepting my efforts. If I offended you or your beliefs in someway I apologize; I'm just try to let the facts be known as they are presented. Like I said the claims are not of my own creation they are direct quotes from Haaretz and Fox. I hope to work with people and not against them so I'll leave it at that.--Guardian4truth (talk) 21:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I notice that on two occasions now, you've tried to imply that I'm somehow personally offended or emotionally involved in this issue. Your attention would be more productively spent if directed towards improving the encyclopaedia. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Numbers vs words

The numbers stand out and do a better job of making our point as opposed to words,in my opinion. Regards--Woogie10w (talk) 17:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. After reviewing the paragraph and context, I'm fine with the use of numbers. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

good faith

Ok. Pandacomics (talk) 23:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Mystical Seven (Wesleyan)

I noticed that, thanks.  :>   However (and correct me if I'm wrong), a block merely indicates that a user violated behavioral rules, not that his/her views on the content have been discredited.  My latest post — not really directed at anyone in particular — was an attempt to address the latter.    Xeriphas1994 (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

That's cool. I agreed with your views on content and sourcing, which is why I didn't comment :-) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 03:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Gettin stick

Ah, it does seem per the wiki rules that the bible is a primary source of info Especially that Moses wrote it himself

Personally I don't see why this should be a problem, do you?

Gettin stick and stickin to the rules Youknowbest (talk) 21:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

new ramu50 disruption, alas.

Greetings, I am sorry to report that I have updated the archived discussion of Ramu50, now at [8]. Notifying you here b/c I'm not sure if the archive would be on your watchlist. I hope the "archiving" of that section doesn't mean we have to start all over. Jeh (talk) 07:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Archiving means that no one is going to look at that file again, unless someone re-opens the issue and draws attention to it. I recommend that you remove the text you just added to the archive. I've left a clear warning for this editor, in the hope that they can improve their technique and become a valued contributor. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Sorry. Jeh (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

in accordance to your methods on reviewing WP policy to users

I want to ask you SheffieldSteel, are you bias on particularly me. Because I've seen a lot of users that disagree on me and they given absoultely no citation at all, as shown in Template talk:CPU technologies#Major Changes and whenever I give citation or supporting my proposal, statements...etc, I try to follow Template:Wikipedia_policies_and_guidelines I don't even understand why anyone should respect Jeh the users, since he always use mis-use the policies that are not required by Wikipedia.

Exmaples are WP:BRD (these are suggestionals approach suggested by Wikipedia), whether which approach of solutions users choose is their own freedom, but I think User:Jeh have been very disruptive in using those policies unrespectfully, he does so by supporting only what he think is correct. Example, regular way of disputing consenus resolution is WP:DR not WP:BRD and I think these type of synthesizing and mis-interrepting or more clearly supporting only “what he think is correct” should not be acceptable in Wikipedia. And I think many users, not just Jeh have done so, I think these policies actions should be look at before you call upon what others have done wrong, because for me I think this is totally unethical and inarguably unacceptable.

The original discussion was archived as [[User:Ramu50/OLD Index/sub 2|Community Conflicts]] in case you were wondering.

If other adminstrators are involved with the community conflicts with me please pass on the message, thanks or just copy the message.

Side note: Just so you note, many of the users involved in this were constantly in a bad situation like User:Thumperward (aka Chris Cunningham), one the of the users involved in reporting me stated that a Template shouldn`t be reverted to the style in which one users think is correct, but opposingly he doesn`t follow that manual of guidelines he stated, instead he does the opposite. example, reverting the style of a template which he thinks is correct and he have done this on several template and I personally don't see, why I should follow their suggestions if they have failed to a committment they made for themselves, moreover I do questions whether or not are they going to mis-use WP policy again like User:Jeh and I really hope that these actions don't direct the talk page toward an unpleasant discussion, but if they don't have creditability, how I am able to trust anything their contributed thus far.

The dispute I've made, some of them I already resolved myself, e.g. Functional Mathematics, I've already resolve that conflict and even invited the users towards other contributions too. Yes I do use that examples maybe too much, but I really think that you investigate more before further comments. No mean to be a threat, but I just hope you can change. --Ramu50 (talk) 16:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The consensus of editors at the last ANI thread was fairly clear. My warning raised the issue of whether you can accept consensus. Other comments at the ANI thread described you as aggressive, making personal attacks, and accusing others of bias against you or your views - and as demonstrated by the above post, this behaviour is continuing. You need to stop this. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do very honestly admit that I am very aggressive in my editing, personal attacks. The fact of the talks I just wrote earlier shows I try to change, (not to prove anything, just telling you stop being narrowminded as an administrator) but the Wikipedians seem not wanting to accept that fact and that isn't my issue. But as I've said over and over again, if they continue to do so to frown upon the look down, I am still not going to give them any respect for anything. And that is already violating the WP:Civility, I just didn't want to point out to cause more tension. So just hope things can change for both sides. Also I want to point out one of the major concerns in edit wars is that I've seen a lot of people on Wikipedia that is constantly doing rash action of reverting, and they NEVER look at the new contributions that WASN'T discuss in talk page and leaving out the minority I think administrators sadly do need to give out those "self-conscious edit warning", that kind of editing shows a lack of immaturity and irresponsibility I think it is totally unacceptable. One of the major enforcement. --Ramu50 (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Please understand that our conduct policies (No personal attacks and Civility) have to be followed by all editors. Even if other editors behave badly, you still have to be nice - these rules apply to everyone just the same. You might get some sympathy from some admins if you are provoked or if you feel justified, but most of the time, most admins will say that you don't have an excuse. (This is based on my experience at the admin noticeboards.)

I appreciate that you're trying to change. That is encouraging. The best piece of advice I can give is this: There is no deadline. You don't have to get the correct version of Wikipedia written now. You can afford to wait, to discuss with more editors, to get support for what you believe is right. (What's hard is learning to accept it, when you can't get support for your position. But I can't help you there.)

Best of luck. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Ramu50

Ramu50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is carrying on exactly as before, reverting templates to his preferred version and directing diatribes and personal attacks at people who take him to task for it. I saw you'd left a comment on the last ANI thread on the user - I'd appreciate some feedback on how this should play out. Taking it to ANI for the fourth time in a month doesn't sound like it'll do any good, but I don't want to be accused of forum-shopping. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Chris Cunningham disruption (aka Thumperward)

You stated before that others shouldn't revert to their own style yet continues to do so nevertheless. So what is right here I may ask. --Ramu50 (talk) 18:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you cancel?

Hello, SheffieldSteel. I just want a deletion for my account. Is that possible?

Wacek40 (talk)

Okay, thank you! I will forget this account.

Wacek40 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC).

talk:aspartame controversy

I just wanted to say thanks for helping out with the IP editor on talk:aspartame controversy. Deli nk (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Just trying to keep the disruption to a minimum. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Mind your own business

Where do you get off bugging me about an obscure phrase I used on somebody else's talk page in an attempt to calm them down over a month and a half ago. Get lost and find somebody else to harass. --Sapphic (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem with insulting or attacking other users on another Talk page is that any editor might come along (as I did) and notice it. If the victim of the attack could never become aware of it, e.g. because you put the attack in an email, you'd have a case for saying it was "obscure" enough to be harmless, perhaps, but that wasn't the case with your remark - your every contribution on-wiki is a matter of permanent record. The warning was, in my opinion, quite justified according to policy. Note that accusing another editor of harassment without good cause may also be seen as a form of attack, but in the interests of resolving this, I'm going to let that one slide. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Gee, thanks for "letting it slide" there officer. Get off your high horse and stop sticking your nose where it isn't wanted, and stop looking for trouble where there isn't any. You're a janitor, not a cop. Go clean something up. --Sapphic (talk) 05:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally I have always had problems with the janitor metaphor. What is the analogue of blocking an editor? Taking out the trash? That seems rather disrespectful. Ironically, you do have the right to remain silent, and anything you say will be recorded and may be used in evidence against you.

Did you know that the origin of the word "policeman" is the same as that of the word "polite", and of "policy"? The common idea linking all of these is that in any large social group, there is a generally accepted way to behave. I'm sorry that you didn't appreciate being told that your remark fell outside those boundaries, but I really cannot understand why you feel the need to keep arguing about it. Warning editors for conduct which is outside of policy, whether WP:AGF, WP:NPOV, or whatever, is itself within policy.

As far as I'm concerned, this incident is over. How long you continue this discussion is up to you. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Jakezing

Hi SheffieldSteel. I noticed your comment in reply to mine on the AN/I thread about Jakezing. I am happy to let the incident rest with regards to his talk page rules, which I have now read - they are compliant, as far as I am concerned, although I am still a little worried about the one which refers to the fact that if you threaten him, he reserves the right to remove the edits. How do we go on if he vandalizes something? Some of the uw-vandal templates could be construed as a threat, such as uw-vandal4 -->

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing.

What I am still very concerned with is the edit which I linked in my post, to Chairhat's talk page, where he states that "threatning him is a fun way to wind up with broken bones and internal bleeding." A bit late for a warning I know, after 19 days, but I think we should still be a bit weary. Please reply here if you wish to, since I have your talk page on watch! Cheers and thanks, SheffieldSteel. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for posting. You have raised a good point - many editors interpret warning messages as threats. However, that is a misinterpretation, and I think that you, and I, and even Jakezing, understand the difference between "if you disrupt Wikipedia, you will be blocked" and "if you threaten me, you will end up with broken bones". But even if he does misinterpret a warning as a threat, he's entitled to remove it anyway, per WP:BLANKING, so there's no harm in allowing that form of words.

To defuse this situation on ANI, I had to write rules which walk the line between what policy allows, and what Jakezing wanted to say. I don't think a better set of rules can easily be suggested without causing further drama. As for the nasty threat... I'm inclined to let it go for now. This user's has enough admin attention for the time being, and I think they know it wasn't right. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Indie Spotlight

We are the creators of the page Indie Spotlight and we are not editing but reverting back before the vandalizim took place as we were told to do so on the Wiki vandal page. We tried to post a call for help in the top pf article saying it was being vandalized but it was removed.--JMST (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for Hyperkraz block

Thanks for your prompt block of Hyperkraz based on vandalism to Obama page! Nice to get that little problem solved promptly. Thirdbeach (talk) 22:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem, or as they say in these parts, you're welcome. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I am bs91rp why did your delete my comment on the 911 atacks on the discssion page

I am new to wikipedia and I do not realy know how to say stuff which people will not delete. All what I said is some facts about 911 because wikipedia,s infomation about 911 is not true.Bs91rp (talk) 21:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Replying on new user's talk page. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Block of DyingxToxLivexAgain

Fair enough on the block of this guy, i was expecting to do after his next edit anyway. Cheers--Jac16888 (talk) 00:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I hope it works out. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Earl Pomeroy

Hello. Thank you for writing me and teaching me how to use wikipedia. What I don't understand is that I have cited from a newspaper a piece in the "controversy" section on Earl Pomeroy and it keeps getting removed. I didn't make this up. It was in the paper and I cited the article. Shouldn't they be spoken to if they are censoring things? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Octupus25 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Replying on user's talk page. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Earl Pomeroy Reply

OK, fair enough. I understand what you're saying. If you would like to rewrite the in forum I would have no problem with that. The article does say that Sand said something which was impossible for him to have said and the news source cited admits he can't recall Sand saying it. Pomeroy is quoted from an NY Times article as being for privitizing social security.

Thank you for your information. I do understand what you're saying now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Octupus25 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

trouting..

Hiya. I love your trouting userbox.. I've made a slight variation (a topbar icon) that does something fun. Take a look {{troutme}} [ roux ] [x] 02:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Question

do you really are slapped with a trout in an emergency? Or is it just figurative langangue?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Morefight (talk • contribs)

Hello, have we met before? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

not really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morefight (talk • contribs) 19:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a figure of speech. Sometimes slapping someone in the face with a cold wet fish is the only way to get them to "wake up" to their silliness. More info at WP:TROUT. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

We have consensus at ACORN

You indicated on the article Talk page that when we have consensus, you'll make the edit and remove full protection of the article. Here, Bali ultimate declared that he would always "mass revert" any and all edits by Marx0728 and myself. That's the only vote against Marx's proposed version. There are five votes in favor. That's consensus. You said it doesn't have to be unanimous. Please follow through on your promise, copy the version Marx has provided here, paste it into article mainspace, and remove the full protection. Thank you. WorkerBee74 (talk) 00:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

We do not have consensus on Acorn. I leave it up to you to take a gander at the talk page to see for yourself, the reasons for disagreement, and the number of people expressing disagreement (in my case i'm unhappy with a citation used to back up text that is not supported by the citation provided). To avoid fanning the flames any more with this fellow, I'll simply say that he is mischarecterizing my position and again, invited you to read through the talk page and the histories and make up your own mind. WB74 has prematurely declared "consensus" in the past.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm innocent, I swear!

Reply for ya on my talk page :) --Jaysweet (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, regarding the barking at each other we did on Talk:Barack Obama, I just want to say no hard feelings from this side. When I referred to "lazy ass administrators", I was sortof saying it tongue in cheek -- I know full well that it's not laziness that makes admins slow to block, and admittedly if I were an admin I probably would not have unilaterally blocked RonCram at that point. (Though I would try to get consensus among a group of admins to do so)

I also recognize the comments you were responding to were pretty close to the edge, and probably unlikely to do any good. I was frustrated, and decided to just vent. In my defense, I don't think I really did any damage -- I stand by the assertion that RonCram is extraordinarily unlikely to make any productive edits prior to Wednesday, and even though me calling him out is not going to change his mind, I don't think it's possible that it made him any more likely to continue his agitations.

But I admit if I were a totally neutral bystander, I probably would have told Jaysweet to please calm down and try to mind WP:CIV. --Jaysweet (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, from a personal perspective, I would have been happy to ban or block RonCram, but I just didn't feel their conduct was quite bad enough, and at this time, I'm very careful about not doing anything to appear biased. Thanks for saying this. I do appreciate it. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Editor harassment

(see also Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive53#Using_the_edit_summary_for_discussion)

Look what User:Law Lord did right after the discussion/debate was over: [9]. Flyer22 (talk) 21:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Leave this with me. Thanks for the info. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I would not call that harassment. However, to avoid further conflict, I will stop writing on Flyer22's talk page, as I hope she will stop writing on mine. --Law Lord (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It is harassment! No edit summary is needed when replying to someone on a talk page! Yes, stop writing on my talk page. I had already stopped writing on yours. If you wanted to avoid conflict, you would not have brought this second bogus crap to my talk page. You want me as an enemy here on Wikipedia? You are doing a brilliant job of cementing that. But if you dare start following me everywhere I go, believe me that I will not make it easy on you. Flyer22 (talk) 22:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's harassment. I've given Law Lord an appropriate warning. Please, both of you go and edit a random article or something, and leave each other alone. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The warning is well-taken. Flyer22 wrote, "If you wanted to avoid conflict, you would not have brought this second bogus crap to my talk page. You want me as enemy here on Wikipedia? You are doing a brilliant job of cementing that. But if you dare start following me everywhere I go, believe me that I will not make it easy on you." I kind of see that as a threat? --Law Lord (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

See it as a threat all you want. It is what it is. What could I possibly do to you if you start following me around and continue harassing me, other than report it?

I'd also like to apologize to SheffieldSteel for being included in this mess. But I had to go to someone, and you were the best candidate, given being familiar with the discussion/debate we just had. I also feel it unfortunate for you to have been subjected to that, but glad that you participated. Flyer22 (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Law Lord, I do not think Flyer22's conduct so far merits any sanction, and your efforts in this regard are becoming increasingly counterproductive. I suggest you quit while you're ahead - just walk away from this.
• Flyer22, please remain civil, no matter how you feel about the editor you're talking to. I don't want to see anything from you that's provocative, baiting, or an attempt to "game the system" as far as Law Lord's conduct is concerned. Please go and edit productively somewhere, anywhere. There is a big and beautiful wiki world out there.

SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Okay, SheffieldSteel. Flyer22 (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks like Law Lord wants the last word on this. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess the last words would be that 1) you wrote a harassment warning without due course on my talk page, and 2) Tried to ignite a fire against me, because I reported a personal attack to the administrators. Obviously, you are not able to grow through feedback. --Law Lord (talk) 17:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Inability to admit one's own mistakes can certainly be quite an impediment to learning and growing, as you may (or may not) be aware. My biggest mistake in handling this issue, I feel, was not being more specific and emphatic when warning you to avoid any action that could be seen as harassment of Flyer22. I should have clarified that posting unwanted messages on someone's talk page is not the only form of harassment, and that I was not forbidding you from doing so. In retrospect, this oversight on my part left the door open to your posting on ANI an issue which should have been dealt with, quietly and without drama, on the user's talk page.

Another error of mine was my response to your ANI thread. Given the chance to do that over again, I would have put more emphasis on the warning message, and the message of yours that justified it. I really regret not making clear why I felt you were acting in bad faith towards Flyer22.

Still, we live and learn, don't we...? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it is interesting that Flyer22 is permitted to write about my actions and thoughts in a most unfair manner. One might in fact consider that a personal attack. There is no basis for several of the claims. As you will see, I have not really written anything similar about the thoughts of Flyer22. One could reasonably state that I am the one being harassed here. --Law Lord (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

"Comment on content, not on the contributor." --Law Lord (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

"He is furious that he was dead wrong about a disgreement we just had, and has thus continued to harass me." seems a very interesting interpretation of the events. --Law Lord (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Certainly Flyer22 has not always responded in the most productive way she could, but you are the one who is perpetuating this vendetta. Leave it alone. Nothing good is going to come of this, at all.

If you continue to provoke Flyer22, and she continues to respond the way she has, the absolute worst that is going to happen to her is that someone will ask her to stop. Nobody is going to block her or do any kind of formal warning for the few semi-questionable comments she has made about you, given the persistence of your attacks and Wiki-lawyering against her.

On the other hand, if you continue to provoke, you may very well get blocked, regardless of how Flyer22 responds. This is not a warning, this is advice: Leave it alone. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments Jaysweet. I am very happy that a third party as yourself would share their thoughts on this issue. I think what I am doing here is examining the facts of what has happened, so that my view may be understood by others. My view being that I have been personally attacked, and neither attacked nor harassed anybody. I do not see how this goal can be considered attacks or Wiki-lawyering against Flyer22.

I view it as feedback to SheffieldSteel. This, because I am not satisfied with the actions he(?) committed. --Law Lord (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, please clarify what you mean by "persistence" of "attacks"? I have:

1. ) asked her not to use "dummy edits" (polite message posted on her talk page)
2. ) asked her to use the edit summary (also polite message posted on her talk page)
3. ) Reported a personal attack to the ANI

I do not think either of those qualify as anything but my attempts at improving Wikipedia. --Law Lord (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

If that statement had been made outside of the context of a conduct dispute, I would agree that it might be considered to be a personal attack. In this context, Flyer22 is attempting to provide a rational explanation for your actions, which entails a consideration of your motivation. This is perfectly understable coming from someone who feels that they are being harassed and is trying to get it stopped.

Having answered a question of yours, perhaps you will answer one of mine. What do you want? Putting this another way, what outcome are you hoping for here? Do you want an apology from me, or from Flyer22? Do you want to see her warned, or blocked? Do you want to see me admonished, or warned, or stripped of admin status? I only ask because I really am not sure why you are continuing to pursue this matter. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think few people would call it a "rational explanation". Certainly, it would be nice if Flyer22 apologized for her "rational explanation", which I consider quite insulting. However, I do not kid myself that something like that is going to happen. Nor do I see it happen that you would be "admonished, or warned, or stripped of admin status".

However, it would be nice if you could entertain the view that my posting of a "use edit summary"-template to Flyer22's talk page is hardly worthy of being called harassment. Cheers --Law Lord (talk) 19:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

(I do not want anyone blocked. --Law Lord (talk) 19:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC))

Context, context, context. Generally speaking, it is not harassment to put a warning template on someone's page to remind them about using edit summaries. But the context in this case makes it pretty appalling. You had just been warned about WP:DTTR, and Flyer22 had made it very clear she did not like being templated. In addition, since the summary-less edit in question was a reply to you on your talk page, it hardly seems necessary to provide an edit summary. A comment on your talk page made in a section in which you have been carrying on a conversation with the person making the comment is, by definition, a reply. So if her edit summary had read "reply", it would have been redundant.

That's why SS referred to the template as "harassment". It appears to any neutral observer that it was an obvious attempt to push Flyer22's buttons. I hope this makes sense. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The only reason I always use an edit summary is so that the magic widget that calculates people's percentage of edits made with and without edit summaries will produce a very large green bar when you enter my name. Edit summaries on articles are almost always incredibly useful. On talk pages... meh, sometimes they are useful, often not. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your continued help. I certainly agree with you that things should be seen in context.

• ) I had not been warned about WP:DTTR. I had been made aware of that essay. That essay expressed one opinion, and this was an opinion that I disagreed with. Therefore, I chose to ignore it.
• ) The wording/tone of the message on my talk page from Flyer22 was (IMHO) pretty aggressive:

"And don't use edit summaries for discussion? I've been told that before, but why the hell not?"

"If you respond to me on my talk page about this, I will remove that warninig/discussion from my talk page after that discussion is done, as if it never happened, because I don't like getting warnings as though I am some newbie or vandal. I will remove it if you don't reply either, of course."

Therefore, in order not to sound equally aggressive (in a message of my own wording), I choose to use a template again regarding the missing edit summary. I think that was quite reasonable.

• ) I agree that it was probably not critical to use edit summary on my talk page. However, if the request was unreasonable to Flyer22, then she was free to ignore it. Instead she posted on my talk page: What the heck is wrong with you? I think that was quite aggressive and insulting.

I certainly understand your view. I just do not think it is reasonable to call my actions harassment; also taking into consideration the tone of voice I was subjected to. Can you see my point of view? --Law Lord (talk) 22:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

(un-dent) After a WQA discussion in which it was pointed out to him that issuing a templated warning to Flyer22 was likely to be provocative and inflammatory, Law Lord thought that a "quite reasonable" response to a trivial misdemeanor would be... to issue a templated warning to Flyer22. I think that it is a quite reasonable response to such a posting to issue a warning message about harassment. If it isn't exactly harassment, it is gaming the system by baiting another editor, or whatever you prefer to call it. The only alternative interpretation I'd care to entertain, after this time, is that both of the templated warning messages posted to Flyer22's Talk page were in fact stupendous errors in judgment by Law Lord. There is, however, no sign that Law Lord is willing to accept such an interpretation. On that basis, I do not see much hope for further progress on this issue. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Behavior should not be dictated by something as subjective as whether a given editor finds something "provocative and inflammatory" but rather whether the policy and guidelines find it "provocative and inflammatory". Posting a second template with a legitimate aim on a user talk page can hardly be harassment under any set of circumstances. Therefore, your extremely harsh warning (template?) was uncalled for and barbaric. I agree there is no hope for further progress. --Law Lord (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You've never presented any plausible reason why sending that templated message, to that user, at that time, could have possibly seemed like a good idea - and I have given you every opportunity. All you've said is that no policy or guideline prevented you from doing so. And you're wrong. Wikipedia is not governed by statute, and your actions should be guided not by the letter of the law, but by the spirit of it. If editors say "doing X will provoke that user" and you do X without any compelling reason, then you are editing in bad faith, gaming the system, and disrupting Wikipedia.

This conversation is done with. I have better things to do with my on-wiki time. Law Lord, consider yourself banned from editing this page. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thunderbird2's disruptive editing

I've started compiling a RfCU and because I'm really busy with work at the moment I'm looking for some help with diffs to support the claims. I'll be adding some over the coming days. Fnagaton 05:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I'm not sure I will have time to track down diffs, but I will certainly comment as & when the RfC goes live. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Universalsuffrage

Dear SheffieldSteel,

I think User:Universalsuffrage is causing disruption at Talk:September 11 attacks. He is needlessly starting discussions which isn't helping our 9/11 article. If he continues to disrupt, you should take some action against him.

Have a nice day. AdjustShift (talk) 09:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I will be keeping an eye out. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: Personal attacks

"Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you." -> Which edit are you talking about? Justify yourself.Reqluce (talk) 00:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about a significant number of your edit summaries, for example the vast majority of the edits you made between 0826 and 0900 UTC on the 5th of November. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk: AIDS denialism

Hi. Thanks for your message. In my opinion, whether material is poorly sourced is a determination that should be reached through discussion and consensus, which is why I restored the post in question. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 05:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That is not how the policy on living persons works. Here's a short quote from the policy page:-

Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.

Notice that there's no talk of discussion and consensus here. If you want to suggest that the book in question is a reliable source for the allegations it makes, then say so, but do not re-introduce material that states allegations as facts, do not make allegations yourself, do not speculate as to the truth or otherwise of allegations, and so on. In this case, while we can say "X alleged that Y falsified Z", we must not say "Y falsified Z" as a fact. I hope this clarifies the issue. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... great minds think alike. I gave a somewhat similar answer to this same question on my talk page. MastCell ^Talk 18:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The editor who originally made that post obviously wanted to suggest that it was reliable. It is for that reason that a discussion should've ensued, and not a deletion of that post.

The distinction that people involved in a sociological conflict make between "allegation" and "fact" is often a function of their position. The post indeed framed its assertions as allegations, as the editor attributed the material to the people involved. Since I haven't read the sources that editor provided, how am I or any other editor supposed to know whether it's a fact?

As for speculating as to the truth of allegations, well, I'm sorry, but that's precisely what Talk Pages are for: Discussing the quality of a source vis a vis WP:V. And besides, I myself offered no speculation, so I'm not sure what you're referring to.

As for MastCell, he said, "The line is usually pretty clear: if a post contains negative information about a person, but that information is well-sourced and encyclopedic enough that one could potentially see it making its way into article space, then it should remain. However, if the negative material is unsourced or poorly sourced (as defined in WP:BLP), and there is no reasonable expectation that it can be rendered encyclopedic, then it really has no place on the talk page. In the case in question, the claims are sourced (vaguely) to an AIDS-denialist tract which appears to be published by an obscure publisher - possibly self-published, though I haven't looked into this." This brings me back to what appears to me to be a set of reasonable questions:

1. How am I supposed to know whether the source is a good one, an encyclopedic one, a denialist tract, an obscure publisher, or possibly self-published? And if it is reasonable to conclude that I had no way to know this, then on what basis should I be admonished for restoring the info for a proper discussion?
2. If MastCell himself says that he hasn't looked into it, then how can he conclude these things?
3. Who gets to decide these things, and how is that decision held to scrutiny if one editor gets to do this unilaterally, without a discussion first, and without giving any transparent reasons on the Talk Page? Is merely declaring it "libelous" in an Edit Summary really in the best interest of open and transparent collaboration and verifiability?
4. How are future editors who come to the article and the Talk Page supposed to understand the context of the discussion that remains if the original post remains deleted? What about other editors who also read the book in question? Wouldn't they be more likely to see that a discussion on that book already resulted in a poor-source judgment if the original post that mentioned it remains? Nightscream (talk) 01:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry responding here, Nightscream will not answer me on my talk page or Nightscream's talkpage. How am I supposed to know whether the source is a good one, an encyclopedic one, a denialist tract, an obscure publisher, or possibly self-published? Well you look it up or when you know about AIDS denialism you know about this person, this source all ready. You do not leave a outragous blp charge w/o good source that can cause potential legal problems for Wikipedia. And you do not say I don't know about this topic but I think WP:RS and WP:BLP are wrong so I will revert. Pls drop this arguing Nightscream there is consensus and Jimbo Wales wrote also about it. Thx, RetroS1mone talk 02:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Nightscream, you need to read and understand the policy document at WP:BLP. If you

• will not read it,
• cannot understand it, or
• do not accept its provisions,

then you are likely to be blocked from editing at some point, unless you avoid any material about living persons. This is not a threat, just a prediction based on your behaviour to date and the large number of erroneous statements in the post above. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 03:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, SheffieldSteel. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Ani#Firefly322_again. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 03:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Advise on Nightscream and WP:BLP

SheffieldSteel, can you please advise me about what to do. This thing is annoying me and I would like to drop but I also think wp:blp is so important and when it is not followed it can have bad consequences on Wikipedia, so administrator that does not understand it even after other administrators and Jimbo Wales tell them, is not good. I am reading Nightscream's comment at Jimbo Wales talk page again and Nightscream is still saying, potential blp violations should be left on the talk page. Nightscream gives four hypothetacal blp violations at the end in the comment,

• the first one, no source for the potential libel. Nightscream says it should stay on talk til someone asks for a source and the editor gives it and it is hearsay.
• the second one, no source, an editor asks for the source, a source is given, Nightscream says it should stay til another person confirms the source.
• third, claim is not deleted til after source is proved false.
• fourth example, the source is sps, Nightscream says the discussion should be archived.

They are all against WP:BLP, very clear w/o source or poor source, they should be deleted right away, no discussion. Also says WP:BLP the "burden of evidence" is on the person that added or restored the blp not on me or you that took it away in good faith.

So what is the best thing now after days of discussion, no progress, should i just let it go or should I go to blp noticeboard or administrator's noticeboard? Would it be good if Nightscream got a mentor, may be, Nightscream does not understand alot of policies I think, wp:blp, wp:rs, and alot of other non policy guidelines like wp:notcensored and wp:notpaper on the top from my head. Thx for advise, RetroS1mone talk 09:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is any harm in letting Nightscream let off some steam at User Talk:Jimbo Wales; in fact this is quite productive because experienced editors tend to keep an eye on that page and can offer great advice and insights. On other articles, I'm not really sure what the best course of action is. I'd be inclined to let this particular incident go, but keep an eye out for any future problems. It seems that Nightscream still doesn't understand the difference between facts and opinions (as defined at WP:NPOV#A simple formulation) - and if I have time later on I might try to write some more about that. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you SheffieldSteel I will just leave it for now and watch for future problems!! RetroS1mone talk 16:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

RE:Obama

Thanks for your comment there, hopefully you'll calm things down. I'm pretty clearly losing my temper, so I'm glad you spoke up.--Tznkai (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. Luckily, you caught me on a good day (see harassment thread above).  :) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

ACORN

You promised that once consensus had been reached, you'd make the edit and remove protection from the article.[10] Consensus has finally been reached, with essentially the same text that LotLE was reverting. Please make the edit and remove protection. Thank you. Kossack4Truth (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but after a quick run through the talk page, I couldn't find a discussion where consensus was reached. Please be more specific. I do see one active {{editprotected}} request (which any admin may take care of, incidentally) - was that the change you wanted to make? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

That's the one. Bali ultimate, Grsz and LotLE are the only ones objecting. Nine editors have stated their support, but two (GoodDamon and Magnificent Clean Maker) have expressed their opposition to the idea that consensus has been reached, not to the edit itself. So the "vote" is 9-3. 300wackerdrive (talk) 17:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sheffield: You've been great so far. This was yet another premature declaration of consensus (by a user whose just come off a long block, no less, and shares precisely the same interests as the other past editors who have prematurely declared consensus). Best and go well.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Sheffield -- it is my opinion that these ongoing claims of consensus reached and misrepresentation of what's going on at the talk page (notwithstanding the fact that it isn't a question of "votes" to begin with) is constituting a new source of disruption. I'll also note that wacker and friends have been editing others comments, re-editing, re-arranging material, etc... so it's hard to get a sense while there of what's been going on. Best and thanksBali ultimate (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I would add myself to the users who object on procedural grounds that we should not declare consensus here. It is hard to raise them without making an accusation so I will try to be as mild and non-specific as possible. There are legitimate concerns about the legitimacy of many of the accounts participating, an issue that would be hard to resolve (and is not worth resolving IMO) in the context of a vote over a relatively minor but contentious edit to an edit-protected article.Wikidemon (talk) 18:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I've said it before and I'll say it again: when evaluating consensus, we consider not only the number of editors supporting a particular position, but also the weight of their arguments in relation to Wikipedia policy and guidelines. To be honest, I don't think I am likely to make the mistake of prematurely declaring consensus at that page. Another admin might, of course, but replying here isn't going to prevent that. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect it's a little more complicated than that. First, weighing some determined editors' arguments above others is only practical for someone in a privileged position to arbiter things. From the perspective of one participating in the discussion, it would be hard to declare that one's position reflects consensus even though it's in the minority because that essentially boils down to re-stating the argument. Second, it may be a fluke but in my opinion the SPAs have the better argument on this edit. Be that as it may, there is opposition from established editors. Third, this is a simple case without much harm to the encyclopedia either way. It is curious that all of the accounts have come to this little eddy of an article. If they reappear on Barack Obama or another crucial article we will have a serious problem and possibly return to the chaos from this summer. There is some private communication in this regard that looks troubling.[11] Incidentally, you are probably aware of this by now but an AN/I report has been filed over this: WP:ANI#ACORN again. This needs to finally stop..Wikidemon (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)