Jump to content

User talk:Alienus

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Timothy Usher (talk | contribs) at 20:45, 2 July 2006 (stark and shameless disparity). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

  • I have reviewed this unblock request including the context, and including reviewing the talk page in question, stepping through the history. While it is true that you are not the only person saying less than perfect things in your interactions, it is my judgement that you tend to exacerbate situations rather than work to make them calmer. You have been counseled about that repeatedly and I see no change in that pattern. Therefore I decline to lift this block as I find it justified. I am not going to remove the unblock request, to allow others to review it as well, as they may judge differently. However I will not look kindly on removal of this comment of mine until either the block expires, or is lifted. Removal of it prior to that would be wrong as it would deprive other admins of the knowledge that another admin has reviewed this and declined to lift the block, so if it's removed, expect an extension of your block, or protection of this page, forcing you to communicate by email. ++Lar: t/c 16:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Full disclosure: Lar and I are not strangers.
I had a spurious block by Tony Sidaway, which was eventually overturned. During that time, I put up an unblock tag which was answered by pschemp, a buddy of Lar's. I followed up with pschemp to point out that the block she refused to overturn was in fact overturned by others, and her only response was to remove my civil remarks repeatedly [1]. Others found pschemp's actions unreasonable and started reverting her reverts, and then Lar commented in support of pschemp [2].
In short, Lar might not be the most impartial admin out there. Al 16:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strangers or not, whether you personally find me impartial or not, I nevertheless view it as true that you exacerbate rather than ameliorate, just as you are apparently doing right here, right now. Really, you should consider a change in interaction style, as you've been counseled many many times. The fact that there is a civility banner here suggests that there's something you could do differently to reduce the amount of conflict here. Most of those you apparently consider gathered in a vast conspiracy of friends against you don't seem to need civility warning banners. None of that is about me, it's all about you. Any administrator contemplating lifting this block would be well advised to discuss it on AN/I first. This comment too, should not be removed, and is subject to the same admonition as above about consequences should it be removed... ++Lar: t/c 16:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, nobody's going to remove anything. This is my user page, not pschemp's.
It's easy to accuse people of incivility, but accusations are just that. A competent admin knows that the existence of warnings does not make the warnings valid, nor does the existence of blocks make the blocks valid. Instead, they judge on the merit of the case alone, looking at the full context. Or so I'm told. Al 16:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, you mention discussing this on AN/I first, but I didn't notice a section there about this block. Perhaps I'm not looking in the right place or perhaps it's just not there. Al 17:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pschemp removing your harassment, and your potentially removing answers to your unblock that other admins should see are completely different things as I am sure you are well aware. To your second paragraph, I agree with the principle. But it's not the specific incident that earned you this block from Will, but rather the pattern of incivility you display, including on this talk page, that earned it. And I have reviewed that pattern, and concur with the block. I've now documented that at AN/I (here) as it hadn't yet had a thread started. In my view this block should stand and I see nothing that you have said or done that would change my mind, or change my view in general at this point, assumption of good faith notwithstanding, that you're a tendentious editor that exacerbates conflict. Heck, at this point even GTBacchus seems to have written you off as a hopeless cause for the most part. When he goes that far, the situation is grim. You need to internalise a need for a change in behaviour or your blocks will just get longer and longer, which would be too bad, as you do seem to have valuable contributions to make. But the encyclopedia is larger than any one of us, and no contributions are so important as to give a free pass to editors that act incivilly. ++Lar: t/c 17:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Holding admins accountable for their decisions is not harassment. Removing good-faith posts about such decisions is entirely unacceptable. Moreover, if I removed this from my page, you could just Protect it to stop me. It's good to be an admin, eh?
Will didn't block me for a pattern of incivility, he blocked me for a pattern of warnings about incivility, and warnings are just accusations, not facts. Will, like all too many admins, took the easy route by deciding on the basis of the meta-data, not the data. He didn't dig into the facts, he didn't stop at a warning and wait for explanations and he's never going to admit he dropped the ball.
There are editors who never ever get warned, much less blocked. Then again, there are editors who never get the least bit involved in controversies, whereas my entire role here on Wikipedia involves controversial articles and topics. My self-appointed task is to preserve good text that people want to censor and to remove bias wherever it appears. In this context, being accused of incivility is par for the course, not a symptom of a problem.
As for a free pass, Jossi sure got one for the remarks that I responded to. It's good to be an admin, eh? But I'm repeating myself.
Oh, and the template you're looking for to replace "vandal" is "Userlinks". Al 17:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock denied. You have a history of personal attacks, and calling someone an 'edit warrior' is just that. --InShaneee 18:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, you're going to have to block most of the admins on Wikipedia if you're going to be consistant. Calling someone an edit warrior is an accusation, but not a personal attack. Blocking me, however, is a personal attack. And, yes, it's personal because you arer by no means an uninvolved, impartial observer. In fact, you've done this exact trick before. It is patently obvious that your decision is invalid. Al 20:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. If only everyone would get blocked for calling someone else an "edit warrior"... but wait, then we'd lose half of Wikipedia's Admins. Ok, I guess you're right. romarin [talk ] 18:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have had worse said to me by others and have put it down to a learning experience. I also have been effectively bullied by other editors who seemed invisible to the admins. The warnings by Tony Sidaway are worthless as he has nothing short of wikistalked Al and made it his personal task to sort him out.[3] He also called Al an "edit warrior" without getting so much as a slap on the wrist. [4] I hate to go down the same route as Al but I have not been impressed with the conduct of any of the the admins that have so far commented on the block. From previous experience none of them have shown the impartiality or clear thinking necessary to fullfil this role in a just manner. They exacerbate situations also - but this is much more worrying as they should be examples of conduct as admins. Al is an easy target as he does say the wrong thing sometimes and has upset some powerful admins by disagreeing with them on their pet topics. I avoid conflict where I possibly can but I'm becoming increasingly convinced that this is just giving in to the "playground bullies" and a bit of digging my heels in on controversial subjects would help to remove some of the systemic bias that is so prevalent. Al works on the sort of subjects that get heated and to be honest the level of comment I've seen is nicer than your average political party spat. As long as it doesn't get completly out of hand a bit of "growing up" on the part of some editors wouldn't go amiss. We make a big thing of the fact that Wikipedia isn't censored for minors and then get all squeamish about words like "edit warrior". Sophia 20:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult to see that there can be an adequate response to the diff Sophia presents, in which Alienus is himself labelled an "inveterate edit warrior". Also see GTBacchus' comments further down on this page, which present a much clearer example of incivility then either of these - one which would, no doubt, have earned Alienus a healthy block had it passed from his keyboard. I agree that Alienus personalizes discussions all too often, but the disparity in the application of policy in this instance is stark and shameless.Timothy Usher 20:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Usertalk-sprotected

This is the Talk page for discussing changes by Alienus

Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~), and give comments that start a new topic ==A Descriptive Header==, placing them at the bottom of the page. If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia. You're encouraged to create an account and look at the Tutorial, but feel free to just jump in and be bold, if you don't have any frequently asked questions.

Talk page guidelines

Please respect Wikiquette, which means above all assume good faith and be nice, and bear in mind what Wikipedia is not.

Welcome

Welcome to my Talk page. Please feel free to leave me messages here, but understand that I now delete much of what shows up. Al 02:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks

Do not use incivil language to refer to your fellow editors, such as calling them "snippies".[5] Terms like that make editing a hostile activity. You have been blocked for it before repeatedly, and I will block you again if necessary. -Will Beback 18:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete warnings from the community from this talk page. -Will Beback 20:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

That was my expectation, but it seemed you were getting a little grr-argh at someone, somewhere, about something. As such, I send you this stupid template to make you feel better:

Hipocrite - «Talk» has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Don't let the bastards grind you down. Take a break, it helps, I know. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

!
I'm not stalking you, Alienus. Really. Curiosity got me here based on a restored warning summary. Anyways... I noticed Hipocrite's edit and it reminded me of an edit I made to Chooserr's talk page. I was berated for it, as I'm sure you remember. Feel free to delete this. :) --Elliskev 20:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you visit Hipocrite's talk page, you'll see that it was just that glitch where text gets lost, and I restored it as soon as I found out about the problem. Al 22:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the 'bastards' comment. Very much like my 'jackasses' comment. Anyway... Hope to work with you productively (an olive branch). --Elliskev 23:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't write the bastards comment, but if it offends you, I'll remove it. As for olive branches, there's no need because I do my best not to hold grudges. If you treat me fairly, I will do my best to return the favor. Al 23:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't offend me at all. If it did, I wouldn't have made an almost exact duplicate of that comment on Chooserr's page. Just pointing out the irony and all that weird cosmic convergence stuff.
Re: holding grudges, I do. Hence, my olive branch. It's in preparation for the next time I lose it over something you do. I can point back at it and say, "SEE?!? Who's got a problem with civility?"
Hoping you don't take this for anything other than it is - --Elliskev 23:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then I'll accept your olive branch and keep it handy so I can thwack you over the head with it the next time you lose it. This violent irony should drive the point home. Al 23:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean WP:POINT, right? ;> --Elliskev 01:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, an olive branch is a blunt weapon, so there's no point to it. Much like most of Wikipedia. Al 01:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Wikipedia doesnt have any points. Its just information. I know that trying to create fair and balanced articles is very difficult, but thats the whole problem with information. One persons perspective can seem totally alien to anothers |-). I know personally I like seeing both sides of the debate on wiki no matter how crazy or illogical it may be. I personally think argument over a topic like Ayn Rand is excellent. I have absolutely no idea who she is, and the article gives me alot of information. But the heated debates give me so much more. Its like being in the same room with people when talking about something that are passionate about. Hopefully the wiki admins will see that, and people like yourself will always be there editing.--Dem 04:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they will, maybe there won't. There are certainly a few admins who'd like me gone, not to mention many users. Then again, I'm not uniformly hated, either, as my Wikistars testify.
In the meantime, I'm glad you're finding all this educational. If Wikipedia had a point, that would be it. Al 05:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS Email list archives

What do you think of this? Regards,--Doright

I think it's too specific and limiting. H-Net might offer particularly reliable mailing lists, but almost all mailing lists are reliable enough for citation. Al 23:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We pretty much agree on everything. If you recall, I've been trying to avoid narrow focus on "scholars," etc. (e.g., see my "Tiger Woods" analysis), but am trying accomodate others', albeit ill-founded concerns. Please change it to your satisfaction. I'm sure I'll be able to live with it. I'm getting tired of being the only one to revert it from the even less agreeable version. Regards, --Doright 23:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that it's worth compromising this far. Al 23:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of major philosophers

Your edit summaries about Rand don't help make it look like you have an open mind. It would be enough to say "Removed Rand - see unresolved discussion on talk page" instead of "removed Rand, and will do so forever". Forever is a long time... GRBerry 23:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Forever" is an overstatement caused by trying to fit into the limits of an edit comment. My stated policy is that Rand gets in only if she is in fact a major philosopher as per the criteria we have set up. However, at this rate, that's essentially forever, because she is routinely excluded in encyclopedic 1000+ philosophy surveys that cover all major philosophers and many minor ones. She is, academically speaking, a nothing and a nobody, not a major player. See the Talk history for more on this. Al 23:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Objectivism (Ayn Rand) and such

Indeed, I work for consensus, as you seem to. I can't speak for any of the other Objectivists (sorry, that's the term I'm used to using), although I know GreedyCapitalist from other parts of the web. I think he's an upstanding guy, new to the wiki, and gets frustrated when LGagnon goads him on, etc. The fascism remarks are particularly offensive, as I'm sure you can see. Although we do disagree, you and I seem to be the two coolest heads currently working on this article, so hopefully we can work towards a consensus. Crazynas 06:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be a good thing if we could avoid endless reversion wars, pointless fighting and the inevitable blocks. At this point, things are pretty tense, though. To be frank, creating that new article was not a good idea, and things aren't going to calm down until the issues brought up by that article are settled. Al 14:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Personal Attacks

Regarding edits such as these: [6] [7]; Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Paul Cyr 08:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I followed the links, but you must be seeing things there that I don't. In the first, I'm calmly discussing a heated matter, without ever attacking anyone, personally or otherwise. In the second, your boy Nandesuka had been violating WP:NPA by repeatedly calling me a troll, then deleting my warnings, yet my comment was still civil. Looks like a misdiagnosis on your part, so I'm going to politely ignore your warning as erroneous. The funny part is that this all came because I reported Nandesuka for his personal attacks. Apparently, you're trying to punish the innocent for daring to accuse the guilty. Lovely. Al 14:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those don't appear to be personal attacks at all.Timothy Usher 20:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how I got the first link (wrong paste probably) but from the second link, Clearly, you do not respect the rules you are expected to enforce, is a personal attack. As for your comment, you're trying to punish the innocent for daring to accuse the guilty. Lovely. Please see Wikipedia's policy on civility. Users who are repeatedly incivil may be blocked from editing. Paul Cyr 23:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He does sound a little prickly in diff 2, and it's arguably incivil, but it appears to be a comment on conduct, not a personal attack. If someone is alleged (rightly or wrongly) to not be respecting rules, that's conduct.Timothy Usher 23:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Saying someone does not respect the rules would be a comment on their character as well as conduct. Saying that someone's actions are not inaccordance with the rules would be fine, but saying they themselves don't care about the rules is a comment on the person. Paul Cyr 04:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't agree with that, and I'm the one who said these words so I'm in a position to know exactly what I meant. Any statement on behavior can be misinterpreted as a statement on character. Contrast this with Nandesuka's clear and repeated violations in the form of calling me a troll. I bet if I called you a troll half a dozen times, I'd be blocked so fast my head would spin. Please, tell me I'm wrong. Tell me there's a single standard that applies equally to admins and regular editors. Al 05:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nandesuka called me a troll about half a dozen times, then deleted a good-faith warning. This is more than enough reason for me to be annoyed with his behavior, yet my comment still fell well short of incivility. However, all the "troll" accusations were in clear violation of WP:NPA. In fact, the word "troll" is even used in the example of what a personal attack looks like. With all due respect, any attempt to call my comments uncivil or attacking while ignoring the blatant personal attacks by Nandesuka show that you're not looking at this carefully and impartially. Just for a moment, pretend that I'm the admin and Nandesuka was just some editor. Al 04:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I grant that Alienus has made personal attacks in the past, I haven't seen them anytime recently, and the diffs don't support it. If the point of previous blocks was to bring him into compliance, mission accomplished. This relentless persecution of Alienus has become unseemly.Timothy Usher 04:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the policy was that, once you've been blocked, you're fair game for all future blocks. How else do you explain the current block Tony Sidaway? Al 05:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for edit warring and incivility

Chaps, I blocked you both for this once before, and it seems we're back again. I've blocked you both for a period of three days. --Tony Sidaway 15:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's definitely an edit war going on, but it's not me versus LaszloWalrus, it's LaszloWalrus and RJII against everyone else. By "everyone else", I don't just mean non-Objectivists such as myself and LGagnon but respectable Objectivists such as Crazynas. It is not a matter of two unreasonable people reverting each other, but rather two unreasonable people -- LaszloWalrus and RJII -- reverting against everyone else.
The edit war itself is over a content issue, which is that these people want to remove a category that, while well-supported, is unflattering. In short, they are intentionally removing content so as to push their POV. If someone needs to be blocked, it's them. Their behavior violates WP:NOR, ignores consensus and is disruptive. LaszloWalrus and RJII have both done this before, and have not learned their lesson.
Given this ugly situation, I have done my best to remain civil and have been careful not to violate WP:3RR, which leaves us with the question of what justification this ban has. I think that my edit comments show my frustration, but do so in a civil manner. I would be interested to see precisely where you think I crossed the line, because I certainly made an effort to avoid doing so.
I would suggest that the block be removed entirely, since it appears to be based on your personal unhappiness with our behavior rather than the violation of any particular rule. With all due respect, it's impossible to know what will make admins unhappy, and there's so many of them, so the most that can be asked is that editors follow the rules. If you block editors despite the fact that they follow the rules, it makes the whole blocking thing arbitrary.
If you wanted to block everyone involved in the edit war, you'd need to take down at least three more people. And if I had been uncivil, then you would be able to specify just where. As neither is the case, this block is in error. The right thing to do would have been to give a warning rather than shooting first and asking questions never.
Fundamentally, this block is wrong because it's counter-productive. Unlike Laszlo, my edits on Objectivism-related topics are a small portion of my overall contributions to Wikipedia, so all you've done is demotivate a valuable contributor by forcing them out of action. This is not wise.

Al 16:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the block is not based on my "personal unhappiness" but on your behavior. A quick look at Ayn_Rand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) shows that you're both responsible for the bulk of the recent edit warring. There is also an ongoing civility problem between you two, typified by "there is a consensus; you lose, get over it" (LaszloWalrus) and "*sigh* the cult allegation is well-documented; please stop edit-warring against us; we have the consensus and the rules on our side." (Alienus), with both of you shouting at one another in edit summaries.
It's not about making admins unhappy. It's about treating one another, and Wikipedia, with respect. I blocked you for that three months ago, and I block you again for the same reason today. To give Wikipedia a rest, in the hope that the poison will not spread beyond the pair of you, and finally hoping that you will learn not to do this. --Tony Sidaway 16:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how Lazslo's comment could be uncivil, but not mine. While I clearly showed my frustration by sighing, I did not speak in an uncivil manner. My edit comment was in no way "shouting". And, in fact, if you look at the article talk page and Laslo's, you'll see that I brought up this issue repeatedly and tried to get him to stop removing content, all civilly.

Because you have not genuinely shown incivility on my part and because I simply did not break any rules, I cannot imagine what possible lesson I could learn from this except that you block for arbitrary reasons. Al 16:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can edit war without "breaking the rules". This is sometimes called "gaming the system." This doesn't mean that someone who blocks you when you do that is acting in an arbitrary way, it just means that you'd better stop looking at the rule book and start taking Wikipedia seriously. Shouting at someone in edit summaries is also very uncivil. I see both of you up to the same disruptive behavior you engaged in three months ago, and so I block you both again. --Tony Sidaway 17:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, you keep suggesting that I was shouting, but this is simply not the case. What distinguishes shouting is the extra emphasis, parallel to actually raising your voice. In this medium, it is conveyed by typographical means, including boldface, UPPERCASE or exclamation points!!! Sometimes vulgarities work, too.

Instead, the quote you chose shows a resigned, slightly frustrated editor audibly sighing before patiently reminding an edit warrior that they are violating consensus, WP:NPOV and WP:V. This isn't shouting or unicivil or anything bad. With all due respect, as far as I can tell, you just decided that my comments were uncivil and this ideosyncratic interpretation had no basis in part of reality that we all share. It was, in a word, arbitrary.

Edit wars often have clear agressors: people who make changes regardless of consensus. If you look at the history, you'll see comments by fellow Objectivist Crazynas admitting that "even though I agree with you , you can't do this without consensus", and "although it pains me to do this, LazoWalrus, the cat has to remain until proper consensus is reached". He wrote these while reverting LaszloWalrus' changes.

The fact that a bi-factional group opposed Laszlo and RJII shows clearly that they were violating the consensus and trying to force their view on the article. The only support the two got were from apparent sock puppets, such as Xyz90009, 172.189.140.151, 70.181.156.58, and JToH.

Of course, just because these two and their socks were edit-warring doesn't mean that the rest of us were. Whereas the two ignored consensus, the three of us all participated in building consensus on the talk pages, discussing the evidence that justifies the inclusion of the cult categories, and leaving warnings on talk pages with requests to end the war.

In contrast, neither of the two edit warriors could justify their changes, so they stuck to either repetition or insult, respectively. Despite this, I went out of my way to keep the peace, defusing hostility and avoiding personal attacks and incivility: this is the opposite of being disruptive. I also followed up on some of the socks.

Initially, you accused me of edit warring, and now that I've explained that this is not the case, you've retrofitted the new charge of "gaming the system". However, it turns out that this term actually means something quite specific, which does not apply to me.

The canonical example of gaming is doing 3 reverts in a short period, then waiting until just past the 24th hour from the first before doing another. My own favorite analogy is that it's like have a 100 yard restraining order and managing to remain 101 yards away at all times instead of just going away and leaving them alone. In short, "gaming" is defined is intentionally bordering a rule violation. Alas, I did no such thing, so this charge is just as mistaken as the previous one.

The last time I tried to get your help to avoid an edit war with Objectivists, I was arbitrarily blocked by you for 3 hours, then 21 more, despite not having broken a single rule. This is a pattern with you, Tony: you block too much and for too little reason. You are an officer of the law, not judge, jury and executioner. You shoot from the hip and think with your heart, acting on truthiness and not truth. Think about it from the other side of the table. If blocks do not follow clearly spelled out rules, how are people supposed to avoid getting blocked? You didn't even give a warning before acting, so this came out of nowhere.

Speaking of nowhere and arbitrary, my sole attempt at appeal was rejected by a Pschemp with the informative comment "reviewed block, agree". I think this speaks for itself, showing that you're not the only admin who works on truthiness. Al 22:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I consider this block to be entirely spurious. I do not accept it as legitimate in any way and I hold Tony Sidaway personally accountable for exceeding his powers. Al 04:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was convinced by the conversation at AN/I that this block was unjustified, and I have unblocked you. -lethe talk + 13:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Your actions have gone a long way to restoring some confidence in Wikipedia justice. Al 16:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome

It just makes me really upset to see admins abusing their power by acting out grudges, and this seemed to be one such case. Everyone has different ways of dealing with other editors they disagree with, and sometimes it seems like we're all expected to sugar-coat our language at all times just so we don't get in trouble with certain trigger-happy admins. I'm just glad that I was able to help out, both for your sake and for the sake of a more just Wikipedia. romarin [talk ] 18:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's something to be said for civility, but also much to be said for genuine respect as opposed to mere lip service. There are certain people who seem careful not to quite cross the line in terms of word choice, but aren't always fair, forgiving or just. Worse, some hold grudges and act out of spite, even weeks after negative interactions.
Anyhow, what concerns me more is that this ban removal might be the exception that proves the rule. Tony Sidaway is still an admin and he's likely to act on his instincts again. Perhaps more disappointing is this and that. Al 18:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well of all the..... anyway, I restored your original message on Pschemp's talk page. This is all just crazy. romarin [talk ] 18:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't pester her. As unreasonable as her response (or lack thereof) has been, it may well be that she recognizes her error but lacks the integrity to admit to it in public. If so, then shoving it in her face like this will only serve to harden her resolve and make her act just as unreasonably in the future. Al 18:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you're right; I'll just drop it. Got better things to do with my day anyway... :) romarin [talk ] 19:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your heart was in the right place, regardless, and that matters a lot to me. Al 19:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pestering User:Pschemp

Pestering other editors as you have done here [8] is not really a good approach. Your edits are bordering on harassment, Pschemp sees your message and doesn't agree with your assessment, as she has said. Please stop, accept that you may not agree, and don't edit tendentiously, or you risk another block. ++Lar: t/c 19:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I'm pestering. I have yet to undelete a comment that she has deleted, and I've even suggested to Romarin that doing so was not a good idea.
Having said that, I don't believe that admins, as public figures, deserve the same protections that regular editors do from unwanted entries on their talk pages. Their behavior as admins is fair game and any systematic attempt to suppress such corrective feedback is harmful to Wikipedia as a whole. Admins must be prepared to stand behind their decisions.
I have nothing civil to say about your unwarranted threat of an unjustified block, except that you can be sure that I will fight to have any such attacks overturned. Thank you for understanding and feel very free not to post here again. Al 19:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As an admin I will post on user talk pages as I see fit if the need arises, as it has in this case, your tendentious edits to Pschemp's talk page were bordering on harassment. I don't make unwarranted threats and I don't block unjustifiably, so please temper your words, or you will have completely justified any additional block you receive. Keep that in mind please and don't edit tendentiously in future. ++Lar: t/c 19:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent misrepresentations

On User talk:Paul Cyr, you described Nandesuka as "the only user who spoke out to support the block by Tony Sidaway that has now been removed for lack of basis." [9] That's a bit naughty, because you must know that it's untrue.

As you're aware, the block was also supported by myself and two other administrators, Pschemp (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [10] (whom you have since harassed [11] [12] [13]) and RadioKirk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [14] [15] (whom Romarin had specifically enlisted to review her complaint about my three day block of you [16].

The only admin who supported an unblock was Lethe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), who while continuong to maintain the my block was wrong, has expressed regret at his error in reverting a block without proper discussion and in the face of clear opposition [17]. --Tony Sidaway 00:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the time I wrote my comment (and until you brought it up), I was unaware of any review by RadioKirk. However, even they admitted that your ban was excessive. As for Pschemp, they have been singularly unwilling to explain their reasoning, if any, for supporting the block. Frankly, it looks like a typical admin-backing-another-admin rubber stamp, and shows no signs of the sort of evaluation that RadioKirk did. I find their actions unfortunate. Regardless, in no way did I harass her and I resent your contrary implication.
In any case, of the comments I saw on ANI, the only support for you came from Nandesuka, who has a huge grudge against me, while a number of other editors saw your block as inappropriate. Fortunately, one of them was an admin who was willing to do the right thing. Perhaps Lethe did not follow proper procedure, perhaps he did, but that's not my concern because I'm not an admin yet.
Tony, I'm sure you know that you have a reputation for acting before thinking and I'm afraid that this only strengthens it. You're not doing yourself any favors by striking out at me, particularly now that the matter is settled in my favor. In the future, I ask that you assume good faith with regard to my comments and consider that perhaps a warning has all the benefits of a block with few of the harms. Thank you for understanding and I hope our future interactions are less hostile. Al 00:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The view that you did not harrass Pschemp is not at all universally shared. Further I've reviewed the circumstances behind the block (having previously been uninvolved) and agree with Tony about it as well which is not really a rubberstamp, Tony and I often disagree, so I suspect that you'll not find too many admins that think your block was unjustified. With 1000, you might find a few, yes, but I suspect consensus is rather the other way. I think you would find it much more productive to concentrate on editing the encyclopedia instead of making statements, such as the ones Tony provides diffs for, which do not do a good job of representing reality. Lar 00:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alienus, you're simply wrong. Radiokirk allowed that the block might be excessive, and that he might have blocked for forty-eight hours. You accuse Pschemp of being "an admin supporting another admin" and yet this overlooks the fact that Nandesuka and Radiokirk also supported the block. Thus I correctly state that, when he acted, Lethe did so knowing that four other admins, including myself, opposed his action. And he did so without consulting me, the blocking admin or participating in the discussion in any way. Lar has added his voice to ours.

You claim that I have "have a reputation for acting before thinking." This is certainly not the case, and smacks of an extended bid for self-justification.

In the three months between my first and second block on you, you had been blocked five times by four separate administrators, all acting independently of me, mainly for personal attacks. You are on a very, very sticky wicket. Clean up your act and stop blaming the blocking administrators.

Time you stopped attacking the messenger. Your propensity for personal attacks keeps getting your into hot water, and you're running out of excuses. --Tony Sidaway 00:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a lot of admins. Some are good at their job, some are not. I've found it entirely counterproductive to spend my time justifying myself to the latter. Thank you for your comments and have a nice day. Al 00:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, are you claiming that all of the administrators who have ever blocked you were bad administrators?
I make the count eight including myself and the above five with the addition of Sceptre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Alai (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) each of whom separately blocked you for Wikipedia:Three revert rule breaches in February.
Do you claim that they were all bad at their job? If so, this does seem a little thin to me. The alternative view is of course that you have a marked propensity for abusive behavior. --Tony Sidaway 01:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I've explained above, I'm really not interested in discussing this further with you, as the matter is settled and continuing to chew over it does not appear to be at all productive. Thank you for understanding. Al 01:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "buddy" problem

I've noticed you using the same turn of phrase twice lately. You refer to someone, of whom you obviously have a negative opinion, as "so-and-so's buddy".

  • "Did you know, for example, that there's a pending RFC against me by Jayjg's buddy, JakeW?" [20]
  • "Moreover, her buddy, Lar, wrote some nasty things on my talk page and Romarin's, including threats of blocks." [21]

I just wondered whether you were aware of this quirk or oddity in your manner of referring to people. It could have the effect, in the contexts in which you use it, of making a naive reader believe that the two editors were acting as a pair to gang up on you, so it is probably best used sparingly. --Tony Sidaway 03:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes a buddy is just a buddy. Try to assume good faith and not read too much into things. In any case, it's heartening to see you take such interest in each and every line I write. It's almost like you're my guardian angel, or something like that. Alienus 03:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alienus, I will not hesitate to block you for WP:TOE violations if you don't watch it. ;) -GTBacchus(talk) 03:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GT, I love you! I sorry, but I can't hide the truth anymore. Let's run away together. Block me if you must, but don't you ever, ever leave me, you seething hunk of a man! Al 03:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll spell it out, in case you missed my point. You refer to Lar as Pschemp's "buddy" and you are clearly doing so in order to discredit his actions. You refer to JakeW as Jayjg's "buddy", and you are clearly doing so in order to discredit his actions. I suggest that you think extremely carefully about continuing in this vein. --Tony Sidaway 03:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, Pease do me a favor and don't mess with my signature. I know you have a problem with huge signatures, but mine is about as short and simple as it's going to get, and I use it on the recommendation of an admin who wanted me to make sure I wasn't mistaken for User:Al. Thank you. Al 03:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Al, can I be your buddy too? romarin [talk ] 03:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No! I don't know if I'm even allowed to use the nefarious b-word anymore. Just now, I was warned that it had deep meanings that I wasn't aware of and I can expect to be blocked if I mention it again.
I'm starting to become concerned that Tony is going through all the words I commonly use and systematically forbidding them. A moment ago, he took away my pretty cyan "Al", so I'm not sure what's next. Perhaps he'll have me type without the letter 'e'. Al 03:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, that would be a shame. "Alinus" just doesn't have the same ring to it, without that e... romarin [talk ] 03:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I can't sign "Al", as it is also on his list. As for now, I am trying to avoid using that thing that's not a "d" or an "f", and I can't mention. It's hard! I don't know how Wright did it. Al 03:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're down to "inus" now. So, inus, can I be your-- wait, do I have to stop using the b-word too? romarin [talk ] 03:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Bttr saf than sorry, though! inus 04:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, RJII, blocked briefly to stop sterile edit war on Randism

You're both being a bit naughty. Please take the time during which you're blocked to take a breather and consider that there are better ways to resolve a difference of opinion than tests of endurance. --Tony Sidaway 04:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guess I wasn't safe enough, so now I'm sorry! I hate to admit this, but for a little bit, I almost had the crazy feeling that I was being baited or that my every move was being watched. It was almost as if someone were out to get me, ready to use any excuse or even manufacture one. These bouts of paranoia strike me sometimes, but I try to get over them. Fortunately, I assumed good faith, certain that no sane adult could be that petty. Glad to see how right I was.
By coincidence, I was in the process of posting a notice on Ayn Rand and Objectivism (Ayn Rand), asking for more people to come to Randism and weigh in. Now I can't do that, so I'm just going to go to bed.
When I get up, after I take care of the Randism thing, I'm going to briefly note my protest against this block on ANI. I'm sure everyone following the action will want to know what's been going on. Wouldn't want people to get the wrong impression, would we? Al 04:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly wouldn't. You were unblocked and one of the first things you did was get into yet another stupid edit war. --Tony Sidaway 04:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, and your 3-hour block right before I went to bed was really a great solution. Whatever happened to talking to people, mediating compromises and getting everyone to cooperate? I'm going to bed now. We can discuss it in the morning, unless you extend my block some more. Al 04:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't tempt him, inus... I don't think I could get you out of another one! romarin [talk ] 04:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
H's right inus - h's bing a good <PA rmovd> to you by saying that. Sophia 10:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, if an admin really wants to ban you, there's nothing you can do to stop them. Even flawless behavior is irrelevant, as there's always something that can be misinterpreted creatively. And if the ban is so short that it's not worth disputing, the admin can be assured that they won't have to go to any trouble defending their action. Or that's the common wisdom, anyhow. Let's find out how true it is. Al 17:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al, that may be true, but you can't call your behavior flawless. Tony is right about "sterile edit warring" and about "gaming the system". You identified gaming a couple of sections up as only referring to "bordering on rules", but that's incorrect. Gaming the system is any violation of the spirit of the rules, while staying within the letter. Coming up with excuses to go ahead and revert repeatedly is edit warring, no matter how slowly you do it, or how much "consensus" is on your side — the spirit of the rule is "just don't edit war - leave the article in the wrong version rather than edit warring". I know about RJII, and he's difficult to work with, but there are ways to do it without getting caught out for edit warring. I doubt you'll readily agree with me on this, but please understand that I'm trying to help you keep from getting blocked, because I prefer when you're able to contribute. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's perfect. But if I'm not perfectly innocent, at least I'm not guilty. Nothing I've done here has warranted a block of any duration. As it happens, I had given up on RJII and went on to plan B, which was to post up adverts on both Ayn Rand and Objectivism (Ayn Rand) to get other editors involved. I think this action is entirely in keeping with the spirit and letter of the rules. Sadly, Tony blocked me and prevented me from defusing the situation myself, which was monumentally counterproductive and demoralizing.

Tony has to stop doing this already, as his actions are counter to the spirit and letter of the rules, and he's supposed to be an admin. Please see my recent post on ANI for more on this. Thank you for your concern. Al 18:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that soliciting broader input at related articles is a very good strategy, entirely in keeping with how I see Wikiedia working. Right now, the sun is shining, birds are singing, and I haven't yet visited AN/I today. I'm sure it will happen eventually, and then I'm certain to get all caught up (in whichever sense of the words). I must the the only person here to think that you and Tony Sidaway are both alright. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a much better strategy than, say, banning people who've broken no rules. Al 20:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So reading this thread what is more important - the quality of the encyclopedia or the rules? Sophia 20:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sophia, I'm not sure what the drive is of this apparently rhetorical question. Of course the quality of the encyclopedia is more important than the rules. How exactly are those in tension here? I apologize if I'm being dense... -GTBacchus(talk) 01:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See, I don't read this as a purely rhetorical question. To some extent, the existence of consistent rules is vital for the quality of the encyclopedia. Primarily, rules set expectations, which allow people to feel comfortable in the knowledge that they are acting within the constraints of what is acceptable instead of constantly worrying that someone will take offense and punish them. On the flip side, rules guide administrators in how to restrain themselves, inhibiting them from acting arbitrarily and thus sowing chaos.
Having said that, some ends do justify some means sometimes, so there are times when the rules need to be ignored. The rules are a means to an end, not an end in themselves, so when they fail to yield the consequences they were designed for, we must make exceptions. However, as per the associated suggestions, when we ignore a rule, we should err on the side of being more merciful, not less. Al 04:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alienus, I applaud you for endorsing and avowedly adopting a strategy of going to expand the discussion instead of continuing to edit war. I haven't got anything to add to GTBacchus' comments on the nature of the situation. On this matter, I suspect, we are as one. You are still prone to engage in edit warring and this is not acceptable on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 02:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you realize we disagree on this matter. Not the part about bringing in more people to end an edit war; here we happen to agree. Where we disagree is in your suggestion that I edit war too much. In fact, I edit war barely at all, and then only in the short bursts and in defense of Wikipedia.
Consider my very first block, which I "earned" by steadfastly refusing to allow some guy named Loxley to keep reverting to his highly POV version of an article. I put WP:NPOV above WP:3RR, and I'm proud of it. I didn't WP:IAR, but I did prioritize then. Not all rules are equally important, and rules can be in tension with each other, so we have to make judgement calls. I made the right one, in that my persistance paid off. Loxley's long gone and the article in question is in great shape.
These days, I'm not stuck relying on brute force. I have a deeper understanding of the rules, written and otherwise. But what hasn't changed is that I have maintained my sense of priority. Al 04:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now this is the problem. You thought that edit warring helped Wikipedia, and you still do. --Tony Sidaway 11:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I may be so bold, Tony, it really appears as though you are attempting to bait Al here, and that's just not cool. He has remained civil and explained himself thouroughly, and your incessant commenting on what his problems are is going nowhere. As I see it, the only legitimate reason for keeping this conversation going at this point would be if you were genuinely interested in learning about Al's motivations, why he does the things he does. If this is the case, your words do not reflect it. Your unwilingness to leave things alone at this point seems, rather, to reflect a desire to push as many buttons as possible, hoping that eventually he will fly off the handle, at which point you will have the immense pleasure of saying "I told you so". Well, I don't think that's going to happen, and I would suggest that you have told him how you feel about his actions enough already. Thanks, and I hope everyone has a great day. romarin [talk ] 13:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, wiggly little worm on the hook, how can I resist? Lumbricus terrestrius, most palatable of invertebrates! No bones to get caught between my teeth, but plump with the iron tang of dissolved hemoglobin. Oh, wait, Tony's been baiting me for days, and yet I've resisted. Guess I'm not a trout.
Look, I was merely describing my past actions and their motivations, not endorsing any specific course of action today. The take-home values of my story is that POV insertions are bad and should be resisted using all acceptable means. This Loxley fellow compared Daniel Clement Dennett — a mild-mannered, moderately liberal philosophy professor at Tufts — unfavorably with Hitler. His edits likewise reflected this overwhelming bias, compounded by a staggering ignorance of what positions Dennett actually takes. Loxley's response to any gentle correction was an immediate revert followed by flaming on the Talk page. Yes, I'm sorry I had to get us both blocked to make him stop, but I'm not sorry that he's gone.
We can argue ways and means all day long, but my goals remain the same. Go to my user page to see for yourself. Al 15:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Response to Romarin) No I don't think your idea fits the facts. Alienus has twice gotten himself into edit wars for which I've blocked him and the other party. In neither instance did I provoke that behavior. I've given alienus some well meant advice on some of the things that I think he's doing that, in the context of Wikipedia, are mistakes of one kind or another. The first is (obvious) edit warring. Another is his use of popups to do non-vandalism reverts. Another is use of language that might seem to be a personal attack. Alienus also has a history of getting into trouble without my help. He was blocked five times by four separate administrators, including on two separate occasions one-week blocks, between our two encounters in March and June. So no, Alienus doesn't need any provocation from me to get into trouble. And it's possible that by reading my advice and adjusting his behavior he may be able to avoid similar problems.
Not every content dispute is an edit war, not even if there are reverts involved. Sometimes I wonder whether you are too quick to judge and, particularly, to generalize on the basis of inadequate data. For example, you'd find some interesting things if you fully researched those blocks, which would not lend weight to your generalization.
Either way, Romarin is not nuts to think you're baiting me. Ever since your bad block got overturned, you've been living here on my Talk page and following my contributions. Perhaps it might clear the air if you stated your intentions instead of allowing us to draw our own conclusions. Thank you for understanding. Al 17:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but you're mistaken here, Alienus, about edit warring. We consider repeated reverting to be edit warring, in all cases but simple vandalism, and simple vandalism is defined very narrowly, so as to completely exclude content disputes. Pretty much ever doing the same thing twice is to be avoided. The best Wikipedians follow the zero revert rule. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also add to GTBacchus' comment, Alienus, that your actual behavior during the four instances in which I have blocked you for engaging in edit wars was very far removed from the ideal that you paint. Perhaps it's time you stopped lecturing and attributing base motives (Assume good faith, remember?) and started examining your behavior with a view to avoiding your habit to date of getting blocked several times per month. You've been blocked by (I seem to recall) seven separate administrators, so far. --Tony Sidaway 23:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of those areas that we disagree on. My actual behavior during the many instances that you blocked me has never been block-worthy. And, as I pointed out earlier, most of those other blocks make yours look justified in comparison. Al 03:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What makes an edit war is two parties communicating entirely by reverts. This is, to use Tony's term, sterile, in that there is no end in sight except a battle of endurance. Contrast this with cases where a revert comes only after a well-cited, good-faith justification is posted on the talk page, or where the reverted text sprouts a new citation. These are more fecund reverts, which distinguishes them from edit wars. They're disputes, sure, but not characterized by a reliance on force. From the outside, though, it's not immediately obvious whether it's barren or fecund. Al 18:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alienus, your comments on your way of dealing with Loxley are disturbing, but probably not for the reasons you think. --Tony Sidaway 17:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you're disturbed. Do worms freak you out or something? Al 17:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Tony here. There are so much better (and I mean more effective as well as ethically better) ways to deal with a POV Warrior than by warring against them, and you would do well to find out about them. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Communication would be improved if we all made efforts to address what is actually being said. I did not endorse edits wars as the only or best method, or even an acceptable one. I did suggest that motivation matters and neutrality is more important than rules of thumb that are intended to aid in conflict resolution.

Having said this, I have not experienced good results from mediation, and arbitration has been farcical. Wikipedia has some genuine and serious problems in the area of effective conflict resolution. I believe Dabljuh had some good points to make on this matter, although I don't necessarily agree with all of this conclusions. The point is that the system currently does not work and we need to improve it. Before this latest round of unnecessary and unjustified blocks, I was participating on policy pages to work towards a better system. Perhaps I'll do so again sometime. Al 18:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I didn't mean to imply that you had provoked Al's previous behavior (don't try to give youself credit for that), only that you seem to be baiting him at this time, mostly by insisting on repeating yourself again and again on this matter. We already know you don't agree with his actions (particularly as you have blocked him for them, on more than one occasion). Do you really think that beating this thing to death is going to change his ways? Besides, is that what you really want? What would Wikipedia be if everyone went about addressing conflict in the same way? Thinking along the same lines? Following every single rule to the anal retentive extreme?

On another note, I would like to thank you for leaving our signatures alone on this page. It is appreciated. romarin [talk ] 17:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen Tony accused of wanting people to "follow every single rule to the anal retentive extreme" before. Usually the opposite of that. Anyway, Wikipedia's not anywhere close to being in danger of losing itself in a sea of homogeneity, as far as editing behavior goes. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony certainly doesn't feel unduly constrained by the rules, nor does he hesitate to enforce his particular interpretations. Having said that, it's not clear that he's moved beyond the "bad doggy (whap!)" stage to one where he offers helpful advice and positive contributions. It would also be nice if he leaned back and offered people more personal space. Al 18:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Practical Joke

Hi-- remember me? we worked together on Cartesian materialism a while back. I just think you should know. Your practical joke has fooled me on at least four separate occasions. You would think I would learn, but I never do. Thank you for the laughs. --Alecmconroy 16:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do remember you. Sorry if my joke is excessively effective and hope you found it amusing, even the fifth time. Al 17:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you got me three times... even now it still gives me a start, but at least I stopped clicking on it! romarin [talk ] 19:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I could be more evil by placing it on THIS page, in addition to my user page. :-) Al 19:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you possibly be more evil? I'm not sure about that... romarin [talk ] 19:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is one of life's deepest mysteries, but I suspect that, as hard as it might be to imagine, I am capable of even greater evil than I am now known for. For example, consider me as an admin. Al 04:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Let's see: you've accused me of supporting a particular political ideology I do not subscribe to without proof, and you have acted as if my politics have any bearing on the discussion at hand. [22] jgp (T|C) 19:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be wonderful thing if politics had no bearing on how people voted regarding the proposed Objectivism POV fork, but this is simply not the case. As for personal attacks, there don't appear to be any, although I do note that you're failing to assume good faith. In any case, I've removed your mistaken tag. Thank you for understanding. Al 20:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use of popups to revert non-vandalism edits

Be careful when using "one-click" revert tools such as Popups. Because they don't allow you to enter a proper edit summary, they should only be used to revert Simple vandalism. This revert seems to be a revert of a good faith, if perhaps misguided or tendentious, edit. In such cases it's much better to perform a normal manual revert, and include a polite and informative summary. I also recommend making a point of using the talk page for each revert. Just spend a few minutes explaining why you performed the revert. This is much more effective that just reverting without comment, as you did here, and will almost certainly help you to avoid getting involved in more sterile edit wars. --Tony Sidaway 20:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An anon IP without a history came in and made a series of changes to the article, none with explanation and none conforming to WP:NPOV. Needless to say, they did not participate on the Talk page or otherwise seek to conform to consensus. When someone doesn't even offer a reason for their clearly negative changes, I have trouble distinguishing them from outright vandalism. In short, there was nothing to comment on except "rvv", which the popup's message is equivalent to. Thank you so much for your concern, though. Al 20:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you re-read the Vandalism page. And then re-read Please do not bite the newcomers. "rvv" would not have been appropriate since--as you remark yourself--the fellow had no history. We don't know whether he was vandalizing or simply correcting what he saw as bias in the article. Though I'd put good money on the latter. An edit you disagree with is not vandalism.
To keep Wikipedia a reasonably friendly environment, it's very important to avoid treating non-vandalism as vandalism, and to avoid reverts, except for simple vandalism, unless absolutely necessary. In which case it doesn't do any harm to explain why you are performing the revert. Preferably on the talk page. --Tony Sidaway 20:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that Al - we need to keep wikipedia a friendly place. Sophia 20:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of buddies make places more friendly! Romarin 20:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Newbie biting is not good. --Tony Sidaway 20:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a good thing that we have buddies, and a good thing to recognize their existence. Al 21:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The spoils of research

I thought you might be interested in this: [23] -- LGagnon 21:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but as it happens, I was aware of it. Al 15:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hey, just to let you know that I appreciate your hard work. :) Hang in there, old friend! It will be all over soon. -- infinity0 14:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do realize that RJII is an extreme case and may well wind up banned for an extended period. This would, on the whole, be quite just. On the other hand, he is just one of a seething pool of biased editors who will brook no disagreement on Randism. The fight to give the Rand-related articles any semblance of neutrality is ongoing and ultimately futile, at least under the current rules. Al 15:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The attitude seems to be that all people who engage in disputes are bad. But sometimes there is no choice; it is the lesser of the two evils. I am impressed and grateful for your resilience, however. :) But, please, remember that real life is more important that this; if you feel too stressed, take a break. Other people will fill your place. As for RJII, this may give you some comfort. -- infinity0 22:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Engaging in disputes is necessary, given that the alternative is to allow articles to slowly become corrupted by partisanship. It bothers me that little distinction is made between reverting demonstrably bad changes -- those that are nowhere near neutral, are uncited, or go entirely against consensus -- and inserting those bad changes in the first place. Al 01:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding: "Given that the alternative is to allow articles to slowly become corrupted by partisanship" and "...the lesser of two evils". I would suggest that there are far more than two options, and that it's not about a choice between edit warring and allowing articles to go to shit. I actually manage to help defend articles against bias and even improve them - without getting drawn into multiple reversions. The idea that you only have two choices - edit war or give up - is an incorrect idea. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you look again, you'll see that I spoke of engaging in disputes, not edit-warring. Edit-warring is not the ideal dispute resolution mechanism. Then again, RFM's have proven to be something of a joke so far. What seems to work is steadfast resistance to partisanship. Al 02:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, you're right, you didn't say edit-warring. I guess I still had some of your replies to Tony in my mind from further up the page. I don't think anobody on Wikipedia suggests that there's anything remotely wrong with "engaging in disputes". -GTBacchus(talk) 02:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Al 02:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we work together?

On the circumcision topic ... I'd like to redo the outline, add sexual effects information, and more informed consent (discord) information.TipPt 22:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As always, I support efforts to make those articles more neutral and comprehensive. As you can expect significant resistance, I suggest you start by doing some research to turn up reliable sources. Al 01:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Objectivism Cult

I'm confused why you're still arguing about this, Sarge is right and since you seem resonable and rational (I assume good faith). I'm not sure why you don't see it... I understand that you think this is an attempt to POV the article, but it's really not. Like the creation of the new article I created, this isn't ideological, it's administrative. Crazynas 07:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because I genuinely disagree with Serge. Also, pleease understand that decisions that may be merely administrative for uncontroversial articles tend to be hijacked to inject POV into controversial ones. Al 12:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent and unpenitent edit warring

I tried to warn you about this, but you're not taking it seriously. The following diffs show you edit warring on two different articles.

  • Scientology: repeatedly reverting non-vandal edits using popups, which gives no other edit summary than "Revert to revision X dated Y by Z using popups".

As you're a persistent and quite unpenitent edit warrior, I'm blocking you from editing Wikipedia for three days. --Tony Sidaway 02:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, and to think I suspected you of wikistalking me with the intent to block me on any excuse. Good thing I was wrong. Al 02:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since a recent block imposed on this editor for a repetition of egregious edit warring and incivility with LaszloWalrus was lifted by one administrator without discussion in the face of support by three other administrators, I would appreciate consultation prior to any modification of this new block, which is justified by a particularly shameless repetition of edit warring, in one instance aggravated by the repeated use of popups. about which I had earlier warned Alienus. --Tony Sidaway 03:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, it's interesting that you invoke due process, but it doesn't look as if you made a note on ANI admitting to this block. It would be interesting to hear your explanation. Al 13:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hundreds of blocks are issued every day. There is no requirement to list them all on WP:ANI. --Tony Sidaway 13:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly enough, no actual incivility existed outside of Tony's imagination. This is evidenced by his inability to find a diff that supported his claim. Likewise, no rules were violated by me this time around.
Over the course of some time, a small group of people vandalized pages under my protection. I fixed those pages, so Tony is punishing me under the guise of "edit warring". Clearly, he stands in the way of my being able to do my job here.
The big problem appears to be that Tony Sidaway is camping out on my Contributions page, in desperate search of excuses to block me. This is a particularly obvious abuse of admin rights, and I'll be filing an ANI in three days to get a restraining order on Tony. Al 04:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I actually looked at each link. All of them are reverts to damage done by either RJII or LaszloWalrus. Interestingly, Tony did not block either of them, even though both have extensive histories of bad behavior, and are known to be POV-pushers who censor anything vaguely negative about Ayn Rand. In fact, all of my reverts were to their attempts to remove well-cited material. As for RJII, he's in the process of getting a one-year ban. Two rogues in my gallery.

Note how these isolated diffs show changes to the article, but don't include the messages I posted on the talk pages to confirm that I was acting with the consensus of editors. Note also the omission of a case where a new editor came in, deleted a category, but then restored it after I politely asked him to.

It should be obvious from looking at all my edits that he's picking a view out of context to create the false appearance of edit-warring. In reality, I've been protecting the Rand articles from these two people, and now I'm being punished for it. It takes two to edit war, yet neither RJII nor LaszloWalrus has been blocked. From this, I must conclude that there is no edit war at all. In short, I do my job by reverting damage to articles and Tony pretends it's "edit-warring".

At no point was I uncivil. At no point did I violate WP:3RR. In fact, at no point did I do anything block-worthy. As far as I can tell, the main point here is to harass me with blocks until I either run away from Wikipedia or Tony throws me off, like my buddy, Dalbjuh.

Anyhow, I don't expect any admin to stand up to Tony, so I'm writing this for posterity. The truth is too important to let other suppress it. Al 04:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read Wikipedia:Vandalism. --Tony Sidaway 13:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

{{unblock|Once again, I broke no rules and Tony is wikistalking me.}}

Errr, edit warring repeatedly (Alai, Sceptre and William M Connelley have all blocked you before). POV inserts... I think the block is justified. Sasquatch t|c 04:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since I've argued with Alienus so much before, I'm probably the last person who should be expected to argue in his favour, but I'll do so anyway. The last case of Alienus being banned for "edit warring", using popups (as Tony noted), was on Scientology, where Alienus was simply reverting edits that were a hybrid of vandalism and POV-pushing. He was doing the same thing that any responsible editor would do. I have issues with Alienus' editing habits, but this is the wrong thing to go after him for. jgp (T|C) 05:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we've had our conflicts, but you're clearly willing to stand up for the truth, regardless of any personal issues. I appreciate your integrity and thank you for your effort. Al 05:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, except that I wasn't actually edit-warring. Next time, please do me the courtesty of checking the claim before drawing a conclusion. Thank you for your time. It's great that my one appeal was answered by someone unwilling to apply due diligence. Al 04:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and allow me to correct your misconceptions about my "inserting POV".
On Scientology, the Cults category had been there for a while. Only recently, Objectivism (Ayn Rand) had joined Scientology in that category, based on a number of books and articles by notable people who called Objectivism a cult. This is well cited and not the least bit POV.
Of course, RJII is big fan of Rand, so he decided to create a special new category, Alleged Cults, to hide Objectivism in. This would isolate it from all those other cults, so nobody would ever find it while, say, reading about Jim Jones. For verisimilitude, he moved Scientology into the same category, so Rand wouldn't be all alone. I suspect this was inspired by the fact that the Objectivism article mentions Scientology as being a similar sort of cult.
RJII's goal was to damage Wikipedia by removing information. This is not a content dispute: it's vandalism in the form of censorship.
In short, this block is unjustified. Al 05:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the Alleged Cults category has been deleted. Looks like I'm not the only one who noticed RJII's vandalism. Al 05:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I looked at the second set of diffs. The first three were restorations of the Cult Leaders category. As it happens, this is undisputed. We have citations to books and articles by notable people who explicitly call Rand a cult leader. Even the people who are disputing whether the Cults category belongs on Objectivism (Ayn Rand) or Objectivist movement aren't disputing the cult leader category. In short, the removal of the cult leaders category went against consensus, so my restorations were correct.
The last diff in the second set is the restoration of Anton LeVay as a person influenced by Rand. This is likewise well-cited and uncontroversial.
Once again, I fought against vandalism and I'm being punished for it. I should get a reward instead. Oh, wait, I already did. Check out my user page and you'll see that I got a Defender of the Wiki Barnstar for my work on Rand articles. Al 05:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The question isn't whether your edits were justifiable or were with consensus, it's whether you were edit warring. You were undeniably edit warring. You shouldn't do that. You've been blocked so that the articles in question will stand a chance of not being in turmoil now and in future owing to your aggressive and dieruptive editing. --Tony Sidaway 19:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was not edit warring and your block is invalid. Al 19:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I gave eight diffs showing that you were not just edit warring, but going mad at it, on two separate articles. I accept your criticism that I don't go running after RJII (on whom I've imposed a simultaneous block with you) and LaszloWalrus (on whom I've imposed two simultaneous blocks with you). You're all problem editors. RJII is on probation, so he's under control. LaszloWalrus is as bad as you are but he doesn't moan that he's being hard done-by. You edit war but you think you're helping Wikipedia. I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works. Never mind, I'm here to give you a lesson. --Tony Sidaway 00:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


File:Wipi.png



Uh-oh... someone's getting out the whips and chains... (Did you know there was something called Wipipedia? I'd never heard of it before!) romarin [talk ] 00:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, you just admitted that you're out to teach me a lesson! This is incompatible with your job as admin, which is to help make Wikipedia better.
Go away and pester someone else. Block me for a year for being "uncivil", but go away and don't come back. You are not wanted here. There is no lesson you will ever teach me except that Anthony Sidaway is unworthy of my respect, and that lesson has been drummed in for life. Now go, go, go. Bye! Al 06:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tony - the only person warring here is you. I first became aware of you during the nathandotcom signature debacle but this has confirmed that you are out of bounds and need help to curb your excess of enthusiasm for correcting other wikipedians errors. I may be an atheist but the Christians have some good lines and the one about "take the plank out of your own eye" comes to mind at this moment. Sophia 09:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia, thank you for being the voice of reason here. As you said, Tony has gone way past the bounds of what an admin is allowed to do. He's making this entirely personal and is at the point where he's just hanging around to harass me and dream up excuses to block me further. I assumed good faith, but I can no longer do so with regard to Tony. It is painfully clear at this point that the only person who needs to be taught a lesson is him. In specific, he needs a lesson in how to be professional and just. If he can't learn that lesson, then perhaps he'll learn some humility after his sysop bit is cleared. Tony, as soon as this block is gone, I'm going to demand that you be removed from your position. Thank you for understanding. Al 10:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't edit war and you won't be blocked. It's that simple. --Tony Sidaway 13:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that simple, not anymore, and we all know it. Sophia is right-- you seem to take it upon yourself to correct others where there is really no place for you to do so. Having said that you are here to give Al a lesson was really the last straw, as far as I'm concerned. We're supposed to be equals here! Just because you have a few more powers to abuse than we do does not give you the right to play dictator. You're going to have to stop at some point. romarin [talk ] 14:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dealing with disruptive editors and preventing them from turning Wikipedia into a mass of edit warring is part of my job as an administrator. --Tony Sidaway 14:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only disruption here, Tony, comes from you. If you had done your job, LaszloWalrus would have been blocked, RJII would have been long-ago banned, and I'd be editing right now instead of researching how to take away your sysop bit. You are no longer acting as an admin, but rather as a bully with a personal grudge. Al 16:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, Al and I have had strong disagreements in the past. Looking at this page, here, I am seriously worried, Tony, that you are taking your policeman's role to crusade levels, and are being unfair to Al here. All admins deal with disruptive editors. Some can be so tactful as to unless at the role. Some can be so tactless as to provoke an extreme response. You see to be too much in the latter camp, and even if being right on the initial issue (I'm afraid I don't know the original issue here, so cannot say who is right or wrong) can handle the situation so clumsily that you make a bad situation worse. We all do it on occasion. We all make human mistakes. But you seem to be doing it not in the occasional once off (for which when we do it, we look back and think "oh shit. I cocked that one up") but all the time. Hardly a day arises but somewhere you face accusations of being heavy handed and provocative. Maybe you should take a week off, or spend a week without using to admin powers. At this stage you are doing Wikipedia more damage than good by constantly causing the very disruption that you should as an admin be policing. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 17:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've been misled by Alienus' handwaving. He's an inveterate edit warrior. --Tony Sidaway 14:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jtdirl and I have had major conflicts in the past, and Timothy Usher is hardly my number one fan, so what do you think it means when these people are coming out of the woodworks to defend me? Take a hint. Al 00:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, Al and I have had major conflicts in the past. And yes he does sometimes edit war (I know that from personal experience). But if I think he is being wrongly treated I will still defend him (just as if I thought you were being wrongly treated I'd defend you. I have clashed strongly with Cyde one week and defended him the following week, and another user some months ago with whom I had clashed I am now defending against harrassment by a stalker). I think you are mishandling the situation and in this case being unfair to Al. Maybe some other admin should step in to the role you have been playing here and let you step back. Al is right: the fact that critics of his like myself and Timothy are defending him here should clearly be sending a message. I don't doubt that you are well meaning in your actions, but I do think they are wrong. Seriously mate, stand back. If Al starts edit warring other users can deal with it. Right now you are too emotionally committed (we Admins get that way sometimes in trying to defend Wikipedia) and that is affecting your judgment. Give Al a break. If he oversteps the line, let someone else deal with it. Your behaviour here is being counterproductive and causing far more disruption than you think he has caused, and which drew your response. Just step back. Seriously. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There will always be people we disagree with. This is unavoidable. However, disagreement can still occur within the framework of genuine mutual respect, free from hostility, grudges and disrespect. This fairly characterizes our disagreement, Jt, as well as my disagreement with Tim.

However, it looks like Tony's disagreement with me is of the counterproductive sort that lacks some or all of these attributes, which is unfortunate. I don't know of any cure except distance. Tony absolutely has to walk away and let clearer minds prevail. Whatever I do on Wikipedia, good or bad, there are hundreds of other admins who can make sure I do no harm. Tony's involvement is unneeded and, at this point, harmful. Al 02:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

Okay, I think I'm willing to unblock under a couple of conditions.

  1. Don't edit war. Period. Getting your way up on the page for a few minutes doesn't solve anything. As you saw, the category got deleted anyways and we have other channels. And you have been blocked more than your fair share in the past for edit warring.
  2. Despite how unfair you think your being treated. Stop this pseudo "hey look, Tony has a personal vendetta against me" bullshit along with the whole "censorship" stuff. Frankly, if you're going to be that combative, it tends not to help at all. I don't think threatening Tony does anything productive, nor does saying that I'm not dilligent at doing my job. If you think it does, then you just go on ahead but I can almost guarentee you other admins won't be too happy about it either.

That being said, I will unblock you if you promise to stop the editwarring (I think that was Tony's main point here). Stick to the WP:1RR, especially on highly contested pages. You are not the community, the community is. That sound fair? Sasquatch t|c 17:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree to stick to WP:1RR on Objectivism-related articles (which, due to context, includes those of other alleged cults, such as Scientology and the Moonies) until the end of the month. By then, RJII should be gone, leaving only LaszloWalrus as a serious threat to the peace. For the month of July, I'll stick to 2RR. This will give me time to bring in more people from outside, to counter the local accumulation of Randist partisans who keep censoring any information that makes Rand look less than perfect. Better that the community do the reverting than for that burden to fall on me. After July, I hope that the number of reverts naturally drops below one per day and becomes a non-issue.
Regardless of whether this block goes through to the end or is lifted now, the real issue is whether I'll be free to continue contributing afterwards or whether I'll face further hair-trigger blocks. The threat of the latter has a chilling effect. Fairness dictates that whatever expectations the admins have must be made explicit, so it's actually possible to decide whether to meet them. To this end, I have two suggestions:
1) To avoid misunderstandings, let's agree to a policy of warning before blocking. Accidents and misinterpretations happen, despite our best efforts, and it's better all around for me to undo my own revert than to get blocked for it.
2) Tony has to just walk away and let cooler heads prevail. Until he's calmed down, he must recuse himself from any case involving me. Al 19:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll talk to tony a bit on IRC maybe. But yea, meh, you seem like a decent person. Unblocked. Sasquatch t|c 22:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the unblock is appreciated. What will matter in the long run, however, is whether Tony will in fact back off. I just want to go do my thing, without having to look over my shoulder. Al 03:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alienus, don't pretend that you were not warned about abusing Popups. And I note that even after the block you claimed falsely that you had not even breached the Three revert rule. --Tony Sidaway 14:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, why are you here? What possible good do you hope to accomplish by your actions? You've blocked me three tims in quick succession, and all but the 3-hour one have been unblocked before running their course. Doesn't this suggest something to you about the validity of your blocks? Al 00:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever misdeeds Alienus may or may not have committed - and honestly, I'm having real trouble seeing them - it's plain as day that Tony Sidaway should step away and let someone else handle them. The fact that successive blocks aren't sticking - these against an editor with an impressive block log and no shortage of enemies - and that people who only very rarely agree with Alienus are popping up left and right to defend him from a respected editor of Sidaway's stature can't - and doesn't - mean nothing.Timothy Usher 04:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wel this block stuck to my satisfaction. I've no problem with Sasquatch's unblock. The people popping up and defending Alienus seem (like you) to overlook his persistent and edit warring and abuse of popups. --Tony Sidaway 14:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see why you would be satified having your blocks consistently overturned. Moreover, I fail to understand how you could miss the obvious message that this sends. So, as an act of charity, I will spell it out for you: Your blocks are being cut short because they're unjustified. The conclusion that follows from this is that you should go away and stop blocking me. Al 00:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well you're saying here that my blocks are "consistently overturned". Obviously that isn't the case. A recent block was, I agree, overturned without discussion by a single admin in the face of the support of four admins including myself. Well it was a little unorthodox but it wouldn't have bothered me at all if you had behaved yourself thereafter. But you continued edit warring. The most recent block was terminated to my satisfaction by your agreement to behave yourself. You're a good fellow, I know you can keep it up. --Tony Sidaway 03:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a part of "Tony has to just walk away and let cooler heads prevail. Until he's calmed down, he must recuse himself from any case involving me" that just doesn't make sense somehow? romarin [talk ] 14:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The part that's unclear to me is why Tony is still following me around like my shadow. Al 00:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's because I'm an administrator and you're a problematic (but potentially useful) editor who is acting in a rather disruptive manner over a range of different articles, and has a history of personal attacks. --Tony Sidaway 02:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's problematic here is your behavior. You need to go away and find someone else to shadow. You have nothing positive to offer here. Al 02:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well no. I'm not shadowing you. In fact you completely dropped off my radar between March and June, when most of your long blocks for personal attacks occurred. I only came back into your life when I noticed that, yet again, you had gotten yourself into a silly edit war with LaszloWalrus. All the blocks in between, you may notice, were made by other administrators. --Tony Sidaway 02:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring requires two people. You *must* look at who and why Alienus is edit-warring with before deciding whether he is in the wrong. Alienus was edit warring with RJII who has now since been blocked indefinitely for quite impressive stuff. I would think that AI was merely responding to the crap that RJII was doing, for the benefit of wikipedia. Alienus has done the stuff he has done because he believes that he truly helping wikipedia. Sometimes WP:AGF would be better extended to the people it needs to be extended to. -- infinity0 23:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Absolutely. I've usually blocked Alienus in tandem with one of two other editors: LaszloWalrus and RJII. Those editors may be prone to edit warring, but as you say, it takes two. If I block an edit warrior, I at least consider blocking the other edit warrior too. --Tony Sidaway 02:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retaliatory edit not welcome

For the record, your obviously retalitory edit to Prem Rawat as we are discussing the "cult leader" categorization of the article Ayn Rand is not welcome. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. We clearly disagree about what constitutes a cult. Of course, nobody inside a cult ever says they're in a cult, just as nobody who runs one ever admits to being a cult leader, so that makes it necessary to rely on citations from outside. Al 04:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a look at http://www.ex-premie.org/, you'll see that you've been accused of being a cultist. This makes your attempt to remove the Cult Leaders category a bit problematic, to say the least. Don't you think? Al 04:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That website accuses me of many things, as they do not like my POV (to say the least.) They also accuse Wikipedia to be for the feeble minded and the lazy, and they promote countless conspiracy theories against several WP editors. So what? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I agree about Wikipedia. Sounds like there is much wisdom on this site. Al 04:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that is what you think of Wikipedia, what are you doing here editing it? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Making it suck less. Al 04:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By looking at the comments on this page is seems that you are making it suck more. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Making it suck less overall requires making it suck more for those who currently make it suck. Al 04:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has got to be one of the funniest edits I have ever seen :) Sophia 21:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should it make it my motto. Or epitaph. Al 22:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I take that as a compliment. And please rmain on topic on talk pages and do not use my declared affiliation as part on an argument in talk pages, that is impolite, and in contradiction with policy. See WP:NPA. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very much against personal attacks, but I'm very much for full disclosure of possible biases. My motto is to let people know all the facts and trust them to make the right decision. Al 04:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My bias is cleary described in my talk page, as you found out. And do not ask me to assume good faith, when you do not show much of that around. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just oozing with good faith. Al 04:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And because of that, I am removing your page from my watchlist. And thanks for listening and refactoring your personal attack from the CfD discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_26#Category:Cult_leaders. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a personal attack, but it seemed simpler to refactor than argue. Al 04:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A friendly warning

Alienus, please watch your civility, particularly the edit summaries. "Never argue with cultists" in particular amounts to a personal attack. --Tony Sidaway 12:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is also not the most civil edit summary. AnnH ♫ 13:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't there a Wiki essay somewhere about having a sense of humor? If anyone knows of one, I'd love to get the address, as I think it would come in really handy around here. romarin [talk ] 14:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It warms my heart to know that so many friendly admins are watching my every move, ready to pounce on me for their interpretation of a violation. This outpouring of good faith, fairness and personal integrity reaffirms my confidence in the ultimate rightness of the Wikipedia project. Jimbo is surely a god among men to have created such perfection out of the flesh of mere mortals. Al 16:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you could remain civil and avoid edit warring, you wouldn't have attracted our attention. This is our job. --Tony Sidaway 18:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last I checked, it is not your job to dog the steps of users who you have had interactions with previously. It is my feeling that you would do best to heed the advice of myself and others by backing off and letting one of the other 800 admins do their job. Your personal role is neither necessary nor advisable. Al 18:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain what you mean by this? You aren't, I hope, accusing me of being involved in a content dispute with you. --Tony Sidaway 22:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cool it, guys. Tony, Let some other admins deal with Al for a while. Al, stop making comments to provoke people. That edit summary Anne mentioned above was uncalled for and provocative. (You were lucky it didn't get you a block, even if only for a few hours. A lot of admins would have blocked you. Making such an edit summary is like deliberately giving a 'fuck you' sign to someone you have had a row with.) You don't help your cause by that sort of action. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't alter an AfD after it's closed

Please don't alter an AfD after it has been closed like you did here[32]. Thanks! Yanksox 21:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My error: I didn't realize that it was closed. Sorry. Al 21:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's ok, I've done it before when I used AWB. Yanksox 23:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppet of RJII

I suspect that User:Vision Thing is a sockpuppet of User:RJII. I've placed my preliminary observations here, and I believe this matter strongly requires further investigation. -- Nikodemos 23:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a credible claim. At the very least, Vision Thing is as horrible an editor as RJII, and that's reason enough to look into this more carefully. Let me know what I can do to help. Al 23:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of contacting other editors who were involved with RJII and collecting evidence from talk pages where Vision Thing picked up right where RJII left off (such as Talk:Anarcho-capitalism). -- Nikodemos 23:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll keep an eye out for Vision Thing on the Rand-related articles that RJII was so fond of edit-warring over. Al 23:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just had another thought: RJII clearly mentioned he was operating from an "Atlanta office". If Vision Thing's IP shows that he lives in Atlanta, I believe we can safely say he is a sockpuppet. Who can check user IPs? Do admins have that power? -- Nikodemos 00:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The few who can do a CheckUser are in fact viewing raw logs with IP's. You can mention that RJII admits to being in Atlanta, but that shouldn't be needed, since that admin would already know what IP's RJII has used. Al 00:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you are not me

Some opinions, once considered, must be dismissed. This is particularly the case when these opinions conflict with non-negotiable rules, such as WP:NPOV. The consensus does not have to be unanimous and we have absolutely no obligation to please all participants. Al 05:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you were talking to me but I am not Al. Something he is probably grateful for. --Anon 64 03:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

24 hours a day. Al 22:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Man, dont you ever sleep?!--Anon 64 00:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, my joy at not being you somehow keeps me awake. :-) Al 00:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To what do I owe...

...your sudden expression of gratitude? -GTBacchus(talk) 05:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To your helpful habit of adding handy links. Gotta love admin neutrality. Al 05:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alienus, what are you saying? Are you offended that I used the template {{vandal}}? I wish it weren't called that - it's the most useful user info template I know of. Do you think it's somehow less than neutral for me to help put together an RfC regarding you? Do you consider an RfC to be an attack? I don't. Any page of that nature should have those links there - what exactly are you saying? Stand up with a spine, and say it directly. I've always respected you enough to lay it on the line. What's up? -GTBacchus(talk) 05:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you were putting an RfC together regarding someone you had a problem with, I would do exactly the same thing. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that's an interesting question: Is an RFC an attack?

I don't know. Let's ask Dabljuh! Oh, wait...

In any case, if I had a problem with someone, an RFC would be my last resort, not my first. Al

Alienus, I really don't appreciate your implication of bad faith on my part. What the hell makes you think I'm going to support unfair action against you? Why would you be a dick to me? What have I done to wrong you, Alienus? If you have a problem with me, I want to hear what it is. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem with the idea that an RFC is anything short of an attack. Al 05:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I can see why you'd think that. I don't think the process was designed as an attack, and I don't think it has to be an attack, although I think they often come across that way. I think the best way to get something non-attacklike from an RfC is to take it in an non-attacking spirit from the start. You have so much power over what patterns you choose to accept, and frankly, if you take it as an attack, you've just assumed your role in that tango, and therefore you lose. Why accept the pattern dictated by those who attack you? Why not get smart, and think about changing patterns, and doing some dictating of your own? It's not easy, but it's what you want to do. Have you ever studied judo, or aikido? Roll with it, grasshopper. Redirect the force of the attack. Get smart about it. Read meatball:DefendAgainstPassion - your conflict resolution skills need work. Work on them. If you were smart, you'd go help put the RfC together, and catch them offguard by meeting them halfway where they didn't expect it. Disarm them by refusing to be attacked.
As regards me, why not ask me what I'm doing helping put together an attack against you, if that's the way you see it, rather than just throwing sarcasm at me? Goddamn, Alienus, you must really fucking hate it when people support you, because you make it just as unpleasant as you can. Congratulations, you found a button, and you pushed it. I hope you're fucking happy. You may give me a civility warning now. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why stop at a civility warning? I think it's time for me to file a full RFC on you, with the stated intention of clearing your sysop bit and replacing it with a blocked bit! :-)

Ok, fine, rather than draw my own conclusions, I'll ask: What are you doing helping put together an attack against me? Al 11:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's easy, dick. I'm not. -GTBacchus(talk) 14:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My name's "Al", not "Richard". Al 19:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blanked content

I have done some rewrite on this section. I appreciate your concern about Ken blanking sections, but most of what he deleted in the criticism section of Christian apologetics was unverifiable, POV, weaselly fluff (not surprising, since he wrote the content and he has a history of creating such content). I have removed much of it and rewritten the remainder. I agree Ken has an unfortunate tendency to blank things he doesn't like, but I find it encouraging that he is starting to see how his contributions need to be in line with Wikipedia guidelines and hope you will encourage him in this regard. The Crow 14:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're removing the text, then I'm fine with it. With Ken doing it, I had reservations for the usual obvious reasons. I've encouraged him to discuss such changes in advance, but he's not always entirely cooperative. Al 19:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise

Please take the apology that I wrote to Anon 64 as including you as well. My judgement was wrong and I was out of line. — Saxifrage ✎ 15:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's no problem at all, just a harmless misunderstanding that we've already resolved. Al 19:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for reverting vandalism to my talk page. I appreciate it. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 15:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help and sorry you were targeted. User page vandalism is childish. Al 16:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alienus,

Probably a simple misunderstanding here, but your restoration of the external link on the ID article was contrary to the talk page discussion found here:

Talk:Intelligent_design#.22Non-ID_perspectives.22_linking_concern

I will redelete the link with a full explanation on the edit summary. Sorry for the confusion. In the future, please read the talk page to avoid future complications. -- Joseph C. Campana 16:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If FeloniousMonk is ok with it, I'm ok with it. Al 16:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Abortifacient talk

You suggest we 'talk about it' regarding the distinction between state and federal law. That discussion is taking place on the Abortifacient talk. The discussion shows why a distinction confuses more than clarifies, as state law is always subject to any conflicting federal law. It's Civics 101, and to say 'federal' law suggests that the exception is at the higher, and not lower, level.

Additionally, my edit has been supported by some of the major contributors on the page despite the fact that they hold differing views on abortion from mine own.

--Almondwine 08:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for personal attacks

I just came across this personal attack on another editor:

  • ...you're a role model for how to succeed as an edit warrior without getting caught.[33]

Recalling that I'd warned you about personal attacks two weeks, I came here to object. I see that several other editors have made new complaints in that short time. If you cannot edit here in a civil manner then it's better if you don't edit here at all. Please take the next three days to calm down and before you return, please read WP:CIVIL. Civility is a requirement, not an option. -Will Beback 08:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picking a comment out of context is a great way of distorting it. Therefore, I've reproduced the full context below, including two sections that were deleted. Even Jossi knew his hands were too dirty to try to block me, so he reverted his own civility complaint. Al 15:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The context of your block, Alienus, is the littany of complaints on this talk page. I wouldn't have blocked you just for that one remark, just given you another warning. But the other complaints and warnings showed me that you don't understand our civility and "no personal attacks" policies. The block is not punitive. Instead it is a time-out, or a "stand-down" - an opportunity for you to cool off and rethink your manner of engagement. That time would be poorly spent arguing with other editors. -Will Beback 16:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And, in fact, you shouldn't have blocked me for that remark.

The other complaints and warnings are accusations, not facts. Look at the first one, in the section labeled "No Personal Attacks". It was soundly refuted. Look at the others and you find similar things. In short, you didn't actually bother to see if the accusations were true. Instead, you judged me as guilty simply because I was accused. Is this what being a thorough, careful admin is about? Al 16:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the entire notion that this isn't punative is a joke. Do you really think that doing this actually calms people down as opposed to pissing them off? Do you even care? This is a joke. Al 16:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Context

Let's look at the entire conversation. I'll help by pasting it here:

Jossi, if edit-warring is, as you say, a bad thing, then you should lead by example. Start by walking away from your edit war to hide all mention of the view that Objectivism is a cult. Show us that admins are better than the editors they ban, please. Al 04:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page is to discuss policy, not to discuss content disputes. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and this policy is about averting edit wars, so the fact that you're an edit warrior is relevant. Al 04:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before you call anyone "edit warrior", look at the mirror. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone taking a look at your contributions as of late will see a much clearer picture of an edit warrior. You seem eager to strike the word 'cult' from every article you touch, including the one about your Maharaji.

Anyhow, my point remains. You're here arguing about how well the rules stop edit-warring, yet you're edit-warring yourself and no rules stop you. You're an admin, so you should be an exemplar of proper behavior. Instead, you're a role model for how to succeed as an edit warrior without getting caught. This is distressing. Al 04:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]

If you have a complaint about my behavior, you are welcome to place a comment at WP:ANI. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion. I'll file it under "tilting at windmills". Al 06:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those slashed-out sections can only be found on the page's history. You see, after I wrote the comment ending with "This is distressing", Jossi went back and removed the section that ends in "Maharaji" and is shown above slashed out. Apparently, it angered him because it brought up the inconvenient truth that he is a longtime cult member and therefore unsuited to deal with allegations of Objectivist cultism. Since his "refactoring" damaged the flow of conversation, I fixed it by likewise removing the text that inspired my response, which is the slashed-out section starting with "Before you call anyone".

After daring me to file a comment on ANI, knowing it'd be ignored, Jossi left me a civility notice. But I suppose he then realized just how dirty his own hands were, because reverted it before I could respond and point out his duplicity [34].

In the full context, my remark was factual and no less civil than what I was responding to. Despite this, admin Jossi isn't blocked, but I am. Either my block should be removed or Jossi should be blocked for his comments: you decide.

As I said above, "Show us that admins are better than the editors they ban, please." Al 15:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is a longtime cult member. More personal attacks, Alienus? Same as "he is a homosexual", or "he is a Jew", etc. Discuss the articles, not the editors' afiliations, or your assessment of these. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a simple fact: You are in a cult and you run around edit-warring to hide the fact that cults do exist.

By the way, this is in no way parallel to being gay or Jewish. In fact, neither homosexuality nor Judaism are harmful and I have nothing against either. In contrast, it is in the nature of cults to control their members and suppress the truth, so cults are inherently harmful.

The simple fact that you're in a cult is entirely relevant because you choose to get involved in cult-related issues. You've been furious with me ever since I correctly added your Maharaji to the "Cult leaders" category. Your response has been to revert, revert, revert, like a good little edit-warrior. You stay under the 3RR like a pro.

And now you come here to kick me while I'm down? Buzz off. Go meditate or something. Al 16:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alienus&oldid=61737441"