User talk:CovenantD

Welcome!

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

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  RJFJR 15:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar award

I award this Comics Star to CovenantD for his great efforts on and contributions to comics related articles. You've showed up enough times in my watchlist by now to deserve this. Congrats! Kusonaga 16:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

FG intro

You added material to the 1st paragraph without a consensus recently at the passing of deadline. I am also updating the paragraph at the passing of deadline. Why the double standar? --Samuel Luo 05:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I was not aware that there was a consensus for those three words and that you waited for one day before making the change. I simply don’t remember a straw poll for it, can you point that out to me? thanks --Samuel Luo 17:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Dial-an-admin!

Hi CD. My suggestion would be to make a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard to get a 3rd party admin to help and add this helpful directory to your favourites for any future needs: [1]. I will be happy to 2nd your requests at any time. --Fire Star 火星 22:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Covenant

Give me a second to look through things -- Samir धर्म 06:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Looked through the talk page and I sandboxed the changes. I'd prefer it if you guys reached a consensus on the opening paragraph in the next two days, and then we can unprotect for a definitive version. I see nothing egregious in leaving out the references for 48 hours, but you are more than welcome to ask another administrator if they are willing to unprotect to make the changes. Please note that by no means am I endorsing any particular version, including the version that appears on the protected page. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 06:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Green Lantern edit

Right on. Kudos on all your continued efforts to keep Wikipedia encyclopedic. -- Tenebrae 18:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

On the falun gong discussion page

Hello covenant, since im a rather new member and i cant post anything on the discussion page and since you are the neutral editor then id like to post here some comments so that you can read and perhaps publish on the discussion page in case you consider it appropriate. I am addressing all the editors in this post but specially the critics.

I personally dont agree my comments should be just linked to someones talk page because i believe they are important enough to be posted directly on the discussion page, please read them in case you havent so that you can notice why i think they are important. I and other falun gong practitioners are considering to restructure my coments a little bit, adding more of each others opinions and views on the matter, reorganize them, divide them into subsections so that it doesnt seem very long and posting them on the talk page as falun gongs point of view on the matter.

Concerning the central concepts, what are we talking about here? are we talking about what are the central concepts of falun dafa or what the critics think are the central concepts? critics are here to criticize right? not to tell us what falun gong is all about, we know what it is since we are practitioners, its the system we practice.

i suppose you are asking for the core principles of falun dafa and if you are asking about that then you should ask a practitioner of course. If you want to know what the critics think, because they have the right to express their opinion and help out in the making of the article just like us, then thats great but this would turn into a debate topic also, what falun gong establishes as its core principles and......well..how are they going to post what the critics think are the central concepts of falun gong on the article, are you planning to post something like "Well, the critics think Truth, Benevolence, Forbearance are not the central concepts or falun gong, they say the central concepts are (quoting them) deception, intolerance of critics, Xenophobic and homophobic statements, Li thinking he is a god among all humans" what's this all about? how can you establish that as Falun Gong central concepts? is this really neutral? is this even a neutralized discussion despite the difference of opinions? in this last post i dont see the critics holding back on offending us the falun gong practitioners, whos following the guidelines in here?. If you want to criticize falun gong then you should save it for the critics and controversy subsection which i believe should be made in to a daughter page, we should also have the right to reply on this critics like i did on my comments for example.

Im not saying some of the Falun gong practitioners havent made mistakes regarding the respect for the rules of this talk page but this quarrel between practitioners and critics is going to end up making the reader think you are not taking this project seriously. Remember that whatever you write is read by other people and that is not only the person who you are referring your reply to. Ive already explained what we practitioners of falun gong think about your critics, please read my "rather lengthy contribution" so that you can see our point of view regarding your critics. Please, follow the guidelines and lets hope we can make a good job on this one.

Andres

Apology

Hi, Covenant. I think I owe you an apology if you are hurt by the word "deceptive". I am not a native English speaker and sometimes I don't have the right vocabulary to describe what I see. Also I feel you did not intentionally scheme the confusion. So I apologize. Fnhddzs 02:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Revert

I have removed the warning because it doesnt seem purposeful, or I am mistaken.

I think you may have done this accidentally?

I think you have restored the wrong version? It seems as if you reverted to a vandalised version so it appeared that you'd inserted the text. I can't see any source that suggests he's gay? If I'm wrong, please re-revert it by all means! Fyver528 19:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I'll revert it for you. Perhaps you could provide the references :). Just so you know, I'm not infallable and this isn't a personal attack on you. Fyver528 19:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Eh voila, c'est complet ;) Fyver528 19:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, you're helpful unlike most, for instance the Neo Nazi "Atlantean" who went crazy at me for reverting his racist edits. Since then he's been visiting my userspace and leaving me lovely messages. I think he's a complete nutjob just a couple of examples;

[2] [3] ..

Im not black for a start, but he doesn't need to know that. Fyver528 20:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and his IP originated from Poland, so you wouldn't have thought he be into idolising Hitler considering how many of them were murdered by the Nazis :S. He needs to be taken under the mental health act or something. Or sent to AtlantisFyver528 20:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

I appreciate your archiving the talk page as it was surely needed. However, you archived a discussion that is still running, with comments only a few hours old. So I de-archived it and put it back on the page. I suggest that next time you archive the page you try not to archive discussions that are still running. Mcconn 16:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Strange/"Fictional hero"

Just wanted you to know I rv'd the change made by User:Rorschach567 when he directed the phrase "freaking moron" at you. He doesn't appear to know WikiProject Comics style or the concept of civility. Let's keep an eye out. Hang in there, C.D.! -- Tenebrae 13:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not call any individual a "freaking moron." Perhaps my language was a bit too colorful but I was just pointing out that it's pretty obvious that superheroes are fictional characters, another redundancy I try to get rid of when editting overlong intros.Rorschach567 14:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm apologize if you took it as a personal attack. I was simply making a point. The "freaking moron" was not supposed to be directed at you or any other user.

Until this morning, the term "fictional" was not in the exemplar page thus I did not feel an obligation to "dozens if not hundreds of editors" to use it. Although I disagree with this point and will continue to state my case, I'll abide by it because I understand the importance of reaching such matters by consensus.

However, I am offended at wholesale reverts of my work simply because of this one small point. If you have some problem with the rest of the edit, be it a WikiProject Comics style issue or not, I’d prefer you state the reason why on the edit summary, talk page or my talk page, instead of flushing the whole thing down the toilet on the basis one small point.

Thanks for your time and attention. Again, I am sorry if I offended you. Rorschach567 14:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Research Into Health Benefits

Thanks for your kind offer on helping on references. I will ask you if I have questions. Fnhddzs 15:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Homosexual Agenda

I can see why you were upset but you were not able to see what had happened. Part of the Talk page went missing. I have restored it. I did not expect my edit to remain. I was, in fact, going to self revert. However, I spent the whole day (10 hours) researching the whole article in depth, and sought to make it the most bland and NPOV article that I could. Alienus seemed to think it was not terrible but needed work and Pollinator also felt that way. I did not expect it to survive, but I was hoping that by showing that version, it would provide a direction to go that would help avoid these on-going edit wars. I completely emptied my mind of any POV and simply did a Joe Friday on it. Given that I spent 10 hours on it, I would appreciate it if you would take the time to read it over a bit more carefully rather than dismiss it in anger. Sure, I understand the anger -- it was well founded without having my comments to read -- but now that I explained it to you, I hope you will let that cool and reconsider the article itself. --Anon 64 14:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Please, help me be polite by being polite. I don't know what went wrong with that template didn't seem to be different form others I've used in the past.--T-man, the wise 01:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Why focus on a tree when you can focus on the forrest. Take your battle to the project. You had a problem with stubs (although there is no policy against stubs), now I'm telling you I won't create stubs.

I'm just following WP common practices, you're just being an obatacle I don't know why.

Don't worry I'll do each one according to that page. Stubs encorage people to fill info, there is nothing wrong with that (according to WP).

Question

I'm new here, so maybe I don't understand how everything works yet, but how many personal attacks does someone have to make before they get blocked? I have been cruising around some of the articles on Marvel Comics characters, and I see this one guy, "MrBigB," has (particularly in the Thanos article) been throwing around nothing but personal attacks. Even when he makes a legitimate revert, he manages to throw something in about the other guy - even if the edit was made in good faith. I looked on his talk page and he's been warned before. I would just let the admins take care of it, but nobody seems to care; his comments on the Thanos talk page in particular are really cluttering it up. I've only just barely created my account, so I don't really know how this stuff is supposed to work. Mr. Conky 21:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a simple answer for you; it's pretty subjective and dependent on the people involved. It usually has to be brought to the attention of an admin in order for somebody to be blocked, and if the behaviour stops after a warning then the process often stops at that stage. My guess is that nobody has reported MrBigB. If you have any other questions don't hesitate to ask. CovenantD 14:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Two-Face Image

Er -- the image I was talking about is this one. (someone's uploaded a different version now, it used to look like this ) It keeps getting dropped without explaination -- between anonymous IPs and people bickering about what belongs at the top of the page. The image without source information that was removed today is this image -- which I suspect you mistakenly believed was the image I re-inserted today.

Regarding the later image, can we just add "from Tim Burton's Batman (1989)"? The comic covers were clearly marked by the uploaders, but this one I'm less sure about -- it's obviously a screencap from the film, but I'm not sure if there is a process to undergo in updating, since it was improperly marked to begin with. ~CS 20:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

X-Men 3

The Phoenix section you removed, has returned. (I think you were right to remove it). If you remove it again, I encourage you to mention that anyone who disagrees with your actions, "should come to the talk." We should be able to handle it from there.--P-Chan 04:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Suppression of Falun Gong

Yes, I would like to work on it. I also request to have a poll about changing the name to persecution. I am sorry I tend to get emotional when the organ harvesting allegations are confirmed by another source. I cannot cheat my heart. But regardless of my feeling, I am willing to work on the article lead section. Please feel free to advise since you seem to know more about what is a lead section. Thanks. Fnhddzs 20:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Sorry Covenant. I am super busy these days. Could be better after August 4. Fnhddzs 04:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Creeper

I'm not going to cause another edit war, but what was wrong with the new image? It's better illustrated and is focused more on the Creeper. It also illustrates how he currently looks. --DrBat 16:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Pov?

In what way are my additions pov - the American military does and has abused many people throughout the world. HappyVR 18:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Untitled Batman Begins sequel

First, thansk for finishign that RV today. I thought i'd gotten back to the correct edit, but I guess not. Second, thanks for the backups on reverting Adam Sandler out. ALl the other listings have decent cites, if not good, but the sandler thing's a name drop in a rumor that, in turn, is being cited as a source. blah. DaffyDuck619 may yet catch on. I hope.ThuranX 04:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey CD

Not sure if you have one or not, but if you have a My Space page I'd love to add you on as a friend. (If you don't mind.) Here's a link to my page: viola. Artemisboy 23:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Falun Gong

I got sucked in through deleting one of the sub-articles. I'm not minded to walk away just yet, but thanks for the words. It's a bit of a mess, but then these things usually are. Steve block Talk 12:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Cyclops

Why'd you remove the categories about him being an adulterer and promiscuous? He's been married twice, and both times he's cheated on his wife with another woman. Even if promiscuous doesn't apply, adulterer certainly does. --DrBat 02:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

POV? I don't think so?

A declaration that the Black Panther is the greatest superhero ever? That would be POV. This is merely a primer for those unfamiliar with the Panther (and a handy checklist for those trying to complete their collection). Be a good sport and leave it, would you? Thanks. --ABCxyz 20:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Black Panther

See discussion page for a compromise solution. -- ABCxyz 20:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Lightning as Element

Elements are usually described as naturally occuring forces, wind, water, fire, etc. Lightning is a naturally occuring force, as testifed by anyone who ever saw a storm. Like fire, it is born from friction (the rubbing of two clouds creates lighting, as rubbing two sticks creates fire). The Mutant X TV series called electrical mutants "elementals" (see Elemental (Mutant X)), and their are lots of lightning powered heroes in the Fictional elementals categories. And see Elementals in fiction, lightning is on the list.

Well, this is an category about "Fictional elementals", and the Elementals in fiction lists lightning as an element.

In Supergirl during the angel arc, the Linda is told that the Earth Angels respresented the "Elements of Love, Light, and Fire", Strange Visitor (comics) was said to be linked to the energies of the Earth,Storm (comics) is described as wielding the elements of nature (and lightning is her biggest weapon). Almost every magic game (be it cards, or video games) from Magic the Gathering[4] to Final Fantasy, use lighting as an elemental force. In most works of fiction, lightning is considered an element (and we are discussing fictional characters who use fictional elemental powers here). And finally Fire (classical element) says lightning is an aspect of the fire element.

Fiction American television characters

Given the category title, I read it as "Fictional characters on American television shows", not "Fictional Americans on television shows". Please hold off on reverting until we can sort this out. - TexasAndroid 15:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, in a case like this, it's generally nice to give someone a chance to respond before you start wholesale reverting them. :( - TexasAndroid 15:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Looking at it a bit more, I think you've got it right. The cat is for Americans, not American TV. I guess either makes as much sense. The cat likely needs a rename, or at least an explanation at the top. I read the title as "Fiction American television characters" when it should be "Fiction American television characters". Heh. Your last comment just came through as I typed, and looks like you agree that the name is bad. So looks like my edits do need to be reverted. I would ask that you please be careful. There are a mix of other things I fixed at the same time in a few, and I would rather those not be reverted. But go ahead and revert the changes to this one cat. And Stargate was far from the only series I did it on, over the last two days. I'll do some reverts as well. I have the admin rollback button I can use to revert my own edits, though I'll similarly need to be careful which reverts to make. As for the cat name, let's clean up my mess first, then it looks like we are in agreement that a change needs to happen with the name of this, and I see several other categories with similar confusion. So clen-up first, then we can discuss a proposal to WP:CSD for renames. - TexasAndroid 15:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The Rollback button is great for this kind of thing. I'm already done. I just pulled up my contributions list for the last couple of days, and went through it one by one. If it was the cat in question, and only that, I just hit the Rollback button. So all the changes involving that cat have been reverted. I need to take care fo some other things offline first, but I'll pick up the discussion of renaming this and some similarly ambiguous categories on the talk page of Category:Fictional American television characters. That'll make it a little more public. If we can come up with a good new naming scheme, I can then write up the proposal for WP:CFD easily enough, as I hang out there a lot. - TexasAndroid 15:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Li hongzhi page

Hi, there are three issues being mixed up in this paragraph: Li’s position on how his followers should spread his teachings, the reason for his leaving the China Qigong Research Society and the critique from Chinese Buddhist Assoc. Each of these issues deserves its own paragraph, however, except the second point, on more relevant pages.

I do not totally agree with the deletion of this paragraph (see below). The second half of it talks about Li’s role as a savior. Perhaps in the future you want to provide clearer justification for removing passages to avoid reverts.--Samuel Luo 20:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• He teaches that his “great law" is boundless and judging mankind. [1] It is weeding out "the dregs of humanity and the degenerate world" in a process called "Fa-rectification." [2] Claiming to be the only one who is offering salvation to mankind,[3] Li promises to turn his disciples into gods if they follow the moral requirements of his Dafa and expose what he considers to be the evil regime in China. [4] ,[5]

This paragraph was written on Li’s page prior to the FG page debate, so no one is trying to sneak it in if that is what you mean. I agree that it should not be in the lead section. And I will expand this sentence “Claiming to be the only one who is offering salvation to mankind, Li promises to turn his disciples into gods if they follow the moral requirements of his Dafa.”--Samuel Luo 21:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Supernova

Thanks for sticking up for me, man. 161.38.222.14 03:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Whovians

On it. Workign from Z back, you can work from a forward, we'll undo it fast.ThuranX 06:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Got em all. Left Douglas Adams. by coincidence, he's right about that one. thanks for all that help.ThuranX 06:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've started rolling them back. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Superman Returns

Then I must also warn *you* to stop reverting. Wahkeenah 16:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Superman

Wah has clearly violated the 3RR by reverting you and I 4 times. I don't think this needs to be acted upon unless he does it again. I would like not to have to revert it again, because it would put me at 3 reverts, but I notice that you have only edited that section once since he has reverted. Bignole 16:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, how do you take the edit now? He has changed it so that it now interpret what "others" believe. I'm not sure if this would still fall under a revert violation, but it seems to me that it is his way of trying to get around it. What do you think? Bignole

Ok, thanks. That is what I thought but I wasn't sure. I will be forced to report him then. I have asked Someguy to come in and make the changes because I don't wish to use up my third revert changing it back. Bignole 17:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Just thought I would let you know that he has finally reverted and removed his own stuff, but I had already filed the 3RR violation. I listed 5 links to his reverts, one included his weasly word usage. I think that the time had already passed and even now it is too late for him to try and make amends for the reverts, especially for constantly refering to you as a "sockpuppet". In case you wish to support the charge.

Do you have a diff

To the Captain Dip reference? Steve block Talk 17:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ta. I have issued a {{npa2}}. I advise taking future attacks to Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard, noting {{npa2}} has now been issued. You can bring them to me, but a quicker response may be had through the noticeboard. Steve block Talk 17:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Superman Returns

Apologies regarding the page, I was reverting a mesh between the allegories and trivia section. Do continue on with your referencing though.

Oh ho! Welcome!

Hey! If you need any help with the Mediation Cabal or Wikipedia in general, feel free to ask me on my talk page. I've been on Wikipedia for only a month, but oh well. Have fun! --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 05:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Creation of a new page, focusing on the Dark Phoenix character by an expert

Hi CovenantD! I think you are a Dark Phoenix fan or an X-Men expert, so I beg you or someone you know to create an article which focus on the Dark Phoenix character with the intention of exclude it from the Dark Phoenix Saga article, so that Dark Phoenix initiate fans like me can know more about her. Thank you for your attention. User:Lord Hammu (Talk)

Blocked

You have been blocked for 24 hours for disruption of Wikipedia; your comments at RfCU are completely inappropriate and border on personal attacks. If you continue when your block expires, you will be subject to further blocks and formal dispute resolution. Essjay (Talk) 19:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I've asked Essjay to think about this, but your block is up so there's little I can do. I don't think this was justified to be honest. Steve block Talk 19:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Why this happened

(copied from request for checkuser)

• Samuel Luo (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tomananda (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 71.198.77.89 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Based on these edits,[5][6][7] I believe there is enough evidence to suggest either the presence of sockpuppets or somebody trying to create the appearance of one. CovenantD 02:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

 Clerk note: Is there an accusation of policy violation here, or is it possible the user forgot to log in? Thatcher131 04:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If you look closely at the diffs or at the IP address contribution history, you'll see that this IP editor changed the anon IP sig to two different user names. Both of the registered users, Tomananda and Samuel Luo, are very active on the Falun Gong-related articles and have participated in many different surveys and straw polls. If they are the same user, then as I understand it they are violating the policies against sockpuppets by participating twice and creating the illusion of being two separate people. I've just been drafted as "official" mediator for the Falun Gong article and the outcome of this will greatly impact my ability to weigh the facts presented by these two users. It's also not the first time that Samuel has been accused of running sockpuppets. CovenantD 04:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

 Clerk note: Got it. Here and here, the IP editor changes his sig to Samuel Luo; and here, the IP editor changes his sig to Tomananda. Both editors are heavily involved in Falun Gong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and related articles. Thatcher131 04:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It's my first checkuser report; thanks for the cleanup. CovenantD 04:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, how long should I expect to wait? Progress on the entire set of articles is on hold pending the outcome of this checkuser. CovenantD 04:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I'm here trying to create a better encyclopedia and this is the support I get? Hell of a turn off. CovenantD 10:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

While there are about 1000 administrators on wikipedia, only 14 of them have checkuser permission and 99% of the cases here are answered by just two of them, so you may have to be patient. No article is so important that the sky will fall if it is stuck in the "wrong version" for a few more days. You can try a request for comment on the article to get some outside opinions if the usual editors can't agree. Thatcher131 11:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like this system is broken. Only 2 of the 14 people actually do the work? Time to replace some people. Or put some kind of disclaimer that this isn't very timely. Something to let people know not to expect results. CovenantD 11:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

 Declined I'll be damned if I'm going to put up with that kind of abuse. Mackensen (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

How about judging it on it's merits rather than your personal feelings? CovenantD 19:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

 Declined, seconded in the strongest possible terms. And CovenantD blocked for 24 hours for disruption. Essjay (Talk) 19:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm just coming into this, but that seems more than a little harsh. Can't wikipedia have operational disagreements without assuming it's personal attacks, resulting in blocks? Or is there something outside this discussion I'm not seeing? --Kickstart70-T-C 04:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the cascade of abusive comments directed at the checkusers were more than enough justification for blocking for disruption; common sense says you don't come ask for help and then start taking swings at the people you're asking for help. By the way, just for future note by anyone watching, the reason that it takes a while to get a response is because we have to deal with things like this; if people were, you know, patient/pleasant/appreciative, then we might be a bit more inclined to run checks. As it stands, we gain very little but constant abuse from all sides for volunteering our time to do this. Essjay (Talk) 05:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyone else going to accept; it would be nice to see requests being upheld on the merit of the case rather than the behaviour of the applicant. Steve block Talk 19:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• CovenantD, Tomananda(a user name on wiki) and I share a house [8] and the same Comcast account, therefore our IP is the same. I believe this info answers your question. --Samuel Luo 17:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow... Big editor people: I understand that you have a stressful job, but Covenant said like two sentences which were mildly harsh (and which may have had something to do with himself be under a little stress too). You may be the big hotshots on Wiki, but in the real world your just like anyone else. And as a fellow person in the real world I know that ignoring someone and then punishing them simply because he said a few harsh words like this isn't right. I don't believe in Covenant's allegations of sockpuppeting, but I do believe that he had the right to be heard by you. Besides, Covenant said nothing bad about you, but instead criticised the system (which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me either). All in all, this looks like an huge over reaction and a classic abuse of power. Mcconn 18:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest you formally take the above to ArbCom

Contact me at sbharris@ix.netcom.com SBHarris 19:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Right this second I think that's undue escalation. Steve block Talk 19:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

"Escalation" happened the momment Essjay took it personally and blocked a non-administrator for complaining that WP wasn't working right. That's abuse of administrator-power, and there's just no excuse for it. NONE. Overlooking it, only allows it to continue. When I myself went to ArbCom about Essjay, the response was *yawn*-- "Too bad for you, but show us that this is habitual." Well, here we are. YOU can take it, or you can do something about it. If you want to ignore it and take it, I'll just go back on watch for the next time it happens. Good luck.SBHarris 20:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disputing there would not be merits to the case, but it is unlikely arb-com will take this case unless the steps in the dispute resolution process aren't taken first. The first step is to see whether Essjay is going to concede any fault in the block. Do you have a link to the arb-com case you mention? Steve block Talk 21:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

This issue has been taken to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard. I'm not satisfied with Essjay's response to me, so I've requested another admin take a look at it. Let's allow that to work before trying ArbCom. --Kickstart70-T-C 21:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• As an admin I have reviewed it and find it questionable. However, I was awaiting a response from Essjay before going to WP:AN, since the block has expired. Since you have raised it there though, I will comment again. Steve block Talk 21:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

My own case was brought June 19, and probably failed to make it to acceptance. My arguments kept getting refactored, questioned by other admins, and so on, and I think it finally got refactored into oblivion. I've asked JessieW, who is my personal champ at finding links, if he can locate it. Meanwhile, you can see some of what happened on my TALK page. Basically I was permablocked by Essjay somewhat reflexively, at the request of another editor, when I pointed out that some of what was happening in a personal bio of a living person, might have legal consequences. This was taken to mean that *I* was threatening to sue somebody myself, an idea patently ridiculous and not to be found in anything I wrote (I have no legal history, FYI). It took another admin with better sense to undue the damage, but not before I ended up having to email Jimbo and Brian and a bunch of other people. One of the ugly things I found out is that if you're blocked on Wikipedia, you really don't have any good recourse to defend yourself, because you're BLOCKED. I also found that WP:ANI and ArbCom are pretty toothless tigers when it comes to administator abuse of ordinary editors. Basically, THEY don't give a damn. Even editors who've put in huge amounts of time on WP making complex and good faith edits, are nobodies here, unless they have wiki-cop powers. Admins stand together, sort of like any group of cops do, and Wikipedia has no Department of Internal Affairs. The last time the admins warred among themselves was the pedophilia usertag wheelwar, and Jimbo hiself had to stop that. I haven't seen it happen over abuse of a ordinary editor, yet. So this kind of thing is what you see. And it happens ALL the time. I've simply started to keep track of it. For posterity, as it were. SBHarris 22:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Admins dispute each other's actions frequently, to be honest. The pedophile userbox issue was a huge escalation, and as I said at the time, I still think if people had discussed rather than acted, it wouldn't have gone so far. I'm not convinced admins do stand together. You're right about the hardships imposed by a block, granted, but the reasons for those hardships are that most blocks are issued to people who would abuse any work around. It makes it hard for people who are blocked for no good reason, yes. A few of us admins have listed ourselves in Category:Administrators open to recall and are investigating methods of reviewing admin actions, but so far it is a voluntary process. Anyway, I'll look at your case, and I'll keep an eye on this one. Steve block Talk 22:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is my case: 00:27, 25 June 2006.Rejected. Said, what was my problem if I'd been unblocked? Hmmm. Recommended Legal Threats policy be made more specific (which might help admins who missed WP:AGF and WP:SENSE, one supposes). And that if I had a specific admin complaint I should've taken it to WP:ANI. Like anything ever happens there about that. In short, a big T.S. and the runaround. SBHarris 06:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, folks. CovenantD 14:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I, too, want to voice my support for Covenant. Throughout this contentious process of editing in the Falun Gong article, he has shown a great deal of integrity. In fact, I have often thought they he should be designated an administrator because he clearly has an interest in mediating and an ability to see the big picture when dealing with controversial subject matter. As it turns out, I am technically not the same person as Samuel even though we are very close and share common values. But I can see that Covenant might think we are the same person because I sometimes forget to log in and then go back and log on to add my correct signature. Covenant: I would be perfectly happy to write any letter of support you need to administrators or committees in Wikipedia, so let me know if it comes to that. --Tomananda 20:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Irregardless

I think I should state that whilst what you said was borderline blockable, it was certainly inappropriate. Blocks can be issued by admins for a scale of reasons, and sometimes those reasons allow a dicretion call. Your comments wouldn't fall into my discretion zone, but it did fall in another admin's zone. I understand you were frustrated, but you need to try and damp down that frustration. The check user process is not the easiest one to understand, and it's a bit of a nuclear option. I appreciate apologies towards yourself have not been forthcoming, but that doesn't mean apologies from yourself don't have to be. I pretty much let my words, edits and actions speak for themselves, but clarify when they cause conflict, because I don't see any value in conflict on Wikipedia. I'm not saying you should apologise, but it may be something to consider. You may not have meant to cause offence to User:Mackensen, but the user did take offence none the less. Clearing up that misunderstanding might be something to consider. Steve block Talk 09:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

An AMA request has been made involving you

This is just to notify you that this has been created: [9]. --Kickstart70-T-C 02:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Covenant, I just wanted to point out that Samuel's Personal Webpage appears in the Reference section of the Falun Dafa page? Could you remove the same from the "references" section? Thankyou. :) Dilip rajeev 07:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Moving forward

Dear CovenantID,

As a way to move forward and leave behind the recent dispute with Essjay, I have proposed a statement to which both parties are invited to consider, and hopefuly accept. See User talk:Jossi/AMA Kickstart70/Moving forward. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

As an example of how AMA actually has no standing at all, and how they get a nose thumbed at them if they pretend to have any, this was good. As a demo of power politics, informative as well. SBHarris 22:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Mackensen and I were able to come to a good resolution on this. Unfortunately, the principle players here (CovenantD and Essjay) haven't responded yet. I have my doubts about Essjay, but maybe C.D? --Kickstart70-T-C 22:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You missed the middle finger from you know who. You're not ArbCom. That's sort of like being a U.N. member without being on the Security Council. Perhaps even like being a Security Council rotating member. If the problem involves a permanent member, you're going to get the finger. "Where's your nuke ICBMs, baby?" This is the way the world works.SBHarris 23:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you coming back to mediate?

Covenant: Just wondering if you were planning to return to your mediation role for the Falun Gong article any time soon. You may have noticed that a newly identified editor named Tony Sidaway just did 9 inappropriate deletion edits in the discussion section. Much of the discussion he deleted addresses the issue of including in the introduction material on Master Li's role in salvation and the Fa-rectification. As you know, this is a major stumbling block between the Falun Gong practitioner/editors and the non-FG editors. I think your presence as an impartial mediator can help get us back on track. --Tomananda 21:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Westboro Baptist Church

Would you please explain why you reverted my refactoring of this page? Thanks. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa! 23:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)