User talk:Crum375/Archive 4

Discordian Works
Sorry to step on your toes I did grant full protection prior to you declining at WP:RFPP I just hadnt got back to tag that page. My reasoning were the edit summary of "I can just revert you at this time" indicating the intention to continue the warring as well as other very poor comments including some by an admin. since its at RFAr the warring should be resolved first. Gnangarra 13:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * additionally as it involves an admin other editors should be given confidence that everybody is being treated as equal. Gnangarra 13:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Re your revert at WP:ATT
You said in an edit summary: "Rvt - please get consensus for your changes on Talk first". I'm sorry -- I don't understand. Would you please explain what you mean? I proposed this edit; I later mentioned it again and stated a clear intention of carrying it out;  there was no objection in 12 days. That looks like consensus to me. --Coppertwig 21:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought I had made a further comment here -- maybe it didn't get posted. Re your comment on my talk page: you said to try to achieve positive consensus. That's exactly what I was already doing -- trying to achieve positive consensus. I even posted a note on one editor's talk page inviting them to participate in that particular discussion. If you know of other techniques for trying to achieve positive consensus, please tell me what they are.

Please note my comment at Wikipedia talk:Attribution. I've requested you specifically (and two other editors) to acknowledge recognition that I have an objection and that there is a dispute. Thanks in advance for your reply. --Coppertwig 17:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your note on my talk page acknowledging that I have an objection. I really appreciate that -- it's a relief to achieve communication at that basic level.  I also understand that substantive changes may need to wait.  However, your characterization of my objection demonstrates a basic misunderstanding.  I do not object to the longstanding wording "verifiability, not truth."  Before making any more reverts to my attempts to resolve this dispute, please try to gain a deeper understanding of what the issue is and participate in discussion aimed at achieving real consensus.  Thanks again.  --Coppertwig 18:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You said "And by the way, I am not in 'content dispute' with you - I have not decided even on the merit of your changes - my only point is that a wide consensus is needed prior to making them. " Please tell me where I should post notices, or what I should do, to stimulate that wider discussion that you say is needed.  See Wikipedia talk:Attribution.  Thanks.  --Coppertwig 00:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You said: "When things do settle down, all you need do is open a thread under a section in Talk:ATT, and hope to entice editors to engage"  -- But that is exactly what I did the first time around!  Therefore I don't understand why you reverted my edit.  --Coppertwig 00:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Battle of New Orleans
The anon who was edit-warring last night on this page has been replaced by a registered user who is now making the very same edits. Just wanted to give you a heads-up in case you're still monitoring the situation.--chris.lawson 21:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

BDORT
Hello Crum. Look, the article is still completely POV because of the fact that you describe that the technique is subjective a number of times which is your editing POV (intentionally or not) which is contra to the stated claims of the developer of the technique and completely uncitated). This is WP:OR through and through. A lack of an accurate description still beggars the article. In the meanwhile I am getting together material that will satisfy WP criteria that will completely change the article and many of the statements in it that you will see are zero science and have been scientifically refuted by independent world experts. And that all the NZ Tribunal info will have to be overhauled accordingly with information that was included in the Tribunal but not recorded . . I can put out a request for comments, but can you please in the meantime do the basics I note above that are pressingly necessary.Richardmalter 03:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If you have new and relevant attributable sources, please let me know. Thanks, Crum375 15:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, you are making non attrubited POV statements that are not citated. How do you defend this? You are expressing the editorial personal POV that the BDORT is subjective, twice. You do not citate this. Are we going to have the same reluctance to change things as we have had up till now? including the months of you defending a version that was blatantly defamatory and breached BLP that SV the Admin had to delete immediately? Or do we need to call in fresh editors? Either way ALL the POV OR must go. Why fight?Richardmalter 11:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not 'fighting', nor do I think we have any OR or POV in the entry - I think it's been pretty solid for a long time, and I don't see any problem with it. If you have some specific new issue, like a new WP:ATT source or a new WP:BLP concern, that you haven't brought up before, and that hasn't been addressed before, please do so now. Otherwise, to just rehash old issues, which were reviewed by multiple people in multiple forums, including ArbCom who unanimously decided to ban you and your sock/meatpuppets from all BDORT-related entries, would be pointless and disruptive. Thanks, Crum375 13:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I make no personal attacks; I am spelling out a potted history for newcomers. I have replied to your comments on RFC concentrating on content problems solely; I did not mention you in my new comment. Hopefully some neutral people will get involved.Richardmalter 01:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC) I will also not post on your talk page any further as you ask. As you say there are other people who might get involved - hopefully.Richardmalter 01:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

page protection
Please explain the basis for using page protection at policy and guideline pages such as Reliable sources. "admins should not protect pages when they are involved as a party to the dispute" --JWSchmidt 15:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand why you reverted my edit.
You said on my talk page: "You need to start a thread on the Talk page and hope to entice editors to engage. You then strive for consensus, as wide as possible if this is a core content policy change. Once you have reached that wide consensus, then and only then you can change the policy. If you try to bypass this process, you'll simply get reverted. If I reverted you, it was simply on process - not on the merits. I am sure you understand that making substantive changes to important policy pages, that influence potentially every article on Wikipedia, should not be done without a very wide consensus."

That is exactly what I did. Therefore, I don't understand why you reverted my edit. If there was something wrong with the process I followed, please explain what was wrong with it so that I can do it properly the next time around. Are there places I should have put links to the discussion? If so, where? Or what else should I have done? Thanks. --Coppertwig 00:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I posted a message on the talk page, making a proposal. I waited a few days for responses.  I repeated my proposal again on the same talk page.  Two editors posted agreement;  no one posted disagreement.  I then considered that there was consensus and boldly made an edit.  It was reverted with an edit summary telling me to get consensus first.  Would you please give me examples of edits of small numbers of words that were made on WP:ATT or other policy pages with consensus and explain how that consensus can be recognized, i.e. what is the difference between that consensus and what happened before my edit?  I would appreciate it if you would supply me with that information because I need to know how to proceed and how to expect other editors to proceed when the page is unprotected.  --Coppertwig 23:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * How many is considered a large number? Can you give a single example of an edit to a small number of words that had that kind of consensus?  I disagree with you about giving special status to people who previously edited the page:  all editors should be treated equally.  --Coppertwig 00:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, I've been meaning to reply to your advice not to raise substantive policy issues at this time. I take that as a friendly suggestion, and I don't think I'll follow it.  Discussion on wording may slow down while people are busy with the other processes (or it may speed up!) but I see no reason for it to stop entirely.  The issue about the unhedged "not whether it is true" wording I don't consider myself to be "raising" now -- I consider that it's been constantly under discussion (with short breaks while waiting for replies etc.) for weeks.  (I think the discussion could have been much shorter if the parties involved in the dispute would take the time to discuss it.)  However, thank you for the suggestion.  --Coppertwig 18:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your impartiality
I appreciate the impartiality you showed by recusing from ruling on from the 3RR violation I reported. Thank you. --Coppertwig 22:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply to your reply: Great!  Handshakes all around.  :-)  --Coppertwig 22:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

New antisemitism
Talks concerning mediation seem to have become stalled. Would you consider lifting page protection, such that we may add templates to the article page that indicate the existence of ongoing disputes? CJCurrie 01:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Crum -- I'll leave the matter if others do, but wanted to briefly respond. The problem is simply that there's currently no compromise at all. Right now, those supporting the status quo have their version, plus no mention that there is even a neutrality dispute, plus a lockdown that prevents anything further from being done to the article. This isn't a compromise; it's a 100% coup for one side. A small compromise is all CJ and I have asked for. That is: very well, keep locking down that version of the page, but please at least note that there is a dispute here, and a real one, and in fact a very serious one, not just a couple of editors trying to sabotage a page. As I said on the talk page, the whole point isn't to endorse that the article is biased, but simply to mitigate the current complete endorsement of widely contested but locked down (for two weeks running) material.

Beyond that, if you look at Dispute_templates, it seems pretty clear that the whole intent is exactly for such situations of last resort, where a page is being locked down for over 2 weeks. I'm still a little confused where you think this type of banner would be used, if not the situation here. Anyway, as I said, I won't push it as long as mediation is moving forward, but if things start to stall again, I think it's the least that can be done, and really should be there until editors work out a resolution in any case (this being the "NPOV" banner I'm talking about, not the more obtrusive ones). Best, Mackan79 15:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment, I'm trying to do what I can. Mackan79 15:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Anna Svidersky
FYI User_talk:Errabee. --Tyrenius 04:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Answered on User talk:Tyrenius. Er rab ee 04:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

My response to the answer is at User_talk:Errabee. Tyrenius 02:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

New Antisemitism proposal
Hi Crum375,

I made a proposal here two days ago and asked Jayjg to express any disagreements he might have (please see ). It seems nobody disagrees. So, could you possible please apply that change. Thanks. --Aminz 08:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well. I posted my proposal and asked if anybody disagrees with it. I specifically asked Jayjg to have a look at it. I have made another post on the New-Antisemitism talk page here.

If you could follow that discussion (in case nobody disagrees or we achieve a consensus), I would be thankful.

Thanks very much, --Aminz 21:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Crum375,
 * Actually, I haven't followed their discussion. As CJCurrie commented the following about me: "I don't think he'd be an effective representative for either my "side" or SlimVirgin's "side" -- his arguments have come from a different direction entirely."
 * I would move that section down to the end of the talk page so that it would be more visible. --Aminz 00:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have moved the section to the bottom of the page so that everybody can see it. In a couple of days, everybody should see it. --Aminz 00:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

User:MariusM
I would like to ask you to reconsider your unblock. The reasoning that that he should be unblocked for reverting a sockpuppet doesn't make snse to me. A banned user may be reverted on sight, however a sockpuppet is not a banned user. A sockpuppet becomes abusive for doing things like edit warring in circumvention of the WP:3RR, as this one did. When two parties break 3RR, even if one is a sockpuppet, we don't only block one party, so it doesn't make sense to unblock if we find out later that one was a sockpuppet. Marius was still edit warring without engaging in dialogue, and with the same person, that he's been warring with forever, who was not banned and is not revertable-on-sight. I think the block should be reinstated. Dmcdevit·t 02:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

In partial support of Kingjeff
Hello! I wanted to call to your attention the fact that at least some of the blocks on Kingjeff's record from last year were incurred while he was trying to undo the work of User:Panairjdde, a banned user who used sockpuppets to engage in edit warring on many articles in Kingjeff's areas of interest. Panairjdde's sockpuppetry had not been fully exposed at the time of KJ's blocks, and there's apparently no way to "purge" his record of the blocks he wrongly received while reverting invalid edits. I can't speak to his conduct in this latest incident, but to the extent that his prior record influenced the length of the block you placed on him, I respectfully suggest that you reconsider its severity. Dppowell 03:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi there--thanks for replying. Just to be extra clear, I wasn't attempting to defend KJ's behavior, which is clearly not that of a model Wikipedia citizen.  I was just telling you that his "prior record" looks a bit worse than it actually is.  If you examine the edits which led to some of his later blocks in 2006, you'll find that many/most of the opposing parties were socks of an editor who subsequently received a community ban for his edit warring and serial sockpuppetry.  Since you weighed his prior blocks in evaluating the severity of the current block, I thought that was something you should know.  That's all.  Thanks!  Dppowell 15:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Once again, I am not defending KJ's behavior or suggesting that he was improperly blocked. I merely hoped to shed some additional light on some of his earlier blocks, which clearly played a role in determining the length of this block.  I mistakenly believed that 3RR reports filed by an editor who was, himself, using socks to hide his own (much, much more extensive) 3RR violations might, with the benefit of hindsight, be viewed with a bit more skepticism.  I apologize!  Kind regards, Dppowell 17:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Dppowell is not telling the whole story. When Kingjeff was blocked after arguing with me, I was a fully, legitimate contributor, as the community ban was long to come. The fact I was editing under another account was due to the fact that I voluntary "lost" the password to my account, and therefore I was editing under another account, but it was known that it was mine account. Dppowel has decided to start a sort of independent commission to ban me, but this does not allow him to misrepresent facts. Best regards (Panairjdde) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.211.195.151 (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

Warning
I didn't link to the site. I just named it since it is the subject of discussion. Again, I didn't link to it as you state in your warning. Cla68 18:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether the user simply clicks on the name, or pastes it into the browser's URL window and hits 'Enter', is immaterial - the point is to not provide those links, that attack or attempt to out your fellow editors, in any format. Please refrain from doing so - once you have been reverted, that should make it very clear. If you persist, you will be blocked. Crum375 18:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with you that it's wrong to list a website name during a discussion about that website. Cla68 18:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth: I'd really like to know what site all this fuzz is made about. If it's Wikipedia Review forum, nevermind. In case it's another page: I trust myself intellectually, and I don't like to be censored from information I need to make an informed decision. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I finally found the diff. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Watchdetails
Why have you provided no explanation for reverting after several other reverts on the talk page? Also, please do read Protection policy. —Centrx→talk &bull; 02:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what you mean. Are my edit summaries not sufficient? And the protection of the poll pages was done to prevent the mayhem that ensued several times before, and has now been changed to a limited duration by another admin. Crum375 02:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be no mayhem whatsoever on the poll page. And no, an edit summary on Watchdetails is not sufficient. Two other people removed the notice for not being appropriate for the watchlist as a notice and for over-emphasizing numbers in a poll. Your edit summary is "these are the results" (which has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it should be displayed on the watchlist) and "please". Even if it were not necessary these edits to the MediaWiki namespace on the talk page—which it is considering the several parties—your edit summary includes no justification at all. Someone removing it with the notice "please do not put this on the watchlist" would have the same justification as you put in your edit summary. —Centrx→talk &bull; 02:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding the protection, we had serious confusion and disruption on the poll page during its beginning phases, and it seemed prudent to preclude that from happening at the final phase, especially as voters could be still coming, unsure of the exact status. By now the protection has been endorsed, with a limited duration, by another admin. As far as the watchlist message, I have added a Talk page comment to supplement my edit summary. Crum375 02:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So what if people continue voting? Are there opinions no longer important? There is, for example, no legal reason why results must be in at a fixed hour in order to ordain an elected official. They can just be reverted anyway, as has been done with every other poll and archive on Wikipedia. —Centrx→talk &bull; 02:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

NAS Lead
Hi Crum, it looks like we're moving forward with the NAS lead. If you'd like to implement, everybody seems to be on board. Thanks for your continuing help. Mackan79 17:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi again, Jay alerted me that I missed one sentence in the lead. I noted it on the talk page, it should be pretty clear if you can make the change.  Thanks, Mackan79 04:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR enforcement
I know you are very strict regarding 3RR enforcement. Please take a look at. Note also that same user was already forgiven once for breaching the 3RR on the ground that he reverted a sockpuppet. In my case reverting a sockpuppet was not an excuse. Sockpuppet reverted by Alaexis was not blocked (and is still not blocked) and now he broke 3RR second time, without sockpuppets this case.--MariusM 05:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your note. I did fill a 3RR report and I gave you above the link to my report. After an other admin make a comment at my report without blocking the guilty person I draw this case at your attention, as I know you are very strict in 3RR enforcement. What I see is that when I make 3RR reports against people with which I have editing disputes the rule is not enforced, while I was blocked for edit-warring even when I didn't breach the rule (is not the case of your block, but with my previous blocks). Against sockpuppeteer Mauco I had 6 reports regarding 3RR violation without any result, other 2 reports against sockpuppet Pernambuco (who was the same person as Mauco, but I didn't knew), one without result and other with block lifted after 2 hours as was discovered he reverted a sockpuppet. Now, I see Alaexis twice breaching 3RR, without block despite the fact that the case was reported at WP:AN3. Are there any rules in Wikipedia?--MariusM 12:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * According Wikipedia policy on 3RR a warning is needed only in the case of new users, which is not the case of Alaexis, who registered in September 2006. I was blocked several times without warning and even without breaching 3RR (you made an unjustified personal attack on me telling that I have a pattern of 3RR violation), is difficult for me to understand why for other users breaching 3RR is allowed. It seems that what I reported some time ago at WP:ANI is happening again .--MariusM 13:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Clarification: My block log shows 4 previous blocks for edit-warring (before your block), but not for breaching 3RR. After this admins took the decision to block both me and sockpuppeteer William Mauco even if we didn't reach the number of 4 reverts, as they told 3 reverts are not automatically allowed. You can check from my user page, "What links here" and see that my blocks didn't follow a 3RR breaching by me. The majority of links at 3RR archives from my userpage are for reports I made against others.--MariusM 19:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Another clarification: I did try dispute resolution procedures twice with the person I had conflicts:, . In one case he didn't accept mediation, in the other he accepted very late (while his sockpuppet accepted more easy), but he didn't really explained during mediation his position. My feeling is that the editors with whom I had conflicts are not of good faith, and the sockpuppetry proved this. A check of my edit counts shows that I am not the type of person who avoid explaining in talk pages his position. Today, my editcount shows 2231 edits at English Wikipedia but only 622 edits in mainspace. The majority of my edits are in talk pages, but there are persons not interested to talk, they just simulate talking being interested only in political propaganda.--MariusM 10:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Theory looks fine, but the reality is killing us. I know the steps in WP:DR and I did try also arbitration, but it was rejected. See .--MariusM 18:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Attack sites lead
Shouldn't that be "defamation" and not "libel"? That is my reading of the article on the subject here. "Libel" seems to apply to hard-copy publications.--Mantanmoreland 16:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not crazy about the "arbitration exemption" either. Arbitrators can be given whatever they need by email.--Mantanmoreland 18:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree 100%. Crum375 18:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

arbitration requested - you are named
User:Mangoe has filed for arbitration about Attack sites at this address. We are named parties. - Denny  ( talk ) 21:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You are in the wrong
It isn't WP:POINT. The citation is germane, and its excision trashes my remark. There is no such policy to enforce yet, so you are out of line trying to enforce it. Mangoe 03:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There is an ArbCom ruling, as you know. Please don't violate it again. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to take sides here, but if you are going to remove links to critical content offsite, you might as well also remove someone's admonition against doing that:. WP:Point goes both ways. Academy Leader 03:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Look, approaching the issue this way, i.e. blanking Mangoe's posting, is (at best) going to result in a move to go to WP:Mediation or WP:RFC. His or her post was in no way malevolent or intended to cause harm. Would you please reconsider your approach to this issue?--Academy Leader 03:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm taking it to mediation, adding it to the existing case. Mangoe 03:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

revertion of Wikipedia talk:Verifiability
Hello. Since you reverted my modifications, you may now want to present your objections. Regards. Michelet-Me laisser un message 18:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Disappointing
Someone has broken out the 'rejected' tag. - Denny  ( talk ) 20:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Transnistria
Hi Crum. I just blocked the main edit warrior on Transnistria at around the time you protected it. In the light of this, would you consider unprotection? – Steel 14:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, you already had. Forget this then. – Steel 14:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Ultimate truth
Nice tiger on your user page.

Is "this covered bridge has been converted into a barn" an ultimate truth?
 * If so, how? What definition of "ultimate" are you using?
 * If not, please stop bringing this red herring into the discussion; I'm only interested in non-ultimate truths. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Shirahadasha RfA thanks
Thanks so much for taking the time to comment on my my RfA, which was successful. I learned a lot from the comments, I appreciate everything that was said, and I'll do my best to deserve the community's trust. Thanks again! And thanks for your kind words and support. --Shirahadasha 04:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)