User talk:FNMF/Archive1

Three-revert rule
It is important that you familiarise yourself with the three-revert rule. Please read the linked article. Thanks. Guettarda 02:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said, the issue of "potentially libelous information" was already addressed. The material is based on reliable sources.  It's accurate and relevant.  So that exception doesn't apply in this case.  Guettarda 02:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "The fact that some people have "discussed" the material and do not think it libelous does not make it not libelous." True, but the fact that you claim it's "potentially libelous" without bothering to support the allegation doesn't make what you say true.  The issue has been discussed.  You can't simply declare the arguments invalid by fiat without bothering to address the issues.  Guettarda 03:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope, you have cited policy, but you haven't made any attempt to show how these policies apply, or why the arguments made previously are invalid. Guettarda 03:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Warning about your edits to Christopher Michael Langan
Please read Requests_for_arbitration/ScienceApologist and Requests_for_arbitration/ScienceApologist and note the passage that says "All remedies which apply to Asmodeus also apply to DrL and, after warning accompanied by a link to this matter, to any other user with a similar editing pattern." This is a warning that you have definitely exhibited a similar editing pattern and may be blocked for walking in their footsteps. FeloniousMonk 03:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a good point. Guettarda 03:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
You've been blocked for 48 hrs for the method of your participation at Christopher Michael Langan per Requests_for_arbitration/ScienceApologist; 24 hrs for walking in the footsteps of DrL and Asmodeus, and 24 hrs for personal attacks and disruption. Please use the time off to reconsider the method of your participation. FeloniousMonk 03:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Bad move, FM. --Otheus 04:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If you are unclear how "All remedies which apply to Asmodeus also apply to DrL and, after warning accompanied by a link to this matter, to any other user with a similar editing pattern ." Requests_for_arbitration/ScienceApologist applies here I'd be happy to explain it to you on your talk page. Otherwise, I request that you do not cause yet another disturbance over my conducting my duties. FeloniousMonk 04:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your post to User talk:Jimbo Wales
Jimbo very rarely intervenes in disputes. You may have more luck looking at Contact us/Article problem. --Deskana (talk)  08:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's extremely unlikely. I urge you to follow other methods or your problem may be ignored. --Deskana (talk)  08:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Citations at Christopher Michael Langan
Thanks for your positive work on the Langan bio! The references in question can be found at Langan's CTMU website. See http://www.ctmu.org/Q&A/Archive.html#CTMU, http://www.ctmu.org/Press/Esquire1.jpg, http://www.ctmu.org/Press/TheSmartGuy.pdf, http://www.ctmu.org/Press/MrUniverse/MUTitle.jpg, http://www.ctmu.org/Press/BBC.html, http://www.ctmu.org/CTMU/Articles/CTM.htm. I lack the technical expertise to edit the references myself or I would! --NightSky 14:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I mentioned this on the talk page of the article. Hope I didn't step on anyone's toes - seems like a lot of touchy editors over there! --NightSky 15:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

OTV
Nice touch ;) Good to see you have a sense of humor --Otheus 01:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Block
I have just been blocked by user FeloniousMonk for issues surrounding the entry on Christopher Michael Langan. This entry has been fraught for some months, but my contribution has been confined to the last week or so.

I acted several days ago on a longstanding request by the subject of the entry to remove what he considers a potentially libelous section of the entry. User Jimbo Wales judged the section to be blatant original research and deleted the section. One place where Mr Wales explained his intervention was here. This followed many months in which several editors, including FeloniousMonk, refused to see any problem with the section. Some editors were needless to say displeased with this correct decision by Mr Wales, and argued against it, although they did not try to re-place the deleted section.

I have provided extensive arguments on various other content issues to do with the entry. Progress was being made toward improving the article, but some users whom I consider clearly biased against the subject of the entry, had difficulty accepting these arguments. Other editors agreed with my arguments, which were extensively but politely put. Some editors changed their position on some issues, such as the issue of whether to include certain links, which user Arthur Rubin originally opposed the inclusion of (deleting them with little reason given), later acknowledging that inclusion of the links was legitimate.

FeloniousMonk is an editor involved with the entry, and he is blocking for reasons of a content dispute. This is in violation of policy. In addition, he has not provided any arguments why my edits are sanctionable. I do not believe there was a problem with my edits, the vast majority of which were confined to the talk page of the entry, and I would ask any administrator to examine my record. My userpage contains some links at the bottom to recent important edits in relation to this entry, including many by myself.

Some users implied that I was in fact a sock-puppet for the subject of the entry. I realised just before this block was placed that a checkuser request was conducted a couple of days ago that showed I was unrelated to Langan. I in fact live outside the United States, do not know the subject, am not a proponent of his ideas, and am not a proponent of intelligent design. I have stated this previously on several occasions. A link to the checkuser request is located at the bottom of my user page.

Furthermore, I am accused of making personal attacks. This refers, I assume, to a comment I placed about a user on the talk page of the entry (the edit appearing here). The user has been disruptive, ignoring discussion on the talk page, and reverting legitimate good-faith edits without explanation. My comment was the outcome of a long chain of poor behaviour by user 151.151.21.101. The comment I placed was not in any way a personal attack.

The other justification given for the block was violation of a ruling in relation to user Asmodeus and user DrL. I point out that I was accused of the very same violation for arguing for the deletion of the section that user Jimbo Wales shortly thereafter judged needed to be deleted. On no occasion has it ever been explained in what way I have violated this ruling, other than the statement that my "edit pattern" is similar to user Asmodeus. I do not know what this means, and nobody has tried to explain it. It seems simply to be a means of intimidating editors.

I would like to point out that I have been at pains to explain at length every element of my position on this entry. I believe the entry has suffered from editors who do not quite understand some important points, and who are inclined to introduce controversy and original resesarch into an entry about a living person. My intention has been to improve the entry, and I believe I have worked very patiently and fairly to do so.

I would like to further point out that user FeloniousMonk has just deleted from his talk page an offer three days ago by user Otheus to gather evidence to see if my "edit pattern" really did resemble that of user Asmodeus. Otheus made this offer before he received the results of the checkuser request. FeloniousMonk most likely removed this offer from his talk page to conceal that an alternative to blocking me out of the blue had been declined by him three days earlier. His removal of this offer occurred here.

Also, I believe user FeloniousMonk has himself been admonished for this sort of thing before. I direct your attention to this comment about the situation by user Otheus. Otheus seems to believe user FeloniousMonk is also user 151.151.21.101, whom I admonished as mentioned above. I do not know if this is the case, but if so, it might explain why FeloniousMonk suddenly and without warning decided to impose a block. If so, this is further evidence of just why FeloniousMonk was precisely the person who should not have blocked me.

FeloniousMonk originally "warned" me on March 20 that I was violating an ArbCom ruling in relation to Asmodeus, prior to the intervention of Mr Wales to remove the lawsuit section. FeloniousMonk's original "warning" was in relation to my argument that this section should be deleted. Immediately after he gave this warning, I left a comment on his talk page stating that I did not understand his warning, and asking for him to explain it. I left this request here. FeloniousMonk did not respond to my request, and did not contact me again until he decided without warning to impose the block on March 23. And I remind readers, again, that FeloniousMonk has, since blocking me, deleted from his own talk page the suggestion by user Otheus to investigate whether my "edit pattern" really did resemble Asmodeus's.

And I note that, after blocking me, FeloniousMonk stated (below) that he would be "happy to explain" how I was in violation of a ruling, but that, when I asked him to do so, he again did not respond.

This block is a clear violation of policy by an administrator, and an abuse of power. FNMF 04:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If you are unclear how "All remedies which apply to Asmodeus also apply to DrL and, after warning accompanied by a link to this matter, to any other user with a similar editing pattern ." Requests_for_arbitration/ScienceApologist applies here I'd be happy to explain it to you. You may indeed not be a sockpuppet, but you have certainly shown an identical editing pattern at Christopher Michael Langan to and ; I view you as more of a meatpuppet than a sockpuppet, but the only relevant point per the RFAR ruling is your editing pattern, which I'd already warned you about, not your identity. FeloniousMonk 04:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you should have explained it to me before placing the block. Or, rather, perhaps you should have explained it, and then brought an uninvolved administrator in to see if he would like to block me. You have not ever argued for one thing I have done wrong. FNMF 04:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You were properly warned and directed to the arbitration ruling as required by the ruling three days ago: You simply chose to ignore it. FeloniousMonk 04:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I remain unclear how it applies (since nobody has ever attempted to explain this) and would like you to explain it to me, as you say you are happy to do. FNMF 05:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, if any users see this and know of any objective and worthy administrators, I would ask you to inform them about this improper block and direct them to my userpage. Thanks. FNMF 05:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have asked FM to unblock you based on the case I outlined on his talk page. Believe me, you would rather give him the chance to unblock you. But if another admin unblocks you, then I hope he at least apologizes. --Otheus 05:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I find the above judgment incredible. No evidence of my disruptive behavior has been offered. No discussion of whether FeloniousMonk was in a position to block me was discussed. I ask that another administrator examine this case. FNMF 10:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the block is justified. I suspect we need a CheckUser here, as the edit pattern is very much like that of an abusive puppeteeer.  To prevent damage and disruption int th emean time, the block can stay in place. Guy (Help!) 07:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, the above administrator implies I am a sock-puppet of another user, and he "suspects we need a CheckUser here." With this comment he shows that he did not even read my unblock request, which states that a checkuser request was already conducted (the results are available here). I have stated repeatedly I have no connection with Langan and am not a proponent of his ideas. No evidence that I am has been offered. FNMF 10:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * FNMF, just a friendly word of caution and advice. I know it's an insult and and seeming injustice to be blocked for 2 days, but it's only 2 days. I will try to have this lifted sooner than that, but the article will not be trashed, nor will the world end in those two days. Don't think of doing what others have done by evading the block by using other accounts, etc. That would be serious egg on your face, on my face, and completely justify FeloniousMonk's block. --Otheus 15:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, you may be interested in reading up on [Daniel_Tammet] and [Mike Warnke]. --Otheus 15:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I too ask that FNMF be unblocked. FeloniousMonk has a long history of content disputes at Christopher Michael Langan, and one recently involving FNMF. Specifically, FeloniousMonk had added, and re-inserted after it was protested as potentially libelous, a "Mega Society lawsuit" section which eventually had to be removed by Jimbo Wales himself, who observed that the section had "badly violated" NPOV and warned that "Wikipedia should not be held hostage by people who are doing original research in support of an agenda." FNMF's first edits to the article (beginning just five days ago) tried to remove this section, and FeloniousMonk involved himself in the dispute on the talk page, arguing against FNMF that the section was "fine". FeloniousMonk was previously admonished by the ArbCom not to use his administrative tools in content disputes in which he is involved, and the administrator who declined FNMF's unblock request, JzG, had also argued for the lawsuit's inclusion (in part so that it could illustrate, in his words, "the obsessive behaviour to which [Langan] is stated to be prone"), and has apparently even been in contact with Mega Society members. FNMF seems to me to be a well-intentioned contributor, and has participated constructively at the article. Input from uninvolved administrators would be very welcome here. Tim Smith 19:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Two comments by Otheus moved so as not to make my unblock request confusing to read

 * Sorry to interject. Whether or not I believe that FM is 151.151.21.101 is not relevant. I said that he would have a hard time proving that it is not the case, an entirely different thing, yet a subtle, distinction. --Otheus 05:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Of your documentation of requesting clarification from FM, I added the diff-link to the request made to Jimbo. --Otheus 18:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Asmodeus about my block
User Asmodeus has left a comment here concerning my block by FeloniousMonk. I include the link to Asmodeus's comment purely because I consider it to be a fair summary. I would like to add (and I don't believe I have made this comment previously) that the indefinite ban prohibiting users Asmodeus and DrL from editing the Langan entry should be rescinded. No doubt this comment will be cited by certain others as proof of collusion or proof that I am a "Langan-promoter." Such a conclusion, however, would be false. I simply believe that they have been treated unfairly by a biased group of editors with an axe to grind, and who have chosen to grind it on Langan's formidable head. FNMF 07:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Response by Jimbo Wales to comment by Asmodeus
See also the reply by Jimbo Wales to the comment by Asmodeus. Mr Wales makes clear he believes the block was unwarranted. FNMF 23:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Unblock
I have removed this block. However, I would urge you to avoid comments such as this & 'vandalizing' - as they are somewhat uncivil and can only serve to inflame dispute. Also, on the links in question, I'd suggest citing the original sources, even if they are not available online, rather than the copies of them at Langan's site. Offline sources are perfectly allowed on Wikipedia and would, in this case, remove the concerns about the copies being hosted on Langan's page.

Good luck and please try to work with people even if they don't seem to be willing to work with you. --CBD 12:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

And here is the comment by CBD, explaining to FeloniousMonk why the unblock was performed. FNMF 13:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, however, I still appear to be blocked. This seems to be because my IP address (58.104.22.81) is still blocked. FNMF 13:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I've unblocked that IP address though I couldn't find a record of it being blocked or any related autoblock entry. Unfortunately the autoblocker is sometimes tricky to unravel. --CBD 14:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is the thanks and comment I left for CBD for unblocking me. FNMF 15:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Timeline of events leading to my block by FeloniousMonk
I left the following on the talk page of user CBDunkerson (CBD), the administrator kind enough to unblock me:

For further reference, and in case it ever becomes necessary, here is the sequence of events leading to my purported “personal attack” on the IP user.

As you know, after the intervention of Mr Wales, a reaction occurred, leading to the discussion of the question of whether to include certain references. This discussion seemed (to me at least) to have been, or to very nearly have been, resolved.

The following sequence then occurred:
 * 15:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)  User Tim Smith deletes quote from footnote, arguing in the edit summary that the quote is unnecessary, and noting that it has been corrupted.
 * 16:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC) User 151.151.21.101 restores corrupted quote for the first time.
 * 06:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC) User Tim Smith makes note on talk page about the use of a corrupted quote, and argues it does not serve its purported purpose and should be removed.
 * 06:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC) I respond by saying that the quote in its corrupt form is obviously unacceptable, but I do not argue for its removal rather than correction. I explain at length why I believe the quote has been misunderstood. I argue that if no legitimate secondary sources can be found for the contention that Langan is a proponent of intelligent design, then for the entry to assert this would constitute a violation of the policy against original research.
 * 07:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC) User Tim Smith removes the corrupted quote.
 * 07:50 22 March 2007 (UTC) I open a new section, called “Langan, intelligent design, and Wikipedia policy,” in order to make even clearer my argument that, without secondary sources, the entry should not assert that Langan is a proponent of intelligent design.
 * 08:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC) User WAS 4.250 asks if I agree with the statement from the entry that Langan and his wife are members of an intelligent design society.
 * 08:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC) I affirm that I agree with the statement, and that I do not have great problems with the section as written. I indicate that my motive is to show why a campaign to prove Mr Langan is an advocate of ID is unnecessary and can be ended.
 * 12:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC) User NightSky indicates agreement with my presentation, and makes two proposals: 1), that the section title be altered; 2) that the word “fellow” be deleted from the phrase “a collection of essays by fellow intelligent design proponents.”
 * 15:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC) User Arthur Rubin makes several points, arguing in a qualified way that Langan has explicitly supported ID, but also noting the lack of secondary sources for the contention he is an advocate of ID, and making a suggestion to rephrase the above to “a collection of essays pubished by intelligent design proponents.”
 * 15:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC) User Tim Smith argues against the characterisation of the ISCID as an intelligent design society. He suggests another way of characterising the association.
 * 16:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC) User NightSky argues that the entry should state that neither Langan nor his wife have declared themselves proponents of ID.
 * 16:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC) User NightSky agrees to Arthur Rubin’s suggested rephrasing.
 * 16:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC) I indicate support for: 1) the deletion of the word “fellow” from the above-mentioned phrase about the book-collection; 2) Arthur Rubin’s suggested rephrasing; 3) Tim Smith’s suggested rephrasing about the ISCID; 4) NightSky’s suggestion about a statement that Langan has not declared himself an ID proponent. I also argue that Langan’s wife’s fellowship in the organisation is not notable or important, and probably should not be mentioned in the entry.
 * 17:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC) User NightSky indicates agreement with my position.
 * 17:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC) User 151.151.21.101 restores the corrupted quote for the second time.
 * 17:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC) User 151.151.21.101 states that ISCID is in fact an ID society.
 * 17:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC) User NightSky removes the corrupted quote, asking in edit summary that it not be restored without further talk page discussion.
 * 17:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC) User 151.151.21.101 claims that the suggestions supported by myself and NightSky in fact “promote a partisan POV” and improperly rely on a primary source.
 * 18:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC) User NightSky starts a new section, “Quotes,” and asks editors to make sure quotes are accurate, and to discuss controversial edits on the talk page.
 * 18:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC) User Jim62sch asks what is wrong with the quote, and states that if he is not happy with the answer, he will restore the quote.
 * 19:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC) User Tim Smith directs Jim62sch to the arguments given against the quote.
 * 19:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC) User Jim62sch restores corrupted quote for the third time.
 * 20:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC) User 151.151.21.101 declares that “there’s no shortage of Langan meat puppets at this article.”
 * 20:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC) User Arthur Rubin removes the corrupt phrases from the quote.
 * 20:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC) User Tim Smith reiterates to Jim62sch the problems with the quote, and complains that Jim62sch has simply restored with quote without discussion.
 * 21:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC) User Arthur Rubin argues for the inclusion of the quote, so long as it is corrected, because it “supports the claim (not presently made in the article) that CML (falsely) believes ID to be a ‘scientific theory’.”
 * 21:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC) I again try to explain my arguments that Langan is not claiming that ID is a true theory, simply that it presents itself as science and claims to be scientifically verifiable. I admonish Jim62sch for his refusal to examine or discuss counter-arguments while editing the entry. And I reject his accusation that I am connected with Langan.
 * 22:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC) I re-paste my arguments in another section about why the quote has been misinterpreted, in case it was missed due to its placement high up on the page.
 * 22:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC) User Arthur Rubin agrees that the entry should not state Langan is a proponent of ID without either a secondary source or clear declaration by Langan, but neither should it state the contrary. He agrees with 151.151.21.101 that ISCID is an ID organisation. He argues that Langan’s wife is “marginally relevant.” And he finally argues for the deletion of all references to megafoundation.org and ctmu.org throughout the entry.
 * 22:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC) I open a new section about user 151.151.21.101, giving five different reasons why I believe this user’s editing is poor, indicating my belief that this user’s behaviour means they can presently be ignored, and hoping that their behaviour improves in the future.
 * 22:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC) User Arthur Rubin responds by stating that I am approaching a violation of the ArbCom ruling about Asmodeus and DrL, and to “consider myself warned.”
 * 22:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC) User Arthur Rubin argues that ID theory, as scientific is nevertheless “not self-consistent.”
 * 22:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC) I respond to Arthur Rubin’s statement that I should consider myself warned, stating that I have done nothing other than argue my case, arguments which have been supported by several editors, but which have been totally ignored by those who keep restoring the quote.
 * 22:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC) I respond to Arthur Rubin’s argument that ID is not self-consistent, indicating why I do not believe his point is important to interpreting the quote in question.
 * 22:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC) I try to elaborate the above point in another way.
 * 22:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC) User Arthur Rubin states that I have added material favourable to Langan and removed material unfavourable to Langan, “against clear consensus.”
 * 23:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC) User 151.151.21.104 argues that the only source of disruption are “Langan’s cronies,” and argues that my creation of a section devoted to a “personal attack” is evidence of this disruption.
 * 23:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC) I respond to Arthur Rubin’s comments at 22:16, agreeing with him that it is not important to state that Langan is not a proponent of ID, and suggesting a weaker phrasing. I also state that I do not understand what he thinks is wrong about Tim Smith’s suggestion about how to describe the ISCID. I also argue further against the mention of Langan’s wife in relation to ISCID.
 * 23:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC) I respond to Arthur Rubin’s comments by noting that I have neither added nor removed material, and am happy to have my contributions scrutinised.
 * 23:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC) I respond to 151.151.21.104 by denying that I engaged in a personal attack, by reminding him of the five reasons I gave that this user was disruptive, and indicating that I hope his edits will be constructive in the future.
 * 03:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC) FeloniousMonk blocks me for 48 hours for “walking in the footsteps of Asmodeus and DrL,” and for “personal attacks and disruption.” He claimed to be happy to explain this further, but never did.

Note that in the above sequence I did not make any edits whatsoever to the entry on Langan.

I apologise for not providing links to all the diffs, but unfortunately I do not have the time to do the cut-and-paste at the moment. I believe that this exhaustive timeline makes the situation at this entry, and the events leading to my block, very clear. The difference between the amount and quality of argument offered by one “side,” and the lack of argument from the other “side,” is stark. This is, to me, evidence of a systematic problem with the editing of this entry. I thank you again for the unblock and for taking the time to review the situation. FNMF 00:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Grateful thanks to user Athaenara for now supplying the diffs in the above. FNMF 05:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

"It's all your fault"
Well, I've taken up your invitation, and finished tracking through most of the references. I think. Difficult to keep track. Now everything hurts, it's late, and the experience of reading this has been a tremendous echo of my working day, which I might try and explain sometime. The echo is not an echo in a good way. --220.238.237.41 17:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The above was relocated from its original posting on my user page.

Reply
No, that's not what I meant at all. It's illustrative of the problems I think such a proposal would cause. Basically, if admins had to run for "re-election" every couple of years, they might be afraid to take action against those who might be participating, even if that person really is causing disruption, edit-warring, etc. ArbCom is perfectly capable of desysopping genuinely bad admins. The ones who handle the really tough cases are the most valuable of all, and they'd be the first to go with such a "re-election" system. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a word of advice
Getting involved so deeply on content that you've drawn the kind of fire that this 'ID business' has isn't conducive to a happy time at wikipedia. I just tore Guettarda a new asshole by email for enflaming this matter here and on your blocker's talk page betweeen FM and CBD, but that's my personal opinion expressed because his/her behavior was untoward.

I further concur with CBD that FM was on shaky ground at best characterizing the link he gives as personal attack.

But for you, a new editor, I counsel this, as I do anyone I advise on WP as a WP:AMA member. If the edit you are viewing or contemplating is one which has the least bit of raised emotion, it is a sure signal that you need to be leaving that page and going onto something else. We are we all hope building something worthwhile for the future, but merciless editing means any yammer head can come along tomorrow and undo what we did so very carefully over some painstaking hours. That is infuriating, but it can't be allowed to infuriate us. Walk away. At least for a while.

Most importantly, recognize whatever you do with your time here is not going to add to your professional credentials, is going to have nothing but a deleterious effect on your income and interpersonal relationships, and will for damn sure never add to your pension fund. In sum, have fun, and if things start heating up, hit random page, and edit somewhere else. You apparently stumbled into a topic best left to long standing editors. Let others edit, if you want to keep a hand in, do it solely on the talk page. After 5000 edits or so, then perhaps, contemplate mixing it up--but I wouldn't advise it even then. Best wishes, and belated welcome! // Fra nkB 16:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

''Thankyou for your advice, which was no doubt well-intended. Unfortunately I cannot agree that contentious entries should necessarily be left to "long-standing editors" to edit. Long-standing does not always mean the best.''    Would you accept I didn't quite mean it that bluntly, or at least not as a hard and fast rule, but as a milder sort of suggestion along those lines? (I was getting hurried to close your message by RL. Ugh! Work, you know!!!) Don't ever see much use in conflicts here, speaking as someone who has done a fair amount of intervening from the WP:AMA perspective. (Mostly I do that by email, to add to the answer already given below). ''Thanks also for your advice to be judicious but not to inflame the situation. However your own intervention would seem to raise its own questions. Was your intervention with Guettarda judicious?    'NO, not at all. 'But he might have benefited, which was my motivator, and may still'', even if it takes a few years and some particularly telling blow in the school of hard knocks to bring back the recollection. Other than that... Sometimes I get an altruistic itch and scratch it. If I didn't, I wouldn't do such things, nor the AMA. ''Was there a reason you intervened by email rather than openly and transparently on Wikipedia? Was your own intervention measured and reasonable?''    It was discrete, and SOP for my style of AMA work. I don't know him from Adam, but he pushed a button or two as well. I must say, he's the first to just blow off what I said in such a message. They usually exchange emails on it, which give me a chance to back down and give a little while still making the points. I do very little of that sort of dispute resolution on line, for obvious reasons. There is, after all, no reason to call someone an idiot publically, and sometimes plain speech is exactly what is called for. So I use the email, unless it's about content. I don't (As I didn't here) express any opinion on content, so I can address behavior as a neutral party. In this case, I chose to share the reaction his nattering gave me man to man-- simply called it the way I read his behavior. He's apparently used to the role of a bully though, and worse, likes it. He simply had no business in between FM and CBD, and from the above, he clearly isn't very mature--or maybe he did take it as racist, which would be unfortunate, cause I'm not in the least. Compared to what I revised and edited down, yes, it was quite measured. I had to restrain myself from making it an open post. But then I spent 30 years in the Naval reserve and can blister paint if I get wound up. It comes nissued with the Chief's stripes, I think.  Well that and a bunch of blue collar relatives in a plain spoken sub-culture. Miners and steel-workers aren't much given to bullshit. Was there a reason why you decided to intervene on my behalf but not to speak with me about the matter until after you had acted?    Pretty much concurrent in time... I posted him, then I had to backspace through your page again on the way back to my own wiki-business (still waiting my return, actually, in an edit buffer). I backspace a lot when I leave a page... I'm usually working on related matters and it's how I keep track of what's next. In your case, in particular in light of the charge of socket puppetry, being possessed of few edits really weakens your position, and the block did you no good either in either the long or short run. CBD and I are about the same age, and neither of us are happy with abuse of power, and we strive to be fair. I'll be far blunter more often. CBD is the fairest person I know, now that I think on it, and one of the politest. I try me best! Finally, I believe you acted without having fully investigated the situation, without having studied carefully the full history of the dispute you decided to wade into.    I didn't involve myself in the dispute per se, but called on him to change his behavior, as I suggested some similar thought change might be worth considering for someone without 500 edits yet... and yes, I'd started on your user page and read all that, then FM's, having begun it all with a little alert posting to CBD on a template collision on the main page. I don't usually browse much at all, but there was your post, and I followed back links when I read CBD's note to you out of curiosity. Sigh. An unusual moment of off-guard weakness... and look at what it got me! However, like CBD usually does, I'm trying to get people with irrational passions to just walk away from it. And all passions hereon are ultimately irrational. There's no guarantee the site will be up and operating next week, but faith, and with no effective quality control, people will squabble now and again. For my part, I don't think we'll see any good quality control and a lessening of such disputes until some things evolve into new measures... but now I digress in philosophy. IMHO, Nothing here is worth the time involvement. Ever. Square that for disputes. ''A large portion of this history is recorded on my user page and my talk page, with links to many of the relevant diffs. If you had studied this thoroughly, I believe you may have reached slightly different conclusions about some matters.''    Actually I started with the stuff on your user page... that's what really got my attention, as it is unusual to say the least. Secondly, there is no 'opinion' to change based in the dispute. I've no opinion, but unproductive or silly behavior is also very evident in the record you mention, and it is solely the contention, not the conflict which concerns me. The content we'll get good enough soon enough whether those two or yourself is involved or not. If not, the project is doomed to fail, as POV editors are far too common, and a sure danger sign of that is getting over involved in any page(s). BTW--I was in admiration of the way you attempted to reach a consensus, but... I really mean it when I say it's not worth the time to deal with such. If it can't be settled in an single exchange or two, it's probably not a good idea to push it. Not so much so as to use a revert. I don't think I've reverted more than 5-7 times on an article since 2004, and never more than once per. Never! Your work on that talk was good... but obviously Ben's advice still holds: "A man convinced against his will, is unconvinced still!" And the intervention to him, and to you are really two different matters and involve opposing judgment calls. My intervention with him had nothing much to do with you, but with CBD. You, I hope will reflect on spending your own time better --not pissing it all away on contentious topics. I'm not going to tell you to note fight the occasional battle, but to draw a limit beyond which you won't allow yourself to be sucked into more discussion or contention. If you feel so strongly about something that such a limit is inconcievable to you, then you are not someone that should be editing that article. Period. Game. Set. Match. Someone else can fill the need, we have all of eternity to not use someone as the editor who is so obviously POV. The project comes first, and POV is not tolerable. ''Nevertheless, thanks again. FNMF 18:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)'' You're more than welcome. I really had better things to do then, and still do. My wikitime is getting to be shorter and shorter these days. Nonetheless, nice to meet you. // Fra nkB 21:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply--Part II
re: continued from:

Thanks for elaborating on your perspective, and for taking the time to reply in detail. I guess the question I was really asking, but that I didn't put explicitly, was whether your own intervention in fact achieved anything. Personally, I doubt that a plain-speaking email is likely to effect a change of heart, whether now or in a few years. As for my interest in the Langan entry, I find him an interesting person (based on his appearance in a documentary by Errol Morris), and I believe that the presumption of some editors that he advocates intelligent design is based on a misunderstanding. Clearly he has associations with ID people, but I believe incorrect conclusions have been drawn from that fact. When I discovered that his entry contained clear policy violations designed to attack the subject, I felt compelled to at least attempt to address the situation. For Langan's sake, not for love of editing contentious entries. I guess I would therefore say I am motivated by rational (rather than irrational) passion (you may disagree). Fortunately the route I chose proved quickly fruitful. But this turned out to be something akin to stirring up a hornet's nest. I (along with one or two others) have since then been methodically trying to reach something like a stable position for the entry. This may be making progress, although it does of course have a "two steps forward, one step back" kind of feel to it. So I guess my somewhat gruff reaction to your intervention was due to my feeling that there is little to be gained and something to be lost by poking at one of the angry hornets. But, as I said, I did take your intervention as well-intentioned, and thanks again for explaining further. FNMF 22:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * re:I guess the question I was really asking, but that I didn't put explicitly, was whether your own intervention in fact achieved anything. Personally, I doubt that a plain-speaking email is likely to effect a change of heart, whether now or in a few years.


 * Oh, tis clearly easier to do nothing and shrug such behavior off, but your implied belief that such censures do nothing flys in the face of thousands of years experience with things like spankings by authority figures, peer presure, formal community shunning, complaints at the grocer, who then passes such on to the big insensitive corporation, disapproving aunts and uncles sniffing at behavior, and letters to yer local congress-critter, et. al. and other such public relations practices. So I believe such slings and arrows will sting on a personal level as well, and will do some good--at least if others reinforce the message from time to time. God knows most people worry about what the neighbors will think, say or do if one has a junky car, paints the house a weird color, and such. One such opinion voiced alone, of course is something one may shrug off, and we humans rationalize all to easily. OTOH, if you don't bet you can't win. He can have what ever opinion he likes of me... my track record here is pretty clear though, and it may make him hesitate the next time he wants to gang up on someone. Secondly, being totally non-involved, my voiced displeasure may well carry more weight than a person he is directly engaged with.  Look at it this way: It's an extension of "All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing",  so given that fundamental viewpoint... yes, once in a while I'll tilt at such a windmill.  As to ID and the content matters, of course you should fight the good fight... but I submit reverting is nothing but a way to achieve grief. Unless you are reverting yourself (Most of mine are such--iterim changes I need more time to finish later, giving me a starting point when I can return to the section or page edit) or blatant vandalism, I advise only reverting by edit changes in paragraph size incremental bites should there be an adversarial situation developing. Basically, a revert is a huge slap in the face--the ultimate throwing down of a gauntlet and so tantamount to picking a fight, a complete rejection of the other editor's contribution and pretty much a direct attack on his judgment, which immediately engages her/his ego in undesirable ways--much as my private email was devised to do more directly (and honestly, if you will), but worse as it's in public, if you will.


 * If you don't tango, they can't dance either! If that incremental change gets reverted, alter the wording yet again, and see if that sticks... all the while working it out on the talk page. Thus you are editing, not using a tool which is best left solely to anti-vandalism measures, past the first change. In sum, I almost never re-revert, and on the few occasions I have done so, it's with a pointed discussion on his/her talk as to why his reversion was inappropriate based on facts and references, inviting him to edit my changes, not throw the whole matter out. That has never failed me in resolving such content matters. I really go out of my way to never revert whatever, but for the few occasions when I was the one who discovered obvious vandalisms and myself. Other that those cases, there is just way too much ego involved and hence risk of unconstructive conflict, which of course handicaps (or defeats in advance) any reasoned attempt at working it out, or at least vastly complicates it going forward. Much better to use some of the inline cleanup templates, reasoning on the talk, preferably by asking questions, etc. all conducted over a reasonably long period of many days... if not weeks.


 * The real bad behavior in this is the too ready violation of such reluctance by editors who are supposed to be aware of that, and of WP:BITE. OTOH, I can understand why they got an impression that you might be a Socket Puppet... but had they proceeded 'professionally' with real 'courtesy' (not tounge in cheek adherence to WP:CIV, but really 'walking the walk and talking the talk'  and logically and consistently extending it to their editing actions which includes not reverting) as I would, sans reverts at all, this would have worked itself out properly in the article... not as a block on you. Hmmmm... maybe I need to make that point to FeloniusMonk... he may need the encouragement towards such better behavior. I'd had a better opinion of him before this BITE on you on such flimsy grounds, and was unaware he'd be spanked by the ArbCom for abusing his powers on pages he's involved with. His rationale that he hadn't edited the page in weeks (to CBD) is so blatantly childish and self-serving as to be beyond ridiculous, and well below what level of professionalism I would expect of anyone given Admin powers. It's really one of our biggest weaknesses--people with sufficient real life experience to make good judgments on interpersonal conduct and behavior are usually too busy and have real life's that minimize their participation in these wiki's leaving us with precocious inexperienced youngsters not seasoned by experience running things and all too often rushing things. What they all need is five-seven years with a demanding spouse, an asshole for a boss, a screwup for a co-worker, and two kids to give them some perspective. Ain't going to happen though. Sigh. I can but hope more admins spend more time getting laid and develop real lives and less time in virtual communities moving too quickly and magnifying things which don't matter all that much into bigger affairs than need be. // Fra nkB 16:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Guettarda 19:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Tim Smith's edits
Response on the Langan talk page. Token apology (mea culpa!) offered. --Otheus 22:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

review process for administrators and CTMU
Greetings FNMF, for what it's worth, I think you made some noteworthy points in A review process for administrators ... I also think you presented your views professionally, cogently, and with an exceptional degree of dilligence, despite having been previously treated ... the way you were treated.

Although I do not necessarily agree with the specific remedies you proposed, the manner in which you presented them was commendable. As someone who would like to see CTMU recieve fair treatment in Wikipedia, I think all proponents of its inclusion would similarly do well to present a case that is equally dilligent and focused. If there are people out there who are capable of evaluating such matters impartially, I think such an approach will prove useful to help them reach conclusions that you would consider favorable. This is not to criticize your efforts in any way, but rather to encourage your efforts and the effective use of your strengths, time and energy. Best regards. dr.ef.tymac 15:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

(the following was intended as a response on the article talk page, but moved here because of a simultaneous edit conflict with User:ScienceApologist): Fair enough. Having personally read manuscripts that went unpublished simply because they were difficult for experts to read (even though careful review demonstrated they were internally consistent, well-researched and significant) ... I will simply add this side comment: I certainly do hope Langan's ideas will benefit from the contribution of a very capable and trustworthy editor. Some minor readability improvements can go a long way. I think that is especially true for CTMU exposition in this (and any other) WP article. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 04:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Your note
Hi FNMF, it's very frustrating when forest fires like this break out. One option is simply to ignore Sparkzilla's posts, which will have to stop at some point. I'm reluctant to get involved in the particular case, because I don't know the details, but I'll try to find the discussion on Jimbo's page to see how it evolved. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Mike Farrell
I've discussed the information that I posted on Mike Farrell with the writer. He had no problem with me posting the material as long as it was attributed to his article which I did. Mike Farrell is not onlu a terrorist sympathizer but his acting really really sucks. Also, FNMF, I've reposted the material from MY BLOG, which I've included as a link. My material is verifiable as per the rules. Please stop removing my posts. This information is valid and verified no matter how distasteful you or others may find it.

BLP and Aiken
Thanks for deleting those passages in the Aiken entry. Thirteen archived talk pages and a failed cabal mediation attest to the degree of controversy over this material, and I will not be surprised if there are those who insist that the media & controversies section is now incomplete, especially after Ken did away with that whole segment. That media & controversies section came about when someone who did not edit the Aiken entry proposed it for good article status. It was reviewed by Davodd, who subsequently placed a bias tag on the entry here. At that time, the entry already included what we call "the paragraph", arrived at through much debate: Aiken has been the subject of gay jokes....But if you could get up your nose and kill it, you would do it."  The word tabloid in "the paragraph" hid a piped link to the JP entry. Davodd, who is an admin, insisted that more controversies be added, and he was specific, hence the creation of that section. You can view the debate in Archive 13 of the Aiken Talk page, beginning with the To Do section, through to the end of that archive.  The good article review is here, Davodd's explanation is here, and specifics as to what should be included are here. Things have changed at Wikipedia since then, especially when it comes to BLP, but I'll be really surprised if this stands without argument. Note for example this August 2006 edit/edit comment on the Aiken page by an editor who edited the JP entry as recently as a few days ago. I hope you will be willing to support the editors if a debate on Talk:Clay_Aiken should arise. A comment from you on Talk:Clay_Aiken explaining your edits would be a helpful proactive move. Thank you. -Jmh123 22:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Contributions wanted - Factory farm article
Hi, can you please comment on here. This is to resolve the revert issues to unlock the page. cheers, NathanLee 16:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

RfM
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Factory farming, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

SlimVirgin (talk) 01:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

re:
Just responded to you on my talk page. Rockstar ( T/C ) 01:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 08:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

BLP
Thanks for doing that. I agree that it was an unnecessary complication. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply
On Guy's talk page. Viridae Talk 12:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And again - poor guy, getting all these new messages. I'm sure he will ask us to move if he doesn't want the conversation there though. Viridae Talk 12:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

factory farming
You said "Given that progress appears infinitesimally slow, I also recommend that each article be given back its own talk page. There is no reason why every single article concerned with this phenomenon should be paralysed through being locked into this particular mess. If editors don't agree all these articles should exist, let them open an AfD. Nothing is currently being gained by redirecting the talk pages for all these articles back here"

What in the world are you talking about? I know of no such talk page redirects. WAS 4.250 14:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Melbourne meetup 6
Hi. This is a reminder to people on the Melbourne meetup participation list that the next meetup has been arranged for 19 June. Could you indicate on the meetup page your likely attendence, or otherwise. Regards. - Cuddy Wifter 23:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)