User talk:FeloniousMonk/Archive Jan 2005

Personal attacks
Please keep discussion in article talk pages on topic, discussing the topic at hand, and not the users involved. Review No personal attacks, Ad hominem, etc... Sam [Spade] 01:30, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * According to the policy, it's not a personal attack for me to ask a legitimate question of you and other users to clarify whether the bigoted statements that they allege that you have made are valid. In the process of editing the Atheism article other users have alleged: 1) that you've made the statement that you "revile atheists"  2) that you severely disrupted Talk:Atheism in the past as User:JackLynch (which indeed redirects to User:Sam Spade, answering my question for me). I've only asked of you to confirm or rebut what others have said to put this behind us so we can move on. You should have just answered the questions and cleared your name instead of coming here with this.--FeloniousMonk 04:35, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Please stop sending me insulting, vulgar emails through the wikipedia email function.--FeloniousMonk 22:55, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your questions
I have answered your questions in the talk page, just FYI. I answered beneath the question, which may be confusing, sorry! I recommend that you check the links provided by others, also. The Rev of Bru


 * Thanks Rev!--FeloniousMonk 17:02, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent wikipedia policy.
I noticed your comments on User_talk:128.23.128.169, and found them to be false. I have gently hinted before, now I'm going to warn you. Please pay careful attention to how wikipedia policy works if you want to apply it. If you don't quite get it, that's fine, we can still work on wikipedia.

What you should never do is misrepresent that policy to new users, that's just simply unfair. I'd also consider it a subtle form of vandalism.

So stick to editing, vote and discuss if you like, I don't mind, but don't try to do any policy based reverts or comments again. I'm not kidding, don't let me catch you!

As I said, stick to doing normal discussion, or better yet, actually edit from time to time, and I think everyone will be glad to have you around.

Have a nice day! :-) Kim Bruning 16:28, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Kim, I appreciate your correcting me on this long past matter and am impressed with your diligence and dedication to the spirit of wikipedia and your attention to detail for even minor misstatements. Though I do object to you mis-characterizing me as an inexperienced user here. As I've told you before I've been editing wikipedia for 2 years.


 * And Kim, you are right, I did misstate the policy, I should have said "suggests" or "recommends" instead of "requires". Whew, I'm glad you caught that!


 * Perhaps you yourself should have actually cited or point us to the actual policy if your going to stand on pedantry and lecture me here. The actual (former) policy page was titled "Log in before making drastic changes", and it now redirects to "Accountability" which states:
 * "As an informal guideline, many Wikipedians prefer that people should log in before making drastic changes to existing articles."
 * "But it's not that others' frustration (over anonymity) is, alone, a valid reason to revert your edits. Rather, that drastic changes to articles is a reversion, usually, of articles that have some invested discussion in them."
 * "Issues of accountability and anonymity lies as much in the user's behavior as in the registration of a user name."


 * I'm sure this is your idea of being helpful and not an instance of an admin badgering someone they've had previous disagreements with, so thank you.--FeloniousMonk 16:59, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Certainly: Foundation issues, points 2 and 3. Unlike the reccomendations you are quoting above, these are the actual rules here on wikipedia, and they are essentially non-negotiable. You claimed different things in your comments to the anon. Hmm, that's a pretty good indication that you have insufficient experience to make statements about rules to anons.


 * I'm confident that you will gain this experience fairly quickly though. You seem to have a great memory for every single detail of current rules and reccomendations. It would be great if you would gain a better understanding of the inner workings of wikipedia and *why* those rules exist, and which are more important and which are less. Have a chat with Jimbo Wales and ask him about things for a bit, and he'll tell you. Go on! He doesn't bite! :-)


 * Kim Bruning 19:54, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * My point was that the policy has evolved over time, and my statement that login was required for major edits was based on out-of-date policy.


 * Funny you should mention learning the "whys" behind the "whats" and the "hows" of the policies, because as a diversion I actually read not just the policy formulation pages of metawiki, but the Talk pages of those metawiki articles. That is how I've come to know the nuances of the policies as I do. If you have the time it's fascinating reading. BTW, you've got mail.--FeloniousMonk 20:11, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, you seem to be fairly polite and reasonable, so I've been polite and reasonable back. But notice that if I say I'm warning you, no matter how politely, I'm not kidding. I'll pretend I didn't see your further comments on the anon ip page this once, because there's a small chance you hadn't seen the warning before then, and you seem to be of good faith. On the other hand, I can't simply warn people and let them get away with it. So really, don't try me again! Kim Bruning 20:23, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, as to abusive mails, the delete button works, as does turning off wikipedia email. The arbitration commission has ruled that email is outside their jurisdiction.

What you can do positively is to approach the user who mailed you, and talk things through with them. You could also request mediation if that doesn't work. Kim Bruning 20:23, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * You'll find that threats don't work well with me. I don't scare easily, and I'm not cowed here. I am knowledgeable and responsible. If you find me violating policy, then you are free to seek whatever remedies wikipedia provides. But be sure you have a valid case. Because if you are indeed badgering me, as your last response implies, then any poorly-founded or frivolous attempts to drag my name through the mud will be apparent due to your history right here of continually confronting me over minor points exaggerated out of proportion with implied and overt threats of CR. Considering that and your rejection of my olive branch, and it is I who will be seeking recourse. I am vigilant in following policy here and ensuring others do as well, including you.--FeloniousMonk 21:02, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * There's a big difference between a threat and a warning, I do not make threats, I do not badger. With my admin hat on I am not able to negotiate on the basic rules of wikipedia. That's what I signed on for when I accepted the responsibility I'm afraid. :-(
 * While I'm unable to negotiate on things which are um, well, non-negotiable, I certainly can try to get along with you otherwise, when I have my normal editor hat on. Like I already said, I'd really love to see what'd happen if you had a short debate with Jimbo Wales on wikipedia policy. If you're feeling shy or so, I'd talk with him first if you like. That's my olive branch in your direction.
 * Sorry about the trouble, it's nescesary I'm afraid. I hope that on balance you'll still have an as nice a day as possible :-). Kim Bruning 21:28, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * What's there to debate with Jimbo? I already understand that most policies are indeed not negotiable. I've never claimed that they were! Where have I? I haven't. As for threats, implied or implicit threats are still threats nonetheless. Let me be clear, your repeatedly chiding and badgering me could constitute harassment per the policies. I suggest you consider your own actions and motive here, as opposed to myopically fixating on mine. Again, if you find me violating policy, then you are free to seek whatever remedies wikipedia provides, until then I'm asking you nicely to cease badgering me.--FeloniousMonk 22:04, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Read up on policy some more to learn what a warning is. It is not a threat, it is not badgering, it is not implied. It is an explicit notice that I will block you if I catch you being generally disruptive again. I am required to warn you once before doing so, and I have done so. I'm sorry that you've forced me to be so impolite and direct. My apologies.


 * As to policies, that's why I'd like you to discuss with Jimbo you see. Only 5 simple, short rules are non-negotiable, or almost so. I have linked to those 5. Assuming good faith and within reason, you can ignore 'most everything else and still be untouchable.


 * Kim Bruning 22:27, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I am already familiar with what a warning from an Admin is, though not from personal experience. Your warning is unwarranted here though, as I have not been editing in bad faith or being disruptive- my misstated caution to User_talk:128.23.128.169 was a honest mistake, not an intentional violation. Since you feel otherwise, please show me exactly what and where so I can avoid repeating the same mistake. Absent specifics, your warning here is so nebulous and ill defined that simple debate could be construed to violate your defintion of "disruptive."


 * As I've said here before, if you find me violating policy, then you are free to seek whatever remedies wikipedia provides, just be prepared to prove it. I know that I have in no way violated any policies in a way significant enough to warrant your attention, nor have I seen any proof that I have. Again, please show me exactly what and where so I can avoid repeating the same mistake.--FeloniousMonk 23:21, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As Wikipedia editors, we are obliged to obey Wikipedia policy in all our edits and other actions on Wikipedia ... not only when we judge the matter "significant". That isn't our call to make; a violation does not become not-a-violation simply because the (alleged) violator feels it is not "significant". (If it were so, then no action would be a violation, since in every case the violator would deem it insignificant.) —FOo 00:31, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't dispute that. I only ask where I've intentionally and repeated violated policy. Honest mistakes do not generally warrant Admin warnings and constant badgering as seen here. I've had another admin confirm this. I'm confident that I perform within policy 99.9% of the time. If you have specific allegations that I do not, then please make them. I'm also confident that my claim of being badgered was justified. Time will tell.--FeloniousMonk 00:44, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pointer to old RfC information
In case you didn't notice the link I threw into the rush of commentary on Talk:Atheism, here's an old summary I wrote of my original tussle with Sam: User talk:Bryan Derksen/Old RfC summary. Considering how active that talk page is and how far from the end my comment was I thought you might miss it. Bryan 04:52, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's helpful, since I did indeed miss it. I received a vulgar, insulting email from him today which I'm sure you'd enjoy reading. I'll be in touch.--FeloniousMonk 05:31, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Questions for Sam Spade
Sam, in light of your recent email to me and deletion of my reply and questions to you from your Talk page, and after reading your comments on Slrubenstein's page expressing concern over "suspicious activity, rule breaking or incivility" on wikipedia and offering assistance "in dealing with those lacking the proper respect for civility, policy, and/or the project ideals. I have little patience for those who disrespect our purpose here", I'm compelled to ask you to clarify your recent actions and statements.

Sam, does using the wikipedia email function to send other editors vulgar, insulting emails constitute suspicious activity, rule breaking or incivility in your opinion? And how exactly would our purpose here be served by sending other editors rude insults through the wikipedia email function?

I'm asking you this because this is exactly what you did to me yesterday. Your email to me consisted of exactly: "F*** off, you rat bastard" (I've edited the nasty bit, the email itself was explicit), making your comments here, here and here appear hypocritical and disingenuous. Obviously I need help too in dealing with those lacking the proper respect, does your offer of assistance to Slrubenstein extend to me as well? If so, then please stop sending me insulting emails.

I'm forced to ask you this here on my own page because you deleted my reply and question to you from your Talk page within minutes without so much as a response, and your recent actions relate directly to your claims on Slrubenstein's page of being aggrieved and beleaguered.

To avoid appearing a hypocrite, please explain to us how sending abusive, insulting emails through wikipedia systems is in any way acceptable and responsible behavior from a putatively honest and respectable editor.--FeloniousMonk 22:52, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Additionally Sam, the wikipedia policy on personal attacks states that "Abusive edit summaries are particularly ill-regarded." Sam, several of your edit summaries to me and others have been abusive:
 * User talk:Sam Spade 23:14, 5 Nov 2004 Sam Spade (Regarding your email to me - :I also said you were ignorant)
 * Talk:Ochlocracy 16:59, 6 Nov 2004 Sam Spade ...As fine a troll as you make...).

These personal attacks in edit summaries are offensive, abusive, violate the policy and need to stop.--FeloniousMonk 21:13, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Requests_for_mediation
We constantly seem to be misunderstanding each other, so I have requested mediation to try and see if we can get some help doing so.

Please indicate on that page if you would like to accept or refuse mediation.

Kim Bruning 21:57, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I have replied to you on Requests for mediation. Kim Bruning 17:05, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mediation? Nah. Just talk.

 * <>

Nope. Just talk. Kim hasn't treated you fairly, right? Is bullying you right? ---Rednblu | Talk 21:34, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bureaucratship
Hello FeloniousMonk - I just wanted to let you know that I'm running for bureaucratship, and I would like to ask for your vote, be it good or bad. I'm sending this message to a few users I respect who have interacted with me recently. Thanks, Andre ( talk )A| 00:29, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * Sadly, the voting was already ended when I receieved your message here; I've been away on business. You'd have gotten my vote for bureaucratship no problem. --FeloniousMonk 20:06, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Endorsements
Thanks for the information. I'm afraid Michael Snow is favoured by the corrupt arbitration committee and that he has conspired with them to get me banned for wholly unjust reasons (see Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily/Proposed decision and Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily/Proposed decision), so it's no surprise to me that he oh-so-conveniently neglected to include me in a discussion in which I had been a key player. This site is going to hell in a handbasket, thanks to the thoroughly corrupt administration. I shall not participate in the discussion; there's no point. Besides, they'll probably have banned me before I have the chance to say anything. Shorne 18:16, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Sadly, I'm not surprised by your story at all. In my short time here I've found the level of cabalism, cronyism and back room dealing by some to be appalling. I've seen bigots, trolls and POV Warriors who are obsequious and ingratiating to the powerful favored and protected while critically outspoken, but none-the-less responsible editors are dressed-down for simply questioning the behavior of the trollish. What's particularly grating is not just the number of powerful and influential here who are ethically challenged, but that they are tolerated and facilitated by those who putatively are not. Good luck with your RfA, I'll be watching.--FeloniousMonk 19:20, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

User:Spleeman/Sam Spade
On Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements/Endorsements you stated:


 * Doing so smacks of censorship, cover up or pro-active revisionism. I will actively oppose editors deleting anything from other editors personal pages, especially inactive editors who are not present to protect their pages.

In reply to Sam Spade's wanting to get Spleeman's page deleted. If he does try something, and I don't notice could you notify me? I would like to see that page maintained as is, and will do what I can to help. millerc 21:01, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I was already watching, and will certainly let you know.--FeloniousMonk 19:35, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Re e mailing you - I dont know how to do this in Wikipedia and the link you left does not work, can you give me a tip as to how to go about it?--Nick-in-South-Africa 06:25, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Concision
If you don't mind an unsolicited word of advice: Be concise. I've agreed with some of your comments, but I think you'll make your points more successfully if you tailor your prose a bit. Just a friendly tip... Cribcage 22:57, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Very good advice, thanks. I'm struggling to cut back...--FeloniousMonk 23:02, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Monthly Rates?
So, how much? &mdash;[[en:RaD Man|RaD Man (talk)]] 23:11, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh man, you'd have to ask me now... Unfortunately you'll have to wait for that quote while we determine the legality of my offer. After the cabal here prevented me from turning my User page into a TGP ("Felonious Fresh Links"), and also halted my rotating porn banner scheme (real headache getting the software to run on the environment here but worth it considering the great upside cash potential knowing the sort visiting my page), I'm reduced to peddling my only commodity here, my User name space, to other editors here for their own personal use.


 * Hey, maybe I'll get ArbCom candidates to rent my space for their campaign banners. That's even more controversial than porn... But you can't hold it against a guy for trying to make an honest buck, right?--FeloniousMonk 07:44, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Decency
I consider it highly indecent to make comments on any particular mediation outside of the mediation process at this point in time. I have given you the time and space you requested, but breaking with it yourself is well and truely beyond the pale. I deleted your comment with the above motivation, and hoped you'd catch my statement in the edit history. I'd rather you didn't try to deliberately antagonise me like this again. Kim Bruning 02:18, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * So you think it's acceptable for you to suggest I leave wikipedia (mere weeks after your abortive public harrassment of me), as was your deleting another editor's valid and rightful comments from a Talk page? But you claim my obliquely referencing our pending mediation offered as an explanation to another editor who questioned the ethics your suggesting that I leave is "highly indecent." I don't think so. Your own comments and actions prompted my explanation for them. I think you've got a singularly unique concept of decency if you think deletions other editor's comments is acceptable, particularly in light of your past harassment of me which is the gravamen of my points to be mediated.--FeloniousMonk 06:07, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Mediation is there to resolve conflicts between people, not to make them worse. Of course you may reinstate your statements at any time. As a natural consequence I will immediately decline further mediation. Please ask an advocate, mediator, arbitrator or experienced user for advice on what this means before you make your choice. Note that the bit about "accept or leave" was a quote from foundation issues, which on second thought might be misread (hence I removed them before you made any comments in reply). Kim Bruning 14:17, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Though your words may have indeed been unintended as you say, it was their inflammatory nature and your deletion of my response to them brought us to this brink. Knowing our past interactions, I recognize your cautioning me above as a valid threat. If you choose to withdraw from mediation for whatever reason that is your choice. What follows afterward will also be your choice.--FeloniousMonk 19:34, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Endorsements Deletion
I'm just posting to let you know I'm finished with the Kim Bruning thread. When someone snaps, "That's all there is to it," I don't see much point in trying to talk. I'm not going to crusade against every loon trying to stake a claim on some corner of cyberspace. Good luck sorting out the issue, and thanks for participating in an otherwise civilized conversation. :-) Cribcage 04:52, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Please stick around though, clearly balance is still needed there. I'm not sure what to make of Kim's ultimatum, so I'm trying to determine if he's acting in some official capacity by issuing it. If not, he'll just have to accept consensus just like anyone else. I appreciated the advice regarding my writing, and will welcome any more insight you care to give. Cheers--FeloniousMonk 07:26, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Sam Spade problem
Thanks for the note. As predicted Sam has edited out your uncomfortable comments on his own talk pages. I fail to see why Sam is not banned completely from Wikipedia, clearly he wastes huge amounts of lots of good folks time, but then I don’t understand the power structure too well yet. Anyway I’ve said my piece against his cloud cuckoo land Request for Admin.--Nick-in-South-Africa 06:04, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Talking past each other
I fear perhaps we're talking past each other on the issues of endorsement. I think we probably agree a good deal more than the page would suggest, but of course we're only raising the objections we have, instead of the agreements. So I just thought I'd drop you a note to say that I think you're basically on the right track, and that I certainly have no question that you're acting in good faith. Too often we leave our agreements unsaid.

I also agree that some of Sam's actions have been quite inappropriate. I hope you're not one of the people who sees me as being part of a Sam Spade cabal, because I can assure you that I'm not. My support for him is based on my belief he's someone who wouldn't be afraid to make unpopular decisions and express a different POV, not because I agree with him personally. That said, I dont think there's anything to be gained in you being antagonistic towards him. Realistically there's no chance of him gaining a seat on the AC (even he knows he has too many enemies for that), so while your attempts to make public his actions are commendable, I really think all they are doing is serving to inflame the situation.

Anyway, I hope that despite our differences in opinion on what's best in this whole AC mess, there's no personal animosity between us. C'ya 'round, Shane King 11:05, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * Shane, you've always struck me as a fair and reasonable editor, and no, I don't think you are in any cabal, and I certainly don't hold your relationship with Sam (whatever it may be) against you. I respect your efforts to work out this issue. And hey, anybody that can find a way to cite Jello Biafra in an edit summary and have it make sense must be OK in my opinion.


 * I see your point about us all talking past each other in the Endorsements discussion. Perhaps we should restate our points of agreement before trying to resolve those points we disagree on. While I agree with Adraeus' point that the freedom to discuss candidates freely is absolutely necessary for this to be fair, competitive and valid election, I also see your point that policy does restrict certain kinds of speech and that the Endorsements page should not be exempt. That's going to be a sticky issue to resolve, but I think we can all find some agreement that allows us to accommodate the civility policy and the needs to candidly speak on candidate history/fitness. Even if not, certainly we should at least try. Thanks for the insight and thoughts.--FeloniousMonk 17:33, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should just concentrate on the narrow issue rather than the broader issue. I'm not very good at specifics and always end up veering onto big picture items which means I ramble off topic all the time, so focus is probably a good thing.


 * I think we both agree that personal attacks are against policy and shouldn't be allowed. Really, if we can get rid of the personal attacks, I think we'll have achieved 95% of what needs to be done, and I'd be happy with it ending there. The question is how are we going to do it? The "no personal attacks" policy is one that in general has been pretty laxly enforced, despite the damage done to the chances of amicable dispute resolution. I think your proposal is reasonable, but how are we going to enforce it? Our only tool appears to be a rule with no teeth. :( Shane King 23:10, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Three Gmail accounts available for my friends
I have three invitations for free Google Gmail accounts available to distribute here to my friends. Each has 1000 megabytes of free storage. If you would like one, please contact me here or by email.--FeloniousMonk 20:01, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well done
Well done re your comments; "I completely agree. Only allowing positive comments would only benefit those few who count on knowledge of their troublesome histories not being commonplace. ... And also like real politics, it's generally those with the ugliest pasts or most embarrassing alliances that cry the loudest for censorship.--FeloniousMonk 02:48, 19 Nov 2004 on "Endorsements talk page". Did you see my post about candidate "Neutrality" deleting "opppose" comments? (On the "endorsements" page. It should have been re-named "Seconded/Opposed" or something.). Since this election's been on I've also noted that "Neutralty" also deletes anything, comments, complaints, requests from people, that puts his candidicay in a bad light and leaves on things that praise him. I think this is wrong. Candidates in the short time the election is on ought to leave such relevant stuff on. I told him that and he deleted it. WikiUser 21:44, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Totally disputed notice
I've put a totally disputed notice on the page Views of creationists and mainstream scientists compared. I did this because Ungtss has started reformatting the page to be in the form fact, viewpoint, viewpoint. This will result in POV. Here is why:

Facts should the main point of an argument. We can divide the facts on this page into several categories. Facts about viewpoints, facts about natural phenonomen, facts about deductions from theories, facts about mathematical principles. By introducing the style given above Ungtss is letting only facts about natural phenonomen and facts about viewpoints into the article. If theory A predicts X but theory B does not the article could say that: Wereas in the new format this could only be written:
 * Theory A predicts X. Adherents of theory B say it predicts X but many disagree.
 * Adherents of theory A believe it predicts X. Adherents of theory B believe it predicts X.

I would ask that you help remedy this problem with the article. I shall not have the time I'm afraid (See my User page). Barnaby dawson 14:23, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)