User talk:FeloniousMonk/Archive October2004

Shroud of Turin
Check the version that Eloquence and I have been working on at Shroud of Turin/temp. We think that we have a good NPOV base there. (Rather than starting over yet again... I just did that. :-) ) -- Mpolo 19:50, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * Excellent... you two have saved me so much headache and frustration. That is a much, much better version than what currently exists. What about JDG? He's certainly going to try to revert to his preferred version. Is there any way I can help or anything I can do to assist? --FM 19:59, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * JDG has glanced at the new article, but not read it through. His comment after glancing was positive, so there may be hope. Right now I'm just trying to get a bit of consensus to make the swap to the new version. I'm also working on getting a few more images. It's an interesting situation -- if the shroud is a fake, photos are definitely public domain, but if it's real, then one could argue that they're not... If you know where to get some free images of it, that'd be a great help. -- Mpolo 20:11, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * Afraid I'm no help with images, sorry. Anything else I can help with, just ask. Any idea when you'll cut-over to the new article? --FM 20:28, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * As of yet, there are no (completely) negative opinions about the new article. I would like to have JDG's support (or at least acceptance) to avoid a revert war. In any case, I hope to make the change within a day or two -- then we can work on hammering out the (apparently few) objections that remain. -- Mpolo 06:37, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't see a revert war as probable, as JDG has already crossed the line enough with his irrational behavior and attacks that arbitration or even blocking would be justified with any further provocation from him, having just finished reading all of his comments. Of course, avoiding getting to that point is always preferable, so bringing him into the process was the right thing to do. Let's hope he sees the benefit of working with you as well, because either way, the article will get wikified and made NPOV with or without his concurrence. I'm glad two of of the people I consider some of the best wikipedians are on this. Let me know if I can help.--FM 16:53, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Clarification

 * <>

Calm down, my friend. I'm not sure what it is that gave you offense. In my opinion, there was progress in clarifying the problems in the lead section of the Creationism page.

1) It does not make sense to me that you would label what happened in the subpage an "edit war." You reverted the headings I had placed so that I or anyone else could refer quickly to different sections of the long discussion.  I would have preferred that you had replaced the headings with the wording that seemed fitting to you rather than just revert them totally to remove them.  But I would not call what happened an "edit war."


 * <>

2) It does not make sense to me that you object to whatever "not-subtle-enough insults" you find in what I posted
 * In my opinion, it is irrelevant whether a participant on this page understands the underlying science. And it is unnecessary to engage in this standard chimpanzee politics and hierarchy challenge that we all inherited from the ancestors of the chimpanzees.  We are writing an encyclopedia page.  And what matters is whether the participant faithfully represents a valid and documented point of view on the Creationism page.  We will expect legitimate citations, of course.  The Creationism page does not address, challenge, overlap, threaten, nor discuss science, though some wrongfully keep twisting the Creationism page to do so.  In my opinion, Mr. Rayment's statements faithfully represent history and standard uses of the English language whether or not they correspond to the narrow views of science.  ---Rednblu 06:01, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

after you had thrown at Mr. Rayment the following
 * Don't worry, we're equally amused by anyone that thinks creationism could ever be tested...
 * Based on your comments here and at Talk:Intelligent_design, I'm inclined to agree with Graft's comments to you at Talk:Intelligent_design: it's clear you neither understand the basic undelying science you address here, nor the scientific method. --FeloniousMonk 05:27, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Did you have in mind that you should be able to attack Mr. Rayment to the face without even a third-party's comment that an attack had taken place?

3) It does not make sense to me that you would call what happened on Talk:Creationism an "edit war." As far as I can see, all three of us changed the words that the other two had changed.  It is not my impression that we were going in circles.  As far as I can tell, all three of us came back with different suggestions for the wording each time.  Hence, I would not characterize what happened an "edit war."  Let us keep in perspective that we were editing summaries of the points-of-view on the "Talk" page, not on the "Project page."  In my opinion, the succession of changes produced a set of words better than what I had first put down to summarize the discussion on the subpages.

4) Hence, I can only speculate what it was you had in mind when you stuck such words as misleading, dangerously close, subtle insults, campaign, obsession, POV bias, desist, accept a truce, continual undoing, and will result on my Talk page. ---Rednblu 17:05, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rednblu, considering your actions of late, followed by this profession of ignorance, I find your response here disingenuous. You have clearly been engaged in a subtle campaign to frame the debate in a POV manner to favor your position.

The headings you inserted and that I reverted were placed in a manner that implied breaks in the debate that did not exist, to wit: The headings were placed generally after your replies, leaving the replies of others to your points in a different heading and giving the impression that there were fewer rebuttals to your points than there actually were. It appears that this was done intentionally in an attempt to re-frame the discussion to favor your POV.

It is your constant and insistent restructuring and POV re-wording of the description of the controversy and positions on the Talk:Creationism page that prompts me to call it an edit war. Any neutral party looking at the history of that page (and some have already) will see your edits to that section for what they are, an attempt at framing the debate to favor your POV. Your doing so violates wiki policy and spirit, is unacceptable, and again disingenuous of you.

Subtly implying that those who oppose your viewpoint are little more than chimpanzees using chimpanzee-like tactics is still just calling someone a monkey no matter how oblique you make that comment; the intent was to insult. It is different than making the observation that it seems Philip J. Rayment does not know the science behind the topic, an observation shared by others elsewhere as well. It is matter of intent; there was no intent on my part to insult Philip J. Rayment, but to identify the most significant reason (and one expressed by others elsewhere repeatedly) why his assertions did not warrant a complete response (other than being off-topic). Whereas your intent is apparent and implicit in the words and phrase you chose: "...standard chimpanzee politics and hierarchy challenge that we all inherited from the ancestors of the chimpanzees..." I also remind you of your previous unwarranted allegations that we are "bigoted evolutionists" and that there is a "conspiracy of bigoted evolutionists" on wikipedia.--FeloniousMonk 18:10, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Additionally, this comment you left for Pjacobi confirms my identifying your POV bias and campaign on the creationism article and discussion. Care to explain this Rednblu?--FeloniousMonk 18:32, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Question
So is it your position that you will revert the label on the Encyclopedia Britannica point-of-view to "Creationist" no matter what correction I make? I find it odd that you want to enforce that "Creationist" label that I am sure would be quite a surprise to the Britannica board! But if you have taken the fixed position that you will steadfastly revert the label on the Encyclopedia Britannica point-of-view to "Creationist," you can win. :)) I thought we were building an encyclopedia. ---Rednblu 17:22, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

--- Yes, so did I.--FeloniousMonk 18:18, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Also, let's be clear and intellectually honest about this. I am not saying Encyclopedia Britannica is creationist, and it is not the "Encyclopedia Britannica point-of-view" that you are talking about. It is the Creationist point-of-view that you are trying to support by citing the Encyclopedia Britannica article. Before you can assert what sort of theory Encyclopedia Britannica actually portrays creationism as, you'll have to present the entire text of Encyclopedia Britannica's article, not a very incomplete fragment as you have. Any proclamation citing Encyclopedia Britannica as support of a particular definition of "theory" as it relates to creationism is premature at best.--FeloniousMonk 08:54, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Strange account
This is a sockpuppet account to keep your main account out of the Creationism edit wars, right? -- Pjacobi 18:10, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, this is my one and only account on wikipedia. I have only contributed with this account (and its related IPs on those occasions I've forgotten to login). I stand by my edits and comments and have a long history of contributions to the Internet, Web and Usenet.

Was this a sockpuppet argument to keep your position on the creationism page from being criticized? If you have an actual allegation you intend to make, you are welcome take it up with an Admin.--FeloniousMonk 18:17, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, that was a honest question. I looked at your contributions, and saw you nearly exclusively involved with Creationism and related articles. I was in the process of giving you the unwanted advice, that Wikipedia editing is more fun and more productive if one doesn't stick to one theme. On a second thought, and given that even your very first edits didn't have any newbieness, I got the sockpuppet idea.

I wouldn't criticize using a sockpuppet account for this purpose and quite cleary it's nothing any admin involvement is needed. In fact such use of a sockpuppet account is mentioned as one of the possible legitimate reasons for such accounts. The only actually "forbidden" point about sockpuppet accounts is doubling your votes, IMHO.

Most of the things I've wanted to say on Talk:Creationism/What is wrong with the lead section I've already said, and argueing the finer points of formulation is beyound my reach as I'm not a native speaker of English. I'll try to clarify myself, when and if I'm more sure that, e.g. belief and german Glauben mean the same.

I apologize if you did take my question as an personal attack, it wasn't meant this way.

Regards,

Pjacobi 18:49, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

BBC copyright?

 * <>

Pardon me? To what are you referring? ---Rednblu 20:15, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

You restored content that directly quotes a BBC article in violation of their copyright policy : "You are not permitted to copy, broadcast, download, store (in any medium), transmit, show or play in public, adapt or change in any way the content of these BBC web pages for any other purpose whatsoever without the prior written permission of the BBC." To conform to wikipolicy and BBC copyright policy it should be rewritten to not include direct quotes from the article.--FeloniousMonk 20:56, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

I'm sorry I don't understand. Is this the sentence to which you refer?


 * <<"After a deluge of protest from scientists, teachers and opposition parties," says the BBC report, Ms. Colic's deputy made the statement, "I have come here to confirm Charles Darwin is still alive," and announced that the decision was reversed. >>  ---Rednblu 06:15, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

According to BBC's policy, reposting of any direct quotes or other any other content that is attributable to the their article is prohibited. "You are not permitted to copy, broadcast, download, store (in any medium), transmit, show or play in public, adapt or change in any way the content of these BBC web pages for any other purpose whatsoever without the prior written permission of the BBC." seems to cover the material you've posted. In light of this, your options appear to be to rewrite the content to conform to the BBC's policy, or taking it down.

---

I think not. Under British Law, specifically the Copyright, Design and Patents Act (1988) (CDPA) § 29-30, since the exact quotation is less than 5% of the original BBC report, it is the Wikipedia editor's right to copy exactly what is in that particular sentence of "criticism, review and news reporting" in the Creationism article, as is summarized for your convenience on the Fair dealing page. ---Rednblu 22:46, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

I'm not buying that line... The BBC's own language for their terms and conditions of use constitutes an agreement: ''"In accessing the BBC's web pages, you agree that you may only download the content for your own personal non-commercial use." and "You are not permitted to copy, broadcast, download, store (in any medium), transmit, show or play in public, adapt or change in any way the content of these BBC web pages for any other purpose whatsoever without the prior written permission of the BBC."'' An agreement that you ignore and violate by posting content found in a BBC article and linking to that article from wikipedia.

Further, I suggest you read up on wikipedia's own policy. You have clearly violated it here since you have 1) ignored the existing BBC terms and conditions for their content, 2) linked to BBC's copyrighted works, 3) lifted direct quotes from that protected work, 4) failed to request a release from the BBC, the copyright owner, 5) failed to rewrite the protected content in a manner that accommodates fair use. If you want to insist on ignoring BBC's terms and conditions and wikipedia's own policies, then by all means please continue.--FeloniousMonk 23:09, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Sir. ---Rednblu 23:16, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Red
FM, I have reviewed the WP policies on dealing with user problems, and pursuant to those policies, I am going to try to get a few editors who are favorably disposed toward Red to ask him on his talk page about the allegations that have been levelled against him. I hope that in that way the discussion can proceed in an amicable way. I would appreciate it if you would follow the discussion to make sure we address all concerns. Thank you. Tom - Talk 23:33, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Thank you, I appreciate that effort. His campaign to promote his POV is reaching the limits of our ability to tolerate it and official intervention was our next step. I'd like to see this resolved amicably and the POV campaigns on Talk:Creationism and Talk:Intelligent Design cease. You'll find my specific allegations listed in this post at Talk:Intelligent Design--FeloniousMonk 23:43, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

FM, POV pushing is very tricky to discuss. Can we stick first with the Good Faith and copyright infringement? Once we get those resolved, I think we move on to POV. That sound good? Good faith is far, far more serious than the rest. Tom - Talk 23:58, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Thinking about this further, I suggest a neutral third party to have a say in this also, someone who can be trusted to remain dispassionate and does not have a prior relationship with Rednblu... I suggest Eloquence.--FeloniousMonk 00:01, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Great thinking. I also already invited User:Ed Poor to assist. He is on the whatever committee (sorry). This needs to be done properly so it is accepted by the community. I am merely taking the initiative (probably all wrong). Tom - Talk 05:36, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As it turns out, Eloquence and Ed Poor already know Rednblu. At least, his history indicates communications with them of over a year ago. Let me be clear that Red appears to be a great asset to the Wikipedia judging from the history of his edits, but it may turn out your allegations are true. There is certainly reason to think he has acted like a Creationist over the past many years since the dawn of the internet, and maybe a little more than just as a devil's avocado. I still hold him innocent until proven guilty. Tom - Talk 08:29, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

I do not doubt that Rednblu has been an asset to wikipedia on many issues and in many articles, but I expect this to be an impartial airing of the allegations, and one that judges the arguments individually on their merits, not Rednblu's prior bonhomie or ability to stay under the radar on pet POV topics. It is only his recent behavior in Talk:Creationism and Talk:Intelligent Design that finally brought about the allegations; but this is not the first time Rednblu has been accused of being disruptive or a troll on wikipedia, is it? His unparalleled and very well-documented 8 years plus of inflammatory POV anti-scientific/pro-creationism statements and campaigning on the usenet is damning enough to justify questioning his good faith and ability to maintain an NPOV in Creationism alone if not outright banning. So far Rednblu's explanation for his ruse and prior statements, acting as devil's advocate, and so implying he is not a creationist in evolutionist's clothing, rings hollow when the vast majority of his usenet posts smack of a creationism agenda and the fact that for years other usenet users seem to readily see him for what he is.

Interestingly, I have just discovered that he is also an attorney. I'm wondering when he was planning on letting us know... after his hearing perhaps. I would have thought that good faith requires disclosure of a fact like that prior to his arguing his own defense here; his being so places myself and anyone else who chooses to speak up in support of the allegations at a deficit. I have to insist that this matter is heard by at least one person not one counted among those here who Rednblu has ingratiated himself to. It seems to be a shrinking list so far. I can trust you to see that it is, I believe. "Devil's avocado"... I like it. That's got to be one of the best typos ever.--FeloniousMonk 09:25, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * "I can trust you to see that it is, I believe." That hurts.  A lot.  Did I deserve that?  Tom - Talk 22:11, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I think you misunderstand the sentiment of my statement, it was a vote of confidence in your objectivity and ability to get things done here.--FeloniousMonk 22:31, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh. Thank you.  I appears I owe you the apology. Tom - Talk 17:00, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Not at all. We are in your debt for all you have done here.--FeloniousMonk 17:11, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is not a bad thing to be favorably disposed toward a person. My religion (the one taught on the shores of Galilee), in fact, requires it in spite of offenses and bad behavior. Can't you see I am acting in good faith? Are you so consumed by the anger whipped up in your Creationism fury that I, a total stranger, am swept up in it? By gentleness and pure love I have succeeded in finally peeling away all the layers of obfuscation down to a flat answer by Rednblu that "No" he doesn't agree that my description would be a violation of good faith. Can't you see the progress we are making? Is life about agreeing or about fighting? Life is about eternity, and I for one want to be so filled with the love of the Son at the last day that I can enter free-will into the glory of the Father by the grace of the Son. Enuff sermonizing. Tom - Talk 22:11, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Again, I'm sorry if my statement has hurt your feelings but I think you've misunderstood my intention in making the statement. I was commending your objectivity here, not questioning it; perhaps too obliquely in hind sight. I appreciate all of your patient efforts toward settling the allegations leveled at Rednblu, and think you are well suited to the task. BTW, I wouldn't characterize my attitude toward Rednblu as "fury" but frustration, profound frustration.--FeloniousMonk 22:31, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Guilty. Sorry. I, too, got wrapped up.  Tee hee hee. Tom - Talk 17:00, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think you have enlisted any of the member advocates yet. At least Eloquence hasn't showed up. I suppose it will be fine for Red, you, and me to work through the issues at hand on our own. But I feel you and Red will be more satisifed if you can get the consensus of some members better known, experienced, and respected than I. Could you see what you can do to get comment from a few more members? Try User:Angela. There is none better than she. But above all, let's be patient, believe in each other, trust each other, and let wikilove prevail. Tom - Talk 22:11, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh, p.s. Here's what I suggest as a brief synopsis of where we stand with Red. If you bring up NPOV with most people you are going to get a deaf ear because NPOV is so poorly misunderstood that the experienced members know it is usually used as nothing better than a battering ram. And I feel we can resolve the copyright issue easy enough once the NPOV and good faith are resolved. So what I would do to introduce the "problemita" to request comment from others is the following (just my take):
 * I (FM) believe User:Rednblu is violating good faith. Would you please comment on the following understanding of good faith among wikipedians?  When asked, "Would it be a violation of good faith for a flesh and blood human with decades of established belief in God to pose as atheistic Rednblu?" He answered, "...my answer is 'No.'"  Please come to User talk:Rednblu to comment on this. Tom - Talk 22:20, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Will do. But where should I post this, in the relevant section on the Creationism Talk page? I'll likely just use your content as it is here if you don't mind.--FeloniousMonk 22:35, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * First of all, thank you very much for your kind words at Rednblu's talk page. I guess what I was thinking you might do is hunt down a few new individuals (by visiting the talk pages of related articles or whatever your creativity suggests) and dropping a personal note at their talk pages requesting their comment.  Tom - Talk 17:00, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Will do.--FeloniousMonk 17:11, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Just read your comments at my admin nomination indicating you probably received no responses from me to your 5 e-mails. Last week I discovered your 5 e-mails in a neglected mailbox (my deepest apologies) and attempted to respond immediately. Can you please let me know whether or what you have received from me? I will re-send any that failed. Thanks and regrets. Tom - Talk 19:07, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I regret sincerely that I was not up to the task of facilitating timely results between you and Rednblu, and that I wearied you. I think you stated well the best course for you under the circumstances. Should problems arise again, you can in good faith say that you tried sincerely to address the problem outside of mediation. Tom - Talk 15:54, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

FM, I am concerned about bad feeling between us. Did you have any concerns about my behavior that remained unresolved? Did you receive e-mail responses to yours? It looks like we have satisfied the Wikipedia requirement to discuss on talk page. Tom - Talk 20:46, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Tom, there's nothing to be concerned about; I have no bad feelings toward you at all. I still greatly appreciate your attempt at mediating a settlement of the issues related to Rednblu; most people would not have bothered, and were they similarly situated with Rednblu as were you were they would have the same issues to struggle with as you did. It's perfectly understandable. As for your emails, I did receive them- two days before the vote for you adminship ended. Considering that, it was a matter of too little response too late, combined with the favor toward Rednblu I sensed in your communications to me and responses to him that prevented my vote in support. I apologize for not supporting your nomination. I struggled with it, and in the end I voted my conscience; I felt responsive communications and an ability to maintain a steely and dispassionate objectivity are necessary traits in an admin. Nevertheless I'm sure you'll do fine in your new role. Thanks again and best wishes moving forward in making wikipedia a better encyclopedia.--FeloniousMonk 21:07, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. No bad feelings. That is what is important. Tom - Talk 20:12, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I added some additional follow-up comments to Rednblu's talk page. I would appreciate it if you at least read them. Thanks. I never did feel like we explored the word mendacious fully, but I just assumed it was your way of expressing that Red was acting in bad faith. Tom - Talk 20:12, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

p.s. You are right that an admin should have his lines of communication well greased. That was a painful failure on my part. Thanks for helping me discover the bug. Tom - Talk 20:22, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hello I did not up that revision!
Monk, I did not up that revision today on CREO after you (reverted it last night) and told me to talk about it I have been. Thought I would let you know it was not me. Vis. --216.138.26.222 03:45, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think you just need to refresh the page in your browser. The page still displays the content of the version I reverted to. Bet you had no idea what a fracas you were getting into, did you? Well, at least you came at a very interesting time...--FeloniousMonk 05:26, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Have a good weekend!
Despite all that has happened and all that has been said, we can be friends. I admire your style and your persistence. Have a good weekend. Let us the two of us get some fresh air and some good exercise this weekend. You are not in this alone. We are all in this with you. :) Later. ---Rednblu 05:30, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Tit for tat
Actually tit for tat here means I did a mild retaliation for a mild breach of wikiquette. Can you find it?

Your continued insinuations appear to be aimed at causing trouble. I see people have wondered if you're a troll or sockpuppet before.

If you'd like to alleviate such suspicions, please read up on wikipedia policies, and perhaps spend more time editing the main namespace. Stay away from community participation pages until you have done so perhaps.

Kim Bruning 19:16, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I'm reasonably well versed in wikipolicy. I've been contributing here for 2 years, in both the namespace and the community portal, and have never been censured or the subject of a dispute resolution. The only two people who have questioned my wikistatus also happen to be individuals who I have publicly disagreed with or questioned their adherence to policy. I will continue to contribute to wikipedia as I see fit within the policies. If you find me violating wikipedia policy, you are welcome to take it through channels.

You make a few insinuations here yourself. If you have specific concerns or questions, I suggest you make them as I have. And those I made are legitimate and proper in light of what appears to be one-sided actions that smack of favoritism and quid pro quo. I stand by those questions, which, by the way, still remain unanswered. --FeloniousMonk 20:40, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Under which name have you been here for 2 years? Kim Bruning 23:14, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I watched and contributed for approximately 18 months before I registered a username. In line with wikipedia's own policy, as I was only making minor edits and tweaks to articles, I was not required to register. Once I decided that time allowed for more substantial participation and edits, I registered.--FeloniousMonk 17:57, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I see. Thanks for clarifying. :-)

Nomination is not some kind of cabal fraternisation routine or goodness knows what. Basically you just check if someone is suited for admin, and ask other folks whether they agree. If consensus says "yeah", hey, apparently you're right, and the person becomes an admin. It's "not a big deal".

No real reason to drag in third party conflicts. IMHO (but you might disagree), Tom was doing his best mediating, and that's already beyond the call of duty for an admin, no matter how bad he did it. Really I had expected you to vote support. Oh well, there you have it.

I've checked both you and Rednblu to see if I could nominate you two folks as well, based on the performance from you that I've seen so far. I guess Rednblue is a narrow pass at the moment, so I'll wait a bit longer, and then do so. And hmm, if you can point out where to find your edit history for the past 2 years, maybe I can track down your likelyhood of passing as well.

Have a nice day :-) Kim Bruning 21:47, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Don't bite the newbies, please
Hey, just thought you should know -- your accusation of vandalism in this edit doesn't jibe with anything I've ever read in Wikipedia policy. Indeed, to my reading, it seems to be expressly contradicted by the What vandalism is not section of the Vandalism policy.

I see nothing about the edit you attacked which suggests that it was in bad faith or attempted to compromise the encyclopedia. Rather, it appears to have been a bold edit by a new editor. Sure, it is nice when people explain their edits (especially bold edits) in great detail on the talk page. It is also nice when people log in. However, the absence of either of these niceties does not constitute vandalism.

Vandalism is a serious accusation — one of the most serious that can be made here. Please do not use it lightly. Don't bite the newbies. —FOo 04:20, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * You should read these page histories first: and particularly . I was merely restating the earlier accusation made Steinsky here:  Repeated blanking entire portions of Talk pages in active use then undoing the reverts restoring them is vandalism according to wikipolicy. I stand by my statement, User:81.156.181.197 was behaving very badly. Care to show me where I'm wrong?--FeloniousMonk 16:56, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm completely willing to believe that the selfsame user did stupid and destructive things elsewhere. I certainly agree with you that deleting other's Talk comments is vandalism. But the specific edit I was talking about still does not seem to be vandalism. Not every action of a thief is an act of theft.


 * However, my larger concern is that you made what looks to me like a false claim about Wikipedia policy, when you wrote that "Changes this significant without consent of other editors constitute vandalism. Please abide by the policies. btw- register & login before sig. modfiying pages". This implies to me that you believe that bold edits require "consent" from other editors in order to escape the charge of vandalism. There doesn't seem to be any basis for this claim in Wikipedia policy; indeed, it contravenes the What vandalism is not section cited above.


 * (As an aside, it also implies to me that you believe that edits by unregistered or anonymous users are less acceptable than edits by registered and logged-in users. While I might agree that it is beneficial for people to log in, since it helps people to recognize each other and build up reputations for one another, I cannot agree that people's edits should be judged by how they sign them rather than on their own merits.)


 * If you are going to accuse others of violating policy, I would suggest that you cite the relevant policies, as I have done above. Otherwise you are likely to appear as if you are making up "policy" out of whole cloth — and this is not effective at combating actual vandalism or converting hooligan newbies into useful contributors. —FOo 17:48, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree, I should have cited the policy. I'm pretty familiar with them myself, and I just expect others to be so as well, but I'm finding that it's the exception, not the rule. When User:81.156.181.197 stated: "You will need a pretty wide range of IPs to block me. You will need the whole of the UK. This is not the only location I am at. It is a publicly used PC (at a station)." and "go on have me blocked. This is a dynamic IP." and "Please see the edit history for Creationism. You will clearly see that you did not keep me out for even so long as 5 minutes." he made clear that he was editing wikipedia in bad faith, a requisite for vandalism, states his mea culpa for vandalizing the very page I protected, which thereby validates my assertion that he's a vandal. 81.156.181.197's actions, taken in aggregate, seemed to me to be clearly qualify as an "...indisputable bad-faith addition, deletion, ....made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia.", and his statements met the requirement of " bad faith nature (must be) explicit and inarguable" to qualify as vandalism. 81.156.181.197's actions and statements fully met the requirements for vandalisim both on the page I protected and on the relevant Talk page.


 * As for that particular deletion I reverted, I consider use of the term vandalism reasonable to describe deleting 13 paragraphs containing 3,111 characters without discussion in an article that contained the prominent admonishment: "Please read talk page discussion before making substantial changes." Particularly when considering the same user was engaged in intentional disregard for other editors and the need to retain relevant Talk pages: and threatening to evade blocking by Grunt. Again, 81.156.181.197's actions and statements fully met the requirements for vandalisim.


 * As for whether I believe "(edits by) anonymous users are less acceptable than edits by registered and logged-in users", the wikipedia accountability policy 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."
 * And I was aware of this and considered all three points when confronting User:81.156.181.197. The last point "Issues of accountability ...lies as much in the user's behavior..." prompted me to consider 81.156.181.197's deletion and behavior vandalism. The second point justifies my reversion of 81.156.181.197's deletion. As for the other anonymous editors here, I judge each individual, individual edit, and each argument, on their merits.


 * But I'm wondering, has Steinsky, who first leveled the original accusation that 81.156.181.197 was vandalising pages, also received this concern on your part? I don't think so. Fairness would say otherwise.--FeloniousMonk 12:14, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you for explaining what you meant. —FOo 17:42, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)