User talk:Ioeth/Archive 3

International Network to Promote the Rule of Law
Hi Loeth,

I created this page the other day, but it appears that it fell under the "blatant advertising" category for deletion. I have since made some changes as this is a legitimate organization. I understand that being legitamite in itself does not make for a valid wiki entry, so can you please offer some insight on how I can change it to make it valid? I recently edited and reposted it (sorry if that was the worng thing to do, I am new to this!).

Thanks for you help! Jerdossy (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The article looks good now. The "Membership" section, which is no longer there, coupled with no references is what made me decide to delete it under G11.  Since there are good external links now and it reads more like an encyclopedia article, it looks much better! Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 16:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

BrightHouse Page
Hey Loeth,

what exactly went wrong with this page and how do you think i could get it back up? there are lots of companies of its kind and BrightHouse in particular has a very unique history and background and i do not think should be exempt from this site. let me know what you think. thanks for your help.

Jknight123 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jknight123 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem with it was that it was written like a marketing brochure, complete with &trade; symbols. The article also lacked good sources, especially primary sources.  If you can provide some good primary sources to me, I'll consider restoring the article.  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 16:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hey Ioeth, thanks for both adding the notability sub-tags and the kind words. It's really you who deserve the credit for a great little add-on. Keep up the great work with Friendly :) ~ Eliz 81 (C) 18:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hoorah!
Thanks for the barnstar! And thanks for the brilliantly implemented feature, it works perfectly. Although when it finishes tagging it reloads the page and you end up at the target rather than the redirect itself, so you might want to fix that (it's a bit confusing). Otherwise, perfect! --Closedmouth (talk) 04:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Glad you like it! I'm looking into how to handle loading the redirect without redirecting, so hopefully that'll be implemented soon.  I'm not 100% sure that it's possible, though, so we'll have to see!  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 04:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

NPWatcher approval list
Hi, there, Ioeth! Seeing as how the NPWatcher checkpage says any admin can approve users, and that the tool's maintainer has been neglecting the growing list for a while now, I thought I'd come and use my clout as a major suggester-of-features (-) ) to ask you to go through and process the list. It looks like Snowolf has been offline a while, too, so I came to you. Right now, there's a list of eight people on the list, and it was last cleared on November 22, so it's been a while. If you don't want to do it, you don't have to; I'll ask another admin. Cheers! Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 08:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

PS: I'll try to come up with another Friendly idea (pun intended) for your tool soon.


 * Thanks, Ioeth! Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 18:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem! I'm gonna watch the page now in case it gets abandoned again.  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 18:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Blacklist
I see you have added an entry to the blacklist. However can I ask you to please log any entries that you make with a permanent link to wherever the request came from. This may seem a little irritating but in 6 or 12 months time the rationale may be impossible to find and the listing will then be removed by someone. I've just had to do exactly that on a Meta listing than no one logged! Let me know if I can help - cheers -- Herby talk thyme 17:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, absolutely! Sorry about that...I've never added an entry to the blacklist before, so I was unaware.  I've gone ahead and added an entry in the log.  Thanks!  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 17:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem & thanks! Cheers -- Herby talk thyme 17:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In passing - for future reference permanent links are the best - after stuff gets archived it gets messy :) Cheers -- Herby  talk thyme 19:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Prove of panda's plagearism

 * http://www.geocities.com/anti_pxndx/
 * http://www.apestan.com/cases/grupo-panda-plagio-canciones-ciudad-de-mexico-distrito-federal-mexico_1588.html
 * http://www.mychemicalromancemexico.com/p/pruebas-de-que-panda-le-copia-a-mcr-4446  —Preceding unsigned comment added by GuTTy-YC (talk • contribs) 19:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Notification of restriction
Hi loeth, I think you may need to use the following template on Dr Dan's page: and also log the notification here Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren in order to make the notice effective. Martintg (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I will if the time comes. I haven't enforced anything against User:Dr. Dan at this point, just notified him of the restrictions per the ARBCOM ruling.  Thanks, though, as I didn't know about the template! Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 23:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh wait, I am wrong! I just read the template fully, so I'll go ahead and do that now.  Thanks for the info!  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 23:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello dear, Ioeth. Regarding, Dan's case you noted If you can provide diffs that show edits that are uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith I will be happy to. I produced some information which needs to be assess. Cheers, M.K. (talk) 14:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi there loeth, could you tell me how am I related to the Digwuren case? As far as I can tell neither did I take part in that dispute nor was I even invited to it. Does it mean that you're adding people subject to that resolution ex-post? Cheers,  // Halibutt 16:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Karolina Proniewska. Do note that Halibutt created and wrote most of the article - that said, I was considering a topic ban myself because several editors have used this article to bait him and waste his time there for over a month. With that in mind, I'd suggest a topic ban or a warning to apply equally to other editors involved in incivil edit warring there: rv and accusing other of disruption, rv and accusing other of IDONTLIKEIT, and so on; see also Talk:Karolina Proniewska - which begins with Lokyz accusing Halibutt (article's creator) of disruption... Accusations of vandalism are common on both sides, too, and uncivil behavior is common in other articles: incivility and accusations: "yet another ORirsh claim, prokonsul", (discussing editors and moving a discussion off-topic, calling a newly created article mess, idiocy, finally accusing other editor of participation in some cabal and threaten to undue all of his edits labelled as damage ("please state your own Cabal concerns, soon as possible because i do can take only a week of unpaid vacations to undo your damage", [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Motiejus_Valan%C4%8Dius&diff=next&oldid=169446977 rv with an edit summary of "as expected - there is a CABAL! attack), Piotrus - your every single word on the interview was a lie?"]). Therefore since you have warned Halibutt of the EE restriction, I think at the very least we should warn MK and Lokyz, too.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Very interesting assessment, of course if you want deeper content scrutiny you should fill proper procedures. Currently accusations of wrong doing on my part stands no ground. Stating that this edit "involves in incivil edit" is wrong, by several points a)it is not targeted person directly, but rather to the content. b} if you would like to know why this was content edit was called revert of disruption, I will give some examples a) because previuos edit not only accused established editor of vandalism, but 1) removed cited sources and also from those places there specific contributor asked them to be, 2) restored sources which at that moment could not be verified (verify message was placed by the same specific contributor, who reverted it ) 3) restored in article following sentence instilled into Baranauskas a love for Lithuanian language and culture, the same sentence, which neutrality he personally disputed and motivated that it should not be in article  As for Proniewska instilling "into Baranauskas a love for Lithuanian language and culture", perhaps the tag is not as specific as it should be. Anyway, the vocabulary is extremely POVed. Love, hate, traitor, hero - this set of words should be avoided in an encyclopedia, and if not- those should be used with caution. And situation became absurd - person reverting article (with accusation of vandalism) version to which he personally disputes again and again. Even now (during the newest version removed and others edition). Moving next; this, this edit marks that earlier presented argumentation is not supported by sources, which is required by WP:NOR.  BTW Piotrus that about your IDONTLIKEIT? M.K. (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this is getting silly. Worse, this is getting untenable. These childish games on secretive collecting the material on fellow editors are actually worse than those occasional incivilities. Ioeth, I hope you read the entire thread at ArbEnf page, including the comment. Please take a second look if you did not. This disgusting stalking and spying each other undermines the possibility of harmonious editing more than anything else can. I need a little time to come up with the proposal on how to end this all, but the last thing needed here is further escalations with more warning and blocks and more logging and digging activity. Think about what you are doing, guys. --Irpen 20:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to say right now that I am completely independent when it comes to Eastern European topic disputes and behavior. With that stated, these editors have proven that time and time again these "occasional incivilities" can and do degenerate into major disruptions, which is the reason for the general restriction.  The goal of the general restriction of the Digwuren case is to end these incivilities before they degenerate, and that is what I am attempting to do.  My understanding is that the general restriction is very clear cut, and to that end I am taking a firm stance here.  All I am looking for before issuing a formal notice of the general restriction is a single diff that shows blatant incivility, personal attacks, or an assumption of bad faith, regardless of the editor or circumstances (after October 24th, per the ARBCOM ruling).  Hopefully we won't have to go beyond a notice, in any instance.  I want everyone to know that no matter what any other editors are doing, all I'm looking for is that they assume good faith, maintain civility, and avoid personal attacks, no matter what the circumstances.  I hope we can find a better way to calm this situation down, but until then, this is the tool that I have to work with.  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 20:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I want to clarify a bit on reporting. Personal analysis of edits or edit summaries is not needed, nor are a large collection of diffs.  Engaging in either of these two activities has proven to be disruptive, so I personally don't want to see it any more so it won't escalate the situation any more.  I also want to be clear that if a report is made to me, I will be doing independent analysis before I make a decision.  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 20:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the Notice
I'd be interested to know the rationale behind it, and especially how it is related to me (did I do something wrong or did someone report on me? I'm kinda confused). Best wishes--Lokyz (talk) 20:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I was looking over your contributions while monitoring the Eastern European article situation and found some of your talk page edits and edit summaries to be uncivil. I don't feel like it would be productive to dredge them all up, however, so I am not going to list specifics.  All I'm looking for here is for everyone to be on their best behavior, no matter what the circumstances...no more incivility, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith; just be nice, basically.  I have faith that everyone working in Eastern European topics is capable of doing this, and my goal with these notices that I've left is to serve as a reminder of that.  Cheers, and stay cool!  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 20:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Ioeth, I don't think trawling over people's edit histories looking for infractions is the way to go here. Action ought only be taken if there is a complaint made on ANI or directly to an admin, i.e, the recipient is offended. In Australia, if someone came up to me in the street and said: "How are you, you old bastard" it is actually considered a friendly greeting. As an outside observer, how can you judge. Martintg (talk) 02:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * PS, btw, just want to add you are doing a great job! Martintg (talk) 02:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for saying so. I guess my previous message wasn't really clear, now that I've re-read it.  I am not randomly trawling through contributions or page histories looking for infractions.  I originally involved myself after a report at WP:AE (closed after a notice was issued) and have only issued further notices based on reports made directly to me.  What I meant by "looking over your contributions" is that I am not taking reports at face value, but have been double checking.  This checking seems to have paid off, as I have declined some requests that did not seemed justified after I reviewed them.  In short, I am not randomly scanning users' contributions and I am double-checking after receiving a report.
 * I do understand your point about being an outsider (which is what the ARBCOM ruling requires, though), which is why I am taking great care with this matter, giving the benefit of the doubt and assuming good faith. All-in-all, I think everything is working well, though, because all of the users that have received the notice have responded positively.  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 03:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for that clarification and apologies for the misunderstanding. I think it's great this issue is finally on the road to being fixed in Eastern Europe, 2007 has been hell. Cheers! Martintg (talk) 03:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem! Quis custodiet ipsos custodes, after all? Cheers!  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 17:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

My new user page.
Hi,

I have refurbished my user page and would like your comments on it... please tell me if I can improve it anymore:

User:Thehelpfulone

Thanks,  The Helpful One (Talk)(Contributions) 18:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sutherland Deletion
I understand the intent to delete and the rationale, but as I am learning how to use wiki, I feel like your speedy delete did not give me time to make the article more informative and put up secondary sources (Salt Lake Trib, DesNews, Provo Daily Herald, National Review Online, WSJ, SLC Weekly, etc.) It feels like your effort assumed the worst on my part.

Ljswim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljswim (talk • contribs) 22:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you feel so dejected over my deletion of the Sutherland Institute article which you started. However, I have reviewed the original content of the page and stand by my previous decision as the article is written in a distinctly promotional tone, has multiple repeated links to the subject's website, and has no irredeemably encyclopedic qualities.  In other words, it would take a complete rewrite of the article along with the addition of primary sources, not just secondary sources, in order to make it a valid article.  Primary sources are especially needed in order to prove the subject's notability and fulfill Wikipedia's verifiability policy.  If you want to have as much time as you like to work on the article, consider creating a user subpage at User:Ljswim/Sandbox and starting the article there.  You won't risk speedy deletion that way, and when you're done working, you can move the article back to Sutherland Institute.  If you want, I'd even be happy to help when you're working on the article, should you choose to do it that way.  Please let me know if you have any other questions or concerns. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 00:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response and the willingness to help. I have no beef with you pulling down the original article, because in hindsight and as I have done some more research on other similar type groups with articles on wiki, I can see where the article lacked and crossed the line.


 * As I said in my original post, I'm just getting into wiki land and any help and advice is welcome, so I appreciate your willingness to help me create a valid and useful article. I'll take you up on your offer as I get further along in my article. Ljswim (talk • contribs) 22:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear it, and I look forward to working with you. Let me know when you begin writing a new article about Sutherland Institute at User:Ljswim/Sandbox and I'll be happy to lend a hand in any way possible!  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 04:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you take a look at this: User:Ljswim/Sandbox and let me know if I'm getting closer? --Ljswim (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's starting to come together, I think; I particularly like the references you added at the bottom, which go a long way to proving the organization's notability. I would like you to take a look at WP:BETTER and WP:NPOV, though, as the article, to me, doesn't quite have the right tone for a proper encyclopeida article and in places seems to express a non-neutral point of view.  If you have any questions, let me know!  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 19:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Seconded. Cheers, Joe 18:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Seconded X 2. I was about to close it myself. You made the same call I would have, so you obviously displayed sound judgment. ;-) IronGargoyle (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the brevity of your reasoning. You said everything that needed to be said in as few words as possible. Mike R (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you all very much for your kind words; I am very happy that I was able to help. Sometimes I am amazed, though, at my own level of obliviousness, and this was one of those instances, seeing as how I've been able to completely miss all of the previous AFDs, all of the drama, or even knowledge of Angela Beesley before this morning.  Oh well, at least now I know it can actually be a good thing sometimes!  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 21:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Now you're no longer an uninvolved party if this come up again. ;-) KTC (talk) 02:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Agha Nader
Thank you for your attention to the matter. And I will certianly keep you appraised. Is it too much to ask for him to strike through his baseless accusations of racism? These things tend to snowball without being dealt with in a timely fashion. I won't bother asking that he remove the wikiquette alert, even though that was clearly a personal attack. Everything it discusses is over 6 months old. Would that it could be purged... - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  17:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Back to Agha Nader again. Repeated problems with civility. Granted, I don't suffer fools all that well, and this fine young gentleman seems to know how to push my buttons, but is this really appropriate? "Marking a new era of his violation of policies," as if there were an old era. First it was the wikiquette report, then the drama all about my debasing of his 'works'. He has been asked multiple times to focus on the article, and yet he keep making digs. It's getting quite tiresome. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is starting to look like a pretty heated content dispute with a couple of rude remarks thrown in. With small snide comments like that, I can warn him, yeah, but we've seen what good it does.  You might want to consult mediation to resolve the matter, as I wouldn't really feel justified issuing a block, as I don't think it's to that point yet.  Let me know if there's anything else I can do!  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 01:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'l try to ice things down on my part and see if that does any good. If not, it will only exemplify his bad behavior, making it easier to take action. Thanks for the input. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  01:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

DRV
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kevin_Kinchen. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --W.marsh 04:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. This has gone on long enough, so I'm pulling out the big guns now! ;-) Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 13:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Look! WP:AN/I!  Was I right or was I right?  :-)  &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh definitely. Did you see the DRV linked to above as well?  Would you consider a longer IP block of User:70.6.109.105?  I set up a 1 year on User:67.183.169.112, which I think is justified after all of the disruption they have caused.  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 16:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that this is part of a dynamically allocated range from an ISP; our "friend" will almost certainly have different addresses by then, and innocent bystanders will be blocked. 67.183.169.112, on the other hand, is a cablemodem address and those tend to remain fairly stable over longer periods (even though I thought a whole year might be a little overkill in that case as well).  &mdash; Coren (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Pedro High
Hello, you recently banned 169.139.251.249 for a period of one year. I don't think you know what you banned. It is registered to Broward County schools in Florida. I live go to a St.Johns coins school (250 miles away) and it is also blocked. This IP is for at least two counties, probably many more. So it is at least 60 schools and 250,000 students and staff. I believe this should be unblocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.46.232 (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That IP block was made per policy and it doesn't prevent logged in users from editing. I suggest creating an account if you're on that IP and want to edit.  We receive massive amounts of vandalism from that IP address, so unblocking it outright is out of the question. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 21:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Creating accounts and logging into accounts on a school computer is blocked and against the Student-Internet Agreement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.46.232 (talk) 23:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it's not Wikipedia's problem if the school's internet use policy conflicts with Wikipedia policy. I'm sorry that editing has been blocked for those users, but there's nothing else I can do for you.  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 23:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I wish to apologize and explain my reasons
Sir, I apologize for my editing of the page of List of Teen Idols 2000. I just feel that some of the people on that list are not good role models for teens and children. On that list are people who have shown immoral values and are sending the idea to the youth of today that it is alright to do things that are illegal. There are people on that list that have been accused of abuse, violence, drugs, and drinking underage that I feel are not appropriate to have as a Teen Idol. Once again I apologize for my editing, but I hope you can understand why I was doing it, I just did not want the youth of today to see those names and think that what they did is ok. I also apologize that this probally doesnt look the way it should. DMB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.79.7.16 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I can definitely understand why you were doing it, and I actually picked up on it as I was examining the names that had been removed. Still, even though I feel that yeah, the people you removed are definitely not good role models, Wikipedia has a policy called neutral point of view that requires articles to be unbiased.  So, in this case, just because we feel that they aren't good role models, which is a bias, doesn't change the unbiased fact that they're all still "teen idols".  Thanks for leaving me the message, and let me know if there's anything I can help you with.  Oh, and you don't have to call me sir...I'm only 24. :-)  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 15:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding, and I am glad that we feel the same way. Thank you for explaining the unbias point of view. If i may there is a certain name on there that say American Cultural Icon, can that be changed. I am not trying to start any trouble but i think that the summary should be generic like the rest. Also i have a wikipedia account but it wont let me edit when i log in. Why is that? Is there a way to get my editing privelages back? Thanks (132.79.7.16 (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)) DMB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.79.7.16 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What is the user account you are trying to log into? Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 16:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

galford3427 (132.79.7.16 talk) 16:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look like it's been blocked or anything. Are you unable to log in or can you not edit after you log in?  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 16:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Can't edit. I am on here everyday and I try to erase any vandalism I see, I did one the other day on the Jake Roberts page. I wasn't logged in though.(132.79.7.16 (talk) 16:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)) I think i found out how to resolve the issue. Im sorry for taking up your time. Thanks for all your help. (Galford3427 (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC))

AfD nomination of Tha Spot
An article that you have been involved in editing, Tha Spot, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 16:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks very much! I must admit, though, you've beaten me quite a few times as well! Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 16:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone's popular.... :)

 * Thread heading is based on the the two other barnstars on the talk page. :) Rt . 17:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Haha...thank you very much, Rudget! I have been kinda going to town this morning.  I think it's about time to take a break to fuel up, though!  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 17:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ditto. You've probably never seen me around the wiki before, but never say never... :) Best, Rt . 17:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I've seen you around quite a bit RUDGET! That's right, you can't hide behind two letter abbreviations on my watch, haha!  I'm looking forward to supporting your RFA when it comes up, by the way...please be sure to let me know so I don't accidentally miss it.  Or if you need a nominator, I'd be happy to support. :-)  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 17:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah geez...cover's been blown! God I must be doing something right, 2 nominations and an admin coach in the past week? :) Rt . 17:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for offering to co-nominate. I've asked Rlevse, my admin coach, about how to proceed. Best, Rt . 18:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA
Heh, thanks. :) It's a bit funny, because I think most of the people who were really gnashing their teeth at the thought of me becoming an admin, are going to be incredibly disappointed at how boring I turn out to be. ;)   --Elonka 19:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Odd edit
Looks like your browser lost some data here. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, no kidding it did! Thanks for catching and fixing that!  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 23:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays
Happy Holidays Thedjatclubrock :) (T/C)

Agha Nader...yet again
The behavior is getting a bit out of hand again. Threatening 3RR for following proper talk page protocol seems annoying. Thoughts? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  20:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed I would appreciate your thoughts. Arcayne has a history of altering my posts, and he has done it again at the discussion page at Iranian folklore. You should note that he followed me their (he admits to this). This is in violation of wikistalking and the advice of several administrators. I will not speculate to Arcayne's motives. However, he altered my posts at the Persian Gulf discussion page. Please see the bottome pf . Arcayne clearly sees the negative aspect of changing other editors' comments for he once told another editor "yeah, don't ever touch another editor's posts. It will surely get you bounced faster than a rubber ball." I repeatedly told Arcayne not to change me post, so he knew that I objected to his actions. He changed my post from "Definition" to "Unsourced Material, arbitrary break 1: definitions." It was not an arbitrary break, rather a whole different section discussing the definition of the term "folklore." He should have discussed his alteration of my post instead of edit-warring. Finally, he violated 3RR (he self reverted after I warned him).--Agha Nader (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I warned Arcayne that he will be violating 3RR the next time he reverts . Here are his reverts:, , , ,

and the self-revert.
 * His alterations of my post on the Persian Gulf discussion. Please see, , , , , , , all the way up to . He finally conceded after seeing the impropriety in changing my post. --Agha Nader (talk) 20:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I would also like to discuss the warning you gave me. I feel the template violated the word and spirit of the essay WP:DTTR. Nonetheless, I appreciated your wisdom, and valued your suggestion. Unfortunately, the warning seemed to give Arcayne a mandate to stalk and harass me. I am certain that this was not your intention. I would appreciate it if you could please remind Arcayne that he should treat me with civility.--Agha Nader (talk) 20:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Arcayne changed the post of user Khorshid on the 300 film article discussion: . User Khorshid replied "rvv - DO NOT under any circumstances modify my edits"

User Arcayne has changed the header of a section on his talk page, even though I created it. The original header was "Stalking". Please see. His edit summary was "May talk page - if I wish to change contentious edits, or headers, I will." This is very misleading since I had not accused him of stalking me, which the changed header "Who's Stalking Who?" implies. He removed my answer to his question from his talk page. . And called the answer, which was sourced from ArbCom, vandalism (rvv). Hopefully this history will put Arcayne's conduct in perspective and show a trend of altering other editors' comments against their will.--Agha Nader (talk) 21:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * (EC) Gosh, let's look at this, shall we?
 * "This is in violation of wikistalking and the advice of several administrators" - really? Can you cite any of them within the past 6 months?
 * "Arcayne clearly sees the negative aspect of changing other editors' comments for he once told another editor 'yeah, don't ever touch another editor's posts. It will surely get you bounced faster than a rubber ball.'"  - I think you are forgetting that the editor in question was moving my posts around, altering the conversation and the substance of my post. My re-titling a subection is something altogether different. You are welcome to indicate how my properly noting it as a subsection substantially altered your post or its meaning.
 * "It was not an arbitrary break, rather a whole different section discussing the definition of the term folklore." - This is actually inaccurate. Your post was in response to my post, as any reasonable person could see. As well, my properly noting the section as a subsection (because it was continuing the discussion and not beginning a new one), or arbitrary break - arbitrary in that you chose to break off the conversation, and break because you created a subsection mid-topic. This is basic Talk Page protocol, as seen in thousands of discussions across Wikipedia (I actually noticed while watching admin boards to learn how discussions are supposed to take place).
 * "He should have discussed his alteration of my post instead of edit-warring" - as you well know, your track record in admitting your faults leave a great deal to be desired. I had attempted to discuss the matter with you, and you failed to even condescend to address it.
 * "Finally, he violated 3RR (he self reverted after I warned him" - quite true, though it bears noting that nader himself walked right up to the 'electric fence'. As I was unsure about my footing on re-affirming talk page protocol, as I am not sure of its policy or guideline provenance, i self-reverted. I contend that nader is - yet again - either narrowly construing or misconstruing wiki policy.
 * "He finally conceded after seeing the impropriety in changing my post" - (actually, i laughed at this characterization) I didn;t see any impropriety in fixing nader's posts in Persian Gulf, but instead decided that I had a choice - fall into the childish temper tantrum that nader was stomping his feet about, or concentrate on matters of far more importance.


 * I must admit that I find it odd that nader is keen to call my ensuring the civility and veracity of his edits with stalking when he seems to always know when I post to anyone about his behavior. Perhaps nader is somewhat unaware as to what stalking actually is. -  Arcayne   (cast a spell)  21:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my post was caught up in yet another of nader's interesting tidbits from over six months ago. Perhaps he is unaware of what 'stale' means; otherwise, he wouldn't be so keen as to point out edits from over six months ago - edits, I might point out were taken rather drastically out of context, and might have resulted in him being blocked or banned at the time - had I not exercised both pity and pardon. That he doesn't seem to have learned anything since his uncivil and attack-y days in 300 but actually seems to feel emboldened by whatever perceived slights he may have felt over half a year ago is cause for significant concern. That he seems confident enough to canvass another admin to contribute to this discussion is ever more disturbing - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  21:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I shall let your ill-considered insinuations about "childish temper tantrum" etc. speak for themselves. Jayjg is a very busy editor, but I hope he can shed some wisdom on this matter. I find it quaint that you would object to it.--Agha Nader (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There is that phrase again, "ill-considered", misused, of course. I don't mind Jayig's contribution; I simply thought that your canvassing for his help to be a bit disrespectful of Ioeth's capability to resolve the situation. As well, as per WP:CANVASS, it seemed disruptive. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  21:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say there is a specific "protocol" for the titles of sections on Talk: pages, though they should not address any specific individuals, and should be civil. It's considered insulting to post standard warning templates on the Talk: pages of experienced editors, who are assumed to be well aware of rules like 3RR (particularly, as in this case, if they have been blocked for it before). Other than that, wouldn't it make more sense to discuss content rather than edit warring over section titles? Jayjg (talk) 01:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think your last sentence sums up the situation here perfectly, Jayjg; thank you for adding your comment. Arcayne and Agha Nader, I can't believe how out of hand this situation has gotten.  I haven't been on in 2 days and I come back to this thread on my talk page that looks like something from WP:ANI.  I'm not even sure what the real disagreement here is anymore, so this bickering needs to stop.  Please remember to keep your cool, maintain civility, assume good faith, and refrain from making personal attacks in all circumstances.  I think you both should have realized now that this level of incivility is completely counterproductive.  If it continues, I think both, not just one, of you should consider stepping away from the articles where this occurs and focusing your energies elsewhere.  I can't help but think how many more featured articles we'd have from both of you if you put the extra effort you're spending making these complex posts on research and writing.  Thank you, and if you have any questions, please reply here, but please do not turn my talk page into your battleground again.  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 05:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Boehner
Yeah its vague I hadnt noticed until you raised it, either raise it on the ANI discussion or follow the instructions at USERNAME. I tend to refrain from further actions when they have just been blocked as it can make matters worse when they return. Gnangarra 05:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Sprotret
Thank you. Corvus cornix talk  21:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: 172.207.89.14
Thanks for the block on this IP user -- I wish he'd just give up already, but it seems we're gonna have this fight with him every morning for the time being. Cheers! Ashdog137 (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Aww, and thanks for the barnstar! :-D Ashdog137 (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Editing Restrictions
Ioeth, I think the time has come to tag user: Piotrus's talk page with the same friendly reminder that others have received from you. This latest strirring up of the pot and referring to me a flamer was personally uncalled for and insulting. I have endeavored to respect these guidelines that you have suggested, and intend to continue to do so. I also expect an apology from him. Thanks for your consideration. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Dr. Dan, I do respect your point of view here, but I can't say that I completely agree. Piotrus never directly attacked you or directly called you a flamer in the thread at Arbitration Enforcement, so this might be a bit of a misunderstanding or overreaction.  In the title of the section, the word "flamer" is used, but it is done so colloquially (i.e. as a synonym of "inflaming" to mean "Another user inflaming Eastern European topics").  It also refers to your actions prior to Piotrus' previous AE report from which you received the formal notice, which does make the usage technically correct so, in my mind, it falls under WP:SPADE.  In my opinion, and Piotrus agrees with me, your actions since being placed on formal General Restriction notice have markedly improved.  In other words, I don't think Piotrus meant anything by it and I do doubt that he is attempting to entrap you.  I have spoken with Piotrus about the post, and he has no problem refactoring the thread based solely on your displeasure with its wording, which is another reason I really don't think he meant to offend you.  Anyway, I would like to take a moment to remind you about WP:COOL, particularly the "dealing with insults" section, which basically says not to sweat the small stuff.  Again, I'd also like to note that when these issues come up, I am really looking for blatant or gross incivility, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, and I really don't see this instance as being one of those.  Cheers!  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 20:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and this WP:SPADE entity (don't want to consider it a policy) is interesting in that it resembles an eye for eye. Who once said that taking that philosopy to it's illogical conclusion might cause us all to become blind? So do keep an eye open (but protect it) as to what is actually going on in this "little neck of the woods". I took offense with his dragging my name into his latest vendetta, and still believe offense was intended by using the old "guilt through association" tactic. Everyone's sins are their own. Everyone genuinely wanting to reach a cooperative consensus on these issues will work for it, considering the past. I haven't seen it from the prokonsul. It's unfortunate that the New Year shows that the old patterns are going to continue as far as he's concerned. I am still expecting an apology from him. Happy New Year to you! Dr. Dan (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

My RFA
Hey Ioeth, just to let you know I'm thinking of running for adminship within the next two weeks, maybe three. I'll inform you nearer the date when set. I'd just like to reiterate my thank you's for offering to do the co-nomination a while back. I know we haven't crossed paths since then but I still appreciate your comments as much as any others I come into contact on a regular basis. Best regards, Rt . 11:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Great, I'm glad to hear it! I've been on holiday for the past week, so that's one reason I'm in and out.  Thanks for keeping me in the know!  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 16:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know it's going to be transcluded on the 7th (Monday) and you'll be co-nominating with Ryan Postlethwaite. :) Best, Rt . 21:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry to bother you again, but here it is! Rt . 17:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you be able to do the co-nom tonight? I'm thinking of transcluding it in a couple of hours, see my comments here for a better explanation. Thanks. Best regards, Rt . 20:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Post scriptum:I know this may seem rushed, but I appreciate your offer of an RFA all the same.
 * No problem. Have you gotten in touch with Ryan about it yet?  I ask because I'd prefer to do the second co-nomination since I've never nominated anybody for RFA before.  Let me know.  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 20:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I just seen it, and he's already done it... Rt . 20:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just saw that too. Oops on my part, heh.  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 20:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You make me laugh... :D. (I've never used that before) Rt . 20:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Done! Proof it for me and let me know of any mistakes.  If you don't find any, transclude whenever you like!  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 21:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh golly. I'm so flattered. Thank you so much. Best regards, Rt . 21:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's gone live. *slowly progresses from biting nails to eating fingers*. :P Rt . 23:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:Your recent post at WP:AE
Hmmm, I will re-read it and refactor it. It may have been a bit too quickly written; no offense was intended to anybody but perhaps I erred to close to WP:SPADE/WP:KETTLE. I was submitting it while somewhat distressed from this personal attack. Thank you for looking into this matter and acting promptly.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've just added a clarification and timeline at the 3RR-case Piotrus had opened against Charles, regarding the dispute at Duchies of Silesia, where the trouble started. There, Piotrus repeatedly insisted on a non-existing German naming he invented (Herzogtum Oppau), rather than accepting the correct German name Herzogtum Troppau, leading to me making the comment on Piotrus talk page. Piotrus then proceeded to open the AE case against me, while Molobo happened to edit the Duchies article, leading to Charles 4RR. May I ask why Piotrus and Molobo happen not to be on this Digwuren case list? Is it because nobody yet seems to have requested to look into their contributions specifically in this context? Or are there other reasons? -- Matthead DisOuß   14:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * To answer your question, no one has been able to provide examples of blatant incivility, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith by either User:Piotrus or User:Molobo. I'm not doing the grunt work with regards to the enforcement of this arbitration; I'm simply calling them like I see them.  If you can provide examples of the above, please open up a new thread at WP:AE.  For the record, User:Piotrus did not "repeatedly insist" on using the name; User:Charles never began dialog on the article talk page regarding a change of the name (which would have been good procedure), so other editors simply reverted his changes for having not provided substantive evidence.  On a sidenote, the message left above was received after my review of the 3RR case and decision to issue User:Matthead a 24 hour block.  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 15:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Formal notice of Eastern European General Editing Restriction to User:Charles
My principles tell me to refuse to accept message posted on my talk page if it does not apply to Piotrus as well. This whole ArbCom case is flawed, putting restrictions on others because maybe their defencive behaviour is a little more overt than the covert attacks and uncivil attitudes given by others (the underlying attitudes at times seem to be pretty bad)? Tell me please, how do I go about getting my name off of that list? What about assumptions of bad faith on the part of other users? (note plural "anyone", no one else had posted), (accusing others of beating a dead horse when other articles have rightfully been moved),  (wholly non-constructive jab),  (reversion without discussion, evidence on talk page),  (untrue accusation),  (following my edits, really would not have posted there otherwise). These are only about me, not about other editors (there are more). How can reversions of English names be reverted outright and that goes without being put on notice when the article have now been moved to English names? Is the status quo (as it was at the time) okay if outsourced and obviously not English. Like I said, I'm completely fine with equal treatment across the board, really, I am. But no, this is not being treat symmetrically on both sides. Regarding "refactoring" that has gone on, you can see the attitude right there when the initial Eastern European report was made. I hate finger pointing, but when a user keeps on pointing his finger at you, what are you supposed to do? Charles 16:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Charles, I think I can understand where you're coming from in this case, seeing as how much heat cropped up after the report about you to 3RR. I issued the formal notice of the general restriction to you based on your violation of 3RR on the Duchies of Silesia page, which I am considering uncivil in the scope of the Digwuren case based on your attempt to make a controversial change to the article without first gathering consensus on the talk page and a neglect to provide substantive evidence to back up the change thereafter.  Once the formal notice has been issued, in that case, unless I decide to rescind the notice or it is determined that I issued it inappropriately, your name will remain on the list.  However, the notice is simply urges you to remember that (in short) this is a collaborative project, and working together benefits everybody and the project as a whole, so it's not a big deal.  Thank you for providing the diffs above, and I will look into them, but in the future, please make reports regarding this case to WP:AE.  Cheers, and happy new year!  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 16:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the swift reply and the understanding. A lot of the issues I have noted are from a sort of domino effect with one user carrying on where another left off, etc. I'm not blameless, but I have always encouraged personal issues with me to be discussed. Sadly, I rarely get a chance to answer because the users don't want to ask. I feel though that to best maintain the peace, everyone involved has to be on the list or no one, especially given that certain editors are common to a lot of these disputes. I don't think it just happens because it happens, it happens because everyone gets involved. I feel that the list, particularly for some users, divides the "two sides", if that's what they are, even further and it doesn't solve anything if it isn't equal across the board. In disputes, if one person's hands are dirty, chances are the others are too. The only Eastern articles I edit are ones related to royalty (it is rare then for me to actually edit one, and they usually all are related to one another). Therefore if you would rescind the notice, I would be more than happy to maintain a note by you on my page (I left my 3RR warning even, it's in my archives, as a reminder) regarding the matter and a reminder, but I don't feel it is appropriate to be party to "potential punishment" as I see it for a matter that hasn't been fully analyzed (not regarding me, but this apparent ArbCom thing as a whole, which I only learnt about in late December, which goes to show how rarely I edit these articles). To me, the best resolution would be to have my name removed or all other parties added to it, and I will fully co-operate with anything to do so. People usually see being listed there as more of a discouragement to edit than a reminder to collaborate. Of course, I will await your opinion on the diffs, but please keep me posted as to what I can do that, in your opinion, would make removing my name from the list appropriate. Charles 17:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well said, Charles. I've reconsidered the situation and have withdrawn the formal notice.  Thank you for your  patience regarding the matter.  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 17:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Ioeth. As I know that a number of people are seeing this page as a result of the ArbCom thing, I'd just like to state openly and generally that I am always, always open to discussion regarding disputes . Although I need to initiate discussion more myself, I will not bite someone's head off if they come to my page with a grievance and want to hammer out a solution. I'm actually a very nice person! :-) Charles 17:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Civility warning
You are right; I hope this will patch things up.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Piotrus. Based on the original comment and the steps you've taken since, I've removed the formal notice from you and Charles.  I hope this has been a reminder to both of you about how fine the line is when it comes to Eastern European topics.  Thank you both again for your candor.  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 17:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Europe
Have added some basic information and am in process of making this in to an article worthy of the name. Grunners (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks great! I saw the edit that replaced pretty much the whole page with "Jews first settled in XXXplaceXXX in XXXyearXXX" and thought something must have gone awry while you were in process. Hope I didn't get in the way too much. Cheers, and keep up the good work!  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 19:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Gatoclass
Hello, Ioeth! I prefer to believe I can work with any editor and have reached consensus even with now-banned propaganda pushers on the most contentious of issues (user Mauco on Transnistria). We've had some goings back and forth on Holodomor denial and have lately made progress including editors from differing perspectives agreeing on a rename which removes some existing potential for confusion and which had pushed some content toward WP:OR.

Our one hold-out has been Gatoclass, who has not been happy with any counter proposal. Unfortunately, I do not believe Gatoclass is participating to engage in consensus building. He expressed his opinion (solicited, but, still his stated opinion) that editors of Eastern European heritage are axe grinders. When I explained that editors of that heritage are only looking to bring facts to light after half a century of suppression under the Soviets, Gatoclass attacked me insisting my response proved his (now) contention of axe-grinding, Q.E.D. if you will. I've asked Gatoclass nicely for an apology so we can simply put this behind us all, but he has so far refused and has now demanded an apology from editor Termer for what he believes are incivil comments (quite frankly, they are not).

Gatoclass appears to be able to deal with Eastern European editors only in a battle to the death with a community of editors he has tarred and feathered as being bad-faith axe-grinders. Consensus appears to be impossible. I am sorry for whatever experiences have prompted his behavior, but he is still responsible for it. I should mention that we have reached consensus with another editor, Crotalus horridus, who had tagged the article for WP:OR, so there is proof positive that consensus is there to be had if everyone assumes good faith.

At this point, unfortunately, I feel compelled to request you review the article talk and Gatoclass' AN/I (including my attempt to exit the death spiral section) and determine if Gatoclass is in need of a friendly warning under the Digwuren arbitration decision. I have no desire to have Gatoclass banned, I have never dealt with him before this. However, he does not appear to be able to get past his bad faith/conspiracy/cabal stereotype of editors of Eastern European heritage--including wondering if Turgidson, one of the most reputable editors I have had the pleasure to interact with, intended to "set him up" (my quotes) when he asked Gatoclass for his opinion on Eastern European editors.

Unfortunately, Gatoclass believes he's fully entitled to his expression of low opinion, especially as it was solicited, and has stated he has no intent to apologize. Most recently, his demand for an apology from Termer for a comment which was honest and not incivil (and did not explicitly call Gatoclass a bigot as he contends), is sadly the final proof that he expects to be treated with a level of respect he he has no intent to grant to what he considers a lower class of Eastern European heritage editors.

Because I have not dealt with Gatoclass before, I (at least from my perspective) have given Gatoclass multiple opportunities to extract himself and simply return to the article, but he can't get past his bad faith blinders. When Gatoclass takes every Eastern European editor's comment as yet another bad faith attack from the axe grinding horde and now demands an apology for comments which should (from assumption of good faith) cause him to examine his own behavior, there's nothing more I can do.

Please take a look (and pass on to anyone else as appropriate), I'd very much appreciate an uninvolved look at this as there's no sign of improvement or closure. Best regards, Pēters —PētersV (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * To be fair, I've informed Gatoclass. I hope he takes the opportunity to respond and that this can still be positively sorted out in the end. I don't intend to debate further, enough has been said already. —PētersV (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * And I have responded to his demand for an apology from Termer on Termer's talk page. —PētersV (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Presumably PetersV has chosen to take this matter to you because he perceives you as some kind of ally, but on the assumption that you are a disinterested and fairminded witness, my only comment regarding Peters' comments above is that I welcome any scrutiny regarding user conduct at Talk:Holodomor denial. While I can't pretend to be completely without responsibility for the course this confrontation has taken (the AFD was a particularly ill-considered action which I quickly withdrew with apologies), my only "crimes" have been to insist on a disputed tag for the page in question while disputes were being resolved (apart from the tag restorations I have made exactly one edit to the mainpage), and to observe in passing (after an inquiry at the AFD soliciting my opinion on the matter from one of my adversaries) that I could hardly fail to notice that my opponents seemed to be almost universally from former Eastern bloc countries with "potential axes to grind" against the USSR. In regards to this comment, I offered an explanation to PetersV at AN/I, which I reproduce here:


 * "Sorry, but I can't apologize for something I haven't done. I never accused anyone, specifically or even generally, of "axe grinding" in relation to this page. I merely noted - in response to the question put to me - that one could hardly fail to observe that editors from former Eastern bloc countries had potential "axes to grind" in relation to the USSR. Which is to say, I don't know whether or to what extent this apparent COI might be effecting someone's judgement, but that the potential is there for it to do so. Would anyone seriously want to dispute such a self-evident statement?"


 * "So hopefully now that I have offered this clarification, we can move on."


 * Right from my initial participation at Talk:Holodomor denial, I was subjected to a relentless barrage of bad faith accusations and hyperbolic charges for daring to restore the tag, and after the comment about potential COI's, to shrill and from my POV quite hypocritical demands from PetersV that I apologize for my alleged bad behaviour.


 * Even so, this fracas had all but blown over when User:ThuranX twice referred to me at AN/I as "bigoted" and "racist" (in regards once again to my much earlier "potential axes to grind" comment above) - the former charge of "bigotry" then taken up and repeated by User:Termer. In another context, I may have looked the other way, but after subjection to a solid week or more of vilification for daring to express a contrary opinion of the article in question, enough is enough. I draw the line at being called a bigot and a racist. I regard these comments as egregious breaches of WP:NPA and WP:CIV that warrant administrative action. I therefore asked ThuranX and Termer at their talk pages to withdraw their comments or I would feel compelled to take the matter further. They declined to do so.


 * I had intended to take the matter up at AN/I, but I really don't want to impose on the community any more than I already have. Since PetersV has brought the matter to your attention, I will instead take this opportunity to appeal to you to take some action regarding these breaches of the user code of conduct. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Update: Since User:Termer has now hauled me before arbcom enforcement under the Digwuren general restriction clause, that is where I now intend to pursue this matter. It's probably the most sensible place to resolve it in any case I think. Thankyou very much Ioeth for your time. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 09:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * One further comment. PetersV has been in the habit of invoking the case of a certain Digwuren in relation to me. Having taken a look at his arbcom case, let me just state for the record that there could scarcely be a more inappropriate comparison. The proof is I think readily ascertained by my edit history - I have not made a substantial edit to a page concerning Eastern European politics for approximately eighteen months - and indeed have IIRC only made one such edit in my entire 22 months as a registered user. I came to the Holodomor denial page through my participation in DYK where I saw what I regarded as some problematic POV hooks, but it was primarily the name of the page itself that set my alarm bell ringing, with its obvious kinship to Holocaust denial. I originally intended only to tag the page for what I regarded as some glaring POV and OR problems while discussing my concerns on the talk page. For that, I was almost immediately accused of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and the situation degenerated from there. Gatoclass (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, another editor brought up Digwuren, my response at the time was that I hoped that would not be needed. I regret Gatoclass' assumption that I regard you as a potential "ally", my only wish is to stop the current death spiral. Gatoclass' last post in the AN/I was an improvement--I did indicate it would have helped matters substantially if that had been his response instead of claiming my own position on why Eastern European editors edit blew up in my face proving his contention that (per latest) there was a possibility of axe-grinding.
 * Since Gatoclass is not looking upon me as a source of friendly advice, I was hoping someone completely uninvolved in the current editing but who understands the issues in the Eastern European editing realm might explain the situation to Gatoclass. I am not looking for punishment/banning (as I've stated), my only hope is Gatoclass might get an outside, but informed, perspective so he understands that an apology might be necessary... and how his actions/reactions fit a mold which (unfortunately) closely parallels that of some of the worst heated encounters that have had the misfortune to grace Eastern European topic editing.
 * For Gatoclass' benefit, I don't know Ioeth from a hole in the wall, have never dealt with him, have no idea what he thinks of me or even knows who I am. I have only observed that he has been monitoring Eastern European articles and from what I have seen has handled some difficult situations well and helped diffuse some ugly situations with a generous application of good faith, which is my sincere preference. As someone who has been attacked aplenty, I do have to say my feeling here is still that something has gone terribly awry.
 * I am sorry Gatoclass feels that everyone is out to lynch him or that I am contacting allies to pillory him. I'm here because I can't help Gatoclass extract himself gracefully, instead, each intervention I've attempted (suggesting a small act of contrition and we can all look at this as a huge misunderstanding) appears to have been followed by a deepening of the crisis (charges of incivility et al.). —PētersV (talk) 03:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please also see my last posting to Gatoclass on his talk. Best regards, PētersV (talk) 04:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Quite frankly Peter, I feel I've pretty much said my piece on this matter, at least for now. However, one thing I will add is that I think if you really were interested in reconciliation, you would have dropped these interminable demands for an "apology" long ago, based as they are on the most tendentious bad-faith misinterpretation possible of one banal statement I happened to make whose intended meaning I have tried to explain to you over and over, but which you chose not to accept. Where I come from, people who really want to reconcile don't continually up the ante by self-righteously demanding apologies from the other party, but agree to simply put past indiscretions behind them and let bygones be bygones, as I pleaded for you to do again and again.

If your side of the debate hadn't been continually demanding apologies from me whilst in the very same breath hurling bad faith and other assorted accusations that were far less excusable than anything you were (quite wrongly) accusing me of, I doubt very much that I would have ended up adopting the same tactic and demanding - not an apology mind you, but just a withdrawal - from two users who I believe went well beyond all bounds of civility. Gatoclass (talk) 06:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's be clear. I asked for an apology not because of your initial voicing of opinion but because of your bad faith response to my defense of Eastern European editors--you went from potentials of axe-grinding to self-evident (in your mind) proof of axe-grinding. —PētersV (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Editor Review
Hi.

When you get the time, please review me at Editor_review/Thehelpfulone.

Thanks!

 The Helpful One (Talk)(Contributions) (Review Me!) 16:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Dryamaka and Amsterdam (city), New York
Regarding your comment on my talk page: After the block that you placed on this user expired, he made a couple of reasonably constructive edits, then he repeated his previous addition of the allegedly notable "Rob Millan." Sigh.... --Orlady (talk) 16:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I have issued the user a warning, so please alert me if it continues.  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 16:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Once again, he has reverted my deletion of the allegedly notable "Rob Millan." --Orlady (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again, Dryamaka has re-added the allegedly notable "Rob Millan." --Orlady (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 1 week this time. Please keep me posted!  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 17:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks --Orlady (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding my listing at Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren
I know it cant be excused but I'd like to explain why I seriously lost my temper and boiled over that night.

I had been quietly simmering for quite a while, ever since a certain editor who I have a history with going back 2 years choose to snoop in my sandbox, told a friend about it, and immediately preceded to create his own article under the same name. Thankfully it was not allowed to exist for long Articles_for_deletion/German_collective_guilt.

That night I got truly fed up by some recent edits, and blew my lid... I do however feel that it's unfair that I should be slapped with this to me hereto unknown rule, while others obviously have been made very aware of it and get away unharmed. I'd say this is an inflammatory accusation against me, designed to rile people up against me, and what appears to be an accusation of nazism was deleted in time to avoid sanctions I guess?

--Stor stark7 Talk 00:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding the last edit mentioned, I changed it as I thought it could be misunderstood, and didn't want to pursue a conversation that seemed a dead end, and just entered information regarding Operation Himmler where the topic should be directed at and discussed at detail. Generally I always try to be as civil as possible.
 * Best regards.
 * --Molobo (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Stor stark7, I'm sorry that you're unhappy with having received the formal notice of the Digwuren case general restrictions, but I feel that many of your contributions to the thread Talk:Causes_of_World_War_II necessitated it. As long as behavior like that doesn't happen again, you can essentially ignore the notice.  Wikipedia can be frustrating at times, no doubt, but it is not a battleground, and it is everyone's responsibility to maintain civility at all times, no matter how heated the discussion becomes.  I have reviewed the two diffs that you provided and do not feel at this time that they are blatant violations that are deserving of being placed on formal notice.  Thank you for providing an explanation for your actions here, and I hope that in doing so it will help you to avoid a similar situation in the future.  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 22:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoops
If you got a message bar but no message, that was my fault (I got confused) - my apologies. Neıl ☎  16:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hehe, yeah I was chuckling while watching you undo all the changes you just made. The account that Brandt asked me to look into was a VOA, though.  Cheers!  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 16:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the note, I appreciate. :) faithless   (speak)  18:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:YetanotherGenisock
Yeah it's one of mine. I don't want a contrib history full of TV stuff I'd never be ablke to find anyhting I was looking for.Geni 21:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to make sure. User:YetanotherGenisock is unblocked now.  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 21:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Usernames for administrator attention
Thank you for the good job here. Bearian (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem and thank you

 * I am sorry but you must undestand why I put it. Thank you for caring, Igor Berger (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry about all the Clock and Dagger stuff, but I really had concern and untill things deescalated I did not want to bring undue attention to the agravated situation. I as a security analyst was asked by a few people conserned with problemtatic instability to take a look at the inner workings of WikiPedia. Now more than this, I do not wish to get into right now!


 * As a member of the counter vandalism unit I was tracking a sysopsoc [please investigate]. To evert detection and to confuse the predetor I put the templates on my user page to pretend being a fool and an idiot. I have developed PHSDL an anti-spam project which I am administaring and I am contributing to SpamAssassin as a developer and adviser for sub project BlogSpamAssassin. SpamAssassin is a Jakarta project under Apache.org foundation. I also work with StopBadware.org which is under the auspicious of Harvard university.


 * So now that I have revealed my identity to you I am sure you can understand why the disguise. Please look at Honeypot (computing) to get some idea what is this about and how it works. No the PHSDL honeypot consept is extended to Social engineering (security). People who do this kind of work are sometimes called Ninjas or Assassins like the SpamAssassin name suggestes. of course many crackers use this for malissious porpouses so we the hackers go in undercover to flush them out. If the community would have know what was going on the whole porpous would have been defeated.


 * I like to appologize to you for keeping you in the dark to this, but it is beeing done for the spirit of Wikipedia and no WP:COI or WP:ABF. So in the future please WP:AGF with regards to what I am doing. If you do not understand what I am doing and find things out of place, just let me know, and I will get back to you ASAP, when thing deescalate. Regards, Igor Berger (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * User_talk:Ioeth I have observed your adjudication on WikiPedia and it is spotless and very Fair! Keeep up the great work, Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

user talk pages
I was looking at user talk pages from ANI posts. Your help of Tulkolahten is good. Your calling Notrouble a vandal is not good. Whenever I make suggestions to an administrator, I create a user because of a bad experience with Ryulong. He has a bad temper and blocks when he's mad, even if he is the one breaking WP rules. Sarah789 (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I considered User:Notrouble's comments at ANI to be vandalistic. Claiming to be an administrator and then threatening a block is disruptive behavior, and will not be tolerated.  Please stop creating multiple single-purpose sockpuppet accounts to avoid an administrator that you disagree with.  If Ryulong makes decisions with poor judgement, other administrators are entitled to overturn them.  However, if you are creating these single-purpose accounts to avoid a current block, that is a violation of policy, no matter what the circumstances.  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 18:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, fine with me as long as you have a reasonable explanation.


 * As far as Ryulong, what do we do with him. He is just block crazy.  That's why whenever I make even the most polite suggestion to an administrator, I use a SPA and never come back to find out if it has been blocked (so it's not knowingly evading a block).


 * It's easy for administrators to say to just fight the block. I've checked on the unblock board before and came back to see the decisions.  It's not archived so you have to write down the usernames.  Some people are just vandals.  But some seem legitimate.  The administrators who work there are sometimes rude and seem to want to deny request.  ArbCom is too busy to deal with unblock requests.  They already have a shortage of participation in big cases.


 * How do we deal with Ryulong? Google his name and you'll see that he's a horror, full of dead bodies that he's left behind. Sarah789 (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, everything your saying here goes completely against WP:AGF. As you provide no evidence of misbehavior by Ryulong, it sounds like you are simply assuming bad faith on his part.  Until evidence can be presented to the contrary I am obliged not to believe what you are saying.  Sorry.  :-\  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 18:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Once I wrote something on ANI. It was in June. It wasn't attacking anyone. Next thing I know, wham...Ryulong. I see that you're not very sympathetic to those unfairly blocked. You're not completely evil because you haven't blocked me yet to prove your power. Sarah789 (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you were blocked unfairly, but again, you have yet to provide substantive evidence that that is the case. Of course I wouldn't block you just to "prove my power"...I'm a rouge admin after all! ;-)  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 18:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Alliance for School Choice
Hi, thanks for your speedy resolution. Only problem is, the article's not actually been deleted; only the talk page. Could you sort that? Cheers :). The Islander 18:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, even though the article was created improperly, it looks like User:Addhoc is doing a wonderful job of saving it. I'm kind-of glad it didn't get deleted after all.  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 18:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, my mistake - missed that entirely! I was just coming over to retract my comment above. Thanks for your help ;) The Islander 18:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Strange notion
Hey... weird how a rouge admin created a tool called Friendly. :-p -- Menti  fisto  16:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, yeah it is kinda funny when you think about it. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 16:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:ABF User_talk:DeadlyAssassin
User_talk:DeadlyAssassin is being social engineered here if this accont is used in an editor war, who will WP:ABF. Can become problematic! So if there is a problem with this account in the future please take resposibility being that you think there is no problem and you are aware of this. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 14:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no reason to interact with that user or any other user that I may think is problematic. I point it out and let others decide by consensus as to what needs to be done. And as you can see, I was not the first one recommending a name change! Igor Berger (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

side note
I tried your method used in this discussion it does speed the process up. Gnangarra 14:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Userpage vandalism
My pleasure. Vandalism-only accounts don't often announce themselves right off the bat, at least outside of articlespace. :) ˉˉanetode╦╩ 14:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

User:PB Webmaster
Hiya - just a quickie from the user creation log. 20:45, 10 January 2008 PB webmaster (Talk | contribs) created new account User:PB Marketing (Talk | contribs). Does the block that you imposed cover the creation of new accounts? Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 21:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it does not for the specific purpose that the user be allowed to create a new username. Looks like they chose a bad one to create again, though.  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 21:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, so, a username block for violation won't automatically prevent creation of new accounts unless the block is set that way? Just trying to work it out. Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 21:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct! It's an option that can be set on the block when it is set up called "prevent account creation".  If you see that in the block log, it means that the user won't be able to create another account; if not, then they can.  In the case of username violations, that option is usually only enabled when the username is blatantly offensive.  Let me know if you have any other questions.  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 21:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have another question. ;-) n this instance, the user didn't read, or chose to ignore, the first warning, and created as similar name. When blocking the second user, does that not warrant blocking account creation? And are the two blocks separate - ie. if you chose to create an indef block as well as block account creation on the second account, would you then have to go back and adjust the block on the first account as well to make it cover account creation (as it hadn't previously)? Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 21:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I usually try to assume the best of faith in situations like these. Most likely the person just isn't familiar with Wikipedia's policies, but an improper username usually isn't a very good reason to hard block them and definitely goes against WP:BITE.  The two blocks are completely separate, unless I check the "autoblock any IP address used" checkbox.  This enables a feature in the MediaWiki software that will not only block that user account, but will also block any edit coming from that IP address, whether the user is logged in or not.  This feature can sometimes wreak havoc, though, if the IP address blocked is, for instance, a company's proxy server (central IP address through which all traffic is routed).  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 21:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Great. Thanks for the replies. Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 21:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)