User talk:TextureSavant

Mediation Cabal
Hi there. I've volunteered to be the mediator in the case surrounding the alledged NPOV and edit wars surrounding the Surrealism article after a request for informal mediation by another user. I've had a brief read through the talk pages and background, but it would be very helpful if you could give me a semi-detailed summary of all the events; including the links being referred to, any alternative user names and if possible the past reverts that have the controversial material. In the mean time I will contact the other users involved and do some more research. Feel free to reply on my talk page, or under this comment (although I'd be very greatful if you could acknowledge this message). Also, please be advised that this is an entirely voluntary procedure designed to prevent smaller edit conflicts from going to formal mediation or arbitration, and may be in your best interests, so please give consideration to participating. Thanks. Jem 21:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know there are some proposals on the Surrealism talk page. Have a look there and add your opinions. Jem 12:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Because it didn't seem that much was going on with the request for sockpuppetry (not least because of the huge backlog) I opened up a discussion at the administrator's noticeboard. Hopefully that will get things moving along. Jem 18:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello again. I sought advice from an admin to clarify my position, as someone supposedly neutral in this debate, and their recommendation can be seen here. Basically, if you feel it is now the time for more direct action, a case needs to be presented to the community for a community siteban. The admin makes some basic points on how to do this, and I don't mind helping you with it. They'll also have a look over and give any feedback. Leave me a note on my talk page with what you want to do. Thanks Jem 23:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I've not replied quickly, I've been away for a few days. Nice one on getting a RfCU filed; seeing as there's confirmed sockpuppetry the time is now to apply for a ban. I would try the community noticeboard for a community ban or you could try AN:I but that seems to be backlogged. Again, message me if you need a hand but ultimately you seem to be doing ok with all this beaureaucracy. Jem 10:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

A community ban is one where it is requested upon the Community Noticeboard and the community then discusses whether or not the person should be banned for their disruptive edits. It's fairly powerful, and could be used here (see this example). However, seeing as sockpuppetry is itself a banning offence, it might be wise to just apply to an admin via the administrators noticeboard to see if they will ban. Ultimately either will need to see the link to the SSP page, the links to the talk page and any other evidence we've put forward (including perhaps a previous discussion on AN:I) and most importantly the checkuser results. It's up to you where you choose to place the request, but now there is undeniable evidence, I would apply to ANI for encforcement first. I can do this on your behalf if you like, but you seem definitely able to do it yourself. Jem 10:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Community ban
TextureSavant, you basically have to make a post at the Community Noticeboard stating what's going on. Take a look at that page to see how it's done, there are several discussions about banning disruptive editors. It's best to be as specific as you can, with links to the Checkuser cases and example diffs of disruptive behavior. (If you don't know what a diff is, see WP:DIFF.) In my opinion, it's more important to get one or more admins to monitor Surrealism--it's entirely possible that more socks are coming. A ban discussion at WP:CN might get some admins to take a closer look at this page. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Surrealism
TextureSavant, I'm going to ask that the socks be blocked at WP:ANI, but can you give me more info about the dispute? Is it all about external links + sockpuppetry, or is there more to it? I think to move forward you probably need to restart mediation, but if it's really a matter of self-promotion through adding external links, then Classicjupiter2 is just a spammer. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * TextureSavant, I'm very confused by the situation at Surrealism, but since the article is fully protected and the talk page is semi-protected, I hope that fewer sockpuppets will crop up. I think you should see if the mediation can be re-opened, and proceed with discussion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Akhilleus (talk • contribs) 06:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

AMA REQUEST
I have opened your AMA case at Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/February 2007/TextureSavant. and have proposed a step to take. Please visit the page and see if you want me to take that step.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 21:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: User: Bonfireofvanity = Keith Wigdor
Thank you very much for your message. I appreciate having this information. It was obvious from his comments that he is someone who has had some involvement with the article in the past, but I could not ascertain in what capacity. There were no previous edits by that username, but I knew that was not necessarily relevant. I assumed, without any specific evidence, that he had used another identity in the past, and, judging by the quality and calibre of his talk page comments, that he had been disruptive. Your message "fills in the blanks," more or less. Again, thank you. Cheers! --- RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  15:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * When I first started editing the Surrealism article, I looked into the whole Wigdor drama, so I am familiar with some of what you are talking about. My only concern is the quality of the article, and have no intention of allowing him to distract me from that goal.  If he becomes a nuisance, I have no problem taking the matter to an administrator.  Thanks, again, for your information. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  16:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)