User talk:Chaser/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archives
2006: Mar—Jun 19 | Jun 20—Jul | Aug—Sep | Oct—Dec 17 | Dec 17—31 2007: Jan | Feb—May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec 2008: Jan—May | Jun—Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec 2009: Jan—Apr | May—Aug | Sep | Oct—Nov | Dec 2010: Jan—Jun | Jul—Oct | Nov—Dec 2011: Jan—Mar | Apr—Jul 2012: Jul—Aug | Sep—Dec 2013: Jan—Dec 2014: Jan—Dec 2015: Jan—Dec

thanks again

appreciate ur help again on j-lo. i could cite a million more sources, but didn't want it taking up thw whole story. actually j lo can thank her body for her breakthru role: selena. selena's family wanted jennifer for the role not just because of her dancing and acting, but she had the same body type as selena. they wanted it close to reality as possible - and they couldn't believe they found someone with jlo's talent that had the same shape as their daughter. of course this is the role that jen a star

I'm not sure what you mean. I opposed it and still think it is a bad idea.--Chaser - T 22:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

thank you

thank you for all your help with my tonino article and j-lo edits. i have learned much during this; i too value wiki and want it 2 be the best it can be, so everyone can benefit from it.Jerryskid 15:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Do you need any other help with anything?--Chaser - T 15:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

thanks much; i couldn't figure the tag deal on the tonino story, but otherwise evrything ok hereJerryskid 15:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you read this yet? Please try it yourself, first.--Chaser - T 16:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

how

how could a picture to an article without one? i realize it can't be copyrighted. technically i don't know howJerryskid 05:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Which article?--Chaser - T 05:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

tonino baliardoJerryskid 05:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought so. The only way I'm aware is fair use (details at Wikipedia:Non-free content), but I'm not familiar enough with that to give you advice. Follow the instructions carefully if you do decide to use copyrighted work as fair use.--Chaser - T 05:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

no how do you add it? get it in the article?Jerryskid 06:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah. First you have to upload it, then link it into the article. If you upload it, I can help you link it in, though I may be going to bed soon.--Chaser - T 06:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

i did 'upload' and saw it - i have no idea where is or how 2 link it..?Jerryskid 06:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. I've put it in the article. You also need to choose an appropriate image copyright tag. See Wikipedia:Uploading_images#Determine_image_copyright_status and leave a question here if you need help. I'm going to bed.--Chaser - T 06:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

thank you i will tomorrow if i can figure it out 74.136.13.7 06:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the unblock. Elefuntboy 03:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

No sweat!--Chaser - T 03:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Jyotiṣa

I agree, which is why Ive already asked for the article to be semi protected. Please read the other users talk page, and the articles talk page as I did everything by the book. If I didn't, please reply what I did wrong so i won't do it again. Thanks Warrush 17:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it looks good to me but I doubt the IP Address will leave it alone. It seems he/she doesn't want to abide by the wikipedian standards. Warrush 18:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If I may ask, what wikipedia standards did I not abide by? All I did was add a {{dubious}} tag, where the article was not properly cited. I don't think accusations of vandalism by people, without actually reading the edits is warranted for. 158.144.16.8 00:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Both of you were edit warring over tags. The specific guideline is Wikipedia:Edit war. In any case, the situation seems to have passed.--Chaser - T 00:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the problem is that, new users seem to be routinely accused of vandalism, in spite of constructive edits. Also, I reverted the article only twice, so I don't see how that's "repeatedly" reverted. I still think loads of that article needs better sources and can be improved. Am I allowed to edit it, or will I be reverted and be accused of vandalism again?158.144.16.29 01:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are both allowed to constructively edit the article. You are not allowed to edit war over the article. More on the article's talk page.--Chaser - T 01:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Wireless Bollinger

Could you please explain to me why the wireless bollinger site was deleted? Feel free to respond here or on my talk. regards, Ziophase 19:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The article contained no assertion to notability. In brief, there was nothing there to indicate that the webzine was anything more special than something a couple of friends got together and decided to publish on the web with a few thousand dollars during their spare weekend time. Is there any indication of a high readership? That this zine has a substantial influence on the industry? Something solid that indicates it has significance? Show me that and I'll restore it for a full discussion.--Chaser - T 19:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Wireless Bollinger is a registered business trading under the name of UM Media (which was shown on the wiki page). UM Media's ABN is: 39 527 408 647. To verify this, please go to abr . business . gov . au and search for UM Media. It also has paid advertising on its site (as you can see) from the well respected record company Stomp. Howyoudoing 01:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this to indicate that it is a publicly traded company (owned by shareholders) or that it is publicly registered. If the latter, that's not very meaningful. I'm still not seeing anything that constitutes an assertion to notability. Has this webzine gotten any coverage in mainstream media sources? That would go a long way.--Chaser - T 02:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It is a private partnership, three people who belong to the partnership are silent investors. Several well establised and known record labels are both quoting our reviews as well as sending a large supply of albums. We were the first internet publication to publish Bright Eyes album Cassadaga. Some of our exclusive interviews have given us information which no one else even knew about. For example, Skeletal_Lamping. With many other insight information like this Wireless Bollinger is getting some hits and influencing the indie music community. Why not let other people find out information like this? Howyoudoing 02:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that covers topics that are already independently notable, as measured by other coverage. There is no coverage of this music webzine outside of its own website. The popularization of your webzine doesn't begin with a wikipedia article; it ends with that.--Chaser - T 02:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

To answer with some reference to more policy, WP:CSD#A7 permits the deletion of articles about websites that don't assert the importance or significance of the subject. A webzine would also be most appropriately covered by WP:WEB, the notability guideline for websites.--Chaser - T 02:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

As i stated above we are linked from various well known record labels. E.g. Morning Side and Boy In Static - just to name a few. A well known Radio Host, Zan Rowe also has listed WB on her personal blog. Howyoudoing 03:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Boumetrienne

Could you please unblock and reblock indef? This is the sock puppet of blocked User:Jagjagjagjab. Corvus cornix 02:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Done.--Chaser - T 02:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Corvus cornix 02:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

about Millwaukee WI

What I ment to do was only to revert back to the non-estimated population figure in the article. I guess I made a mistake and not realized I made a revert that wasn't even vandalism in the first place. Sometimes finding vandalism is not that easy but at least it's resolved. Momusufan 03:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Notice

As discussed in User talk:Digwuren#Blocked, I'm considering to request administrative review of your handling of the matter. I'm posting it here because my block timed off, and thus, you might not be watching my discussion page anymore. Feel free to remove the notice here and continue discussion there if that is not the case. Digwuren 16:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Either page is fine.--Chaser - T 17:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, yours is preferable, since so much of the dialogue is already there.--Chaser - T 17:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreeable. Digwuren 17:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry for keeping you waiting for so long. Having seen [1], I am reasonably convinced of your good faith, even though I still disagree with your actions. Being involved in a time-consuming policy action regarding a much more important case, I have no choice than to just drop this issue. Digwuren 19:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Thanks for the clarification concerning the editor of The Intelligence Summit, I deleted the warning from his talk page, didn't mean to bite him O_O! Sorry, I'm still kind of new at this, I'll assume good faith next time, and won't jump to conclusions Rackabello 19:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Don't worry about the mistake. Mistakes are a good way to learn, and I appreciate your patrolling efforts.--Chaser - T 19:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Peres on ITN

Is Shimon Peres really appropriate for ITN? Someone mentioned on Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors that it was a symbolic position, which prompted me to suggest removal. Discussion there.--Chaser - T 20:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is. I am (and was at the time of the addition) aware of the greater importance of the Israeli Prime Minister over the Israeli President. Nevertheless, the President still serves as the country's head of state and he does have a few important powers and roles. -- tariqabjotu 20:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Football

Thanks for the indefinite semi-protection. I'm sure every football editor is grateful.GordyB 22:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome.--Chaser - T 22:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Continued harassment by blocked user

You blocked User:Digwuren for 48 hours for edit warring. After his block was expired, his first edit was this attack and harassment on my talk page. He is blaming me for the administrative action that blocked him. I find this accusation utmostly uncivil, and in direct contempt at Wikipedia and its administrators. Can you look into this issue, or at least inform me if you are on-line.

This is not an isolated issue, but one tiny episode in a long line of diruptive editing and uncivil behavior. (Well, Digwuren has not been registered for wery long, but he seems to be a WP:SPA whose contibutons are limited to WP:TE, WP:DE, WP:3RR and other forms of edit warring.) Several editors have been collecting evidence on Digwuren, but so far have not taken up the issue, as most people are saving the evidence for the upcoming ArbCom. His latest outburst however demands immediate action. -- Petri Krohn 23:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not getting involved in this other than to indicate that your comment on the 3rr noticeboard had nothing to do with my block.--Chaser - T 23:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Would it be inappropriate to take this up at WP:AN/I? -- Petri Krohn 23:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The recent message on your talk page is too minor for anyone on ANI to bother with.--Chaser - T 00:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Chaser, I'm surprized that you stooped to spending so much time on Digwuren's talk page. The matter is rather trivial. Since I have been awarded an anti-troll medal and have a very sharp eye for them, I daresay that we are approaching a community ban, although I predict much screaming on the part of Digwuren's meatpuppets once it comes to that. --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Auroranorth

Thanks for the message. Hesperian 05:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Arthana and Coldmachine

Based on my experience with this whole thing, I'd say Arthana is definitely a sock of Emnx. Coldmachine is less certain, the previous sock SKRINE2 may have cut and pasted his words to confuse the issue. But the fact that these two users were working together on retaliatory RfC and sockpuppet report against IPSOS makes it more likely that they are indeed the same user. Tough one, though. GlassFET 16:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Unblock

Thanks for your effort. Sorry for replying so late but I was offline the whole day. Apparently it works now. Don't know what happened. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

No sweat.--Chaser - T 20:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Macedonia

Actually I don't see this as a real edit war - there's this user Brest who as he says "likes to annoy people". He has been coming back from time to time and moving the Blagoevgrad province article to Pirin Macedonia (an irredentist name used for the same province in Republic of Macedonia alone). That's why he links Pirin Macedonia and I unlinked it. There was a dispute about this some time ago and he was doing edits against a majority of 5-6 other editors. This user is the closest thing to a vandal, look at his userpage for example. He is into another issue concerning Albanian language in articles about cities in Republic in Macedonia, in which I'm not involved, but as far as I see his only purpose is not to contribute with something, but to annoy people --Laveol ^T 08:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Sexist Mother Jokes

The dozens and Mother insult have obvious and documented sexist bias. I am not calling for their deletion. WP:NPOV , however, says we must represent all views and requires balance. Thus these articles may remain but a point of balance is required to bring attention to their sexist point of view. Rlsheehan. June 15, 2007

Mediation

I saw this [2] and having looked at this [3] and this [4] I have decided that I would like to mediate some kind of settlement, so if you can post a reply to say that you would be willing for me to help and I will get back to you. I will be posting this message at all three users names on the MedCab. Darrenhusted 02:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm willing to pursue mediation.--Chaser - T 03:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I have posted at the Mediation page [5]. Darrenhusted 13:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC) It wasn't a problem, Dgies is happy, I'm just waiting for RIsheehan to get back to me. Darrenhusted 16:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that =)

Hi Chaser

Thanks for the unblock - fixing up the issue with the username now. SM&Co. 07:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Shared Ips

Hey its me again, if you come across an ip that is shared, and you do the reverese dns and find, say its a college. What is the script to put on their talk page that will tell other users where the ip is from and what school it belongs to. Thanks- Warrush 14:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

{{SharedIPEDU}} Follow the link for usage notes.--Chaser - T 01:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Mandrake of Oxford

Please stop and ask yourself if I was a sock puppet what was my motivation in asking for a totally independent AFD where ALL potential disputes/interests would be removed beyond the reach of ANY of the 'interested' parties. I felt it was in the best interest of Wikipedia that the process should be halted and dealt with elsewhere. What could I possibly hope to gain from that? apart from trying to protect the integrity of Wikipedia.

I was accused of being a sockpuppet of Emnx - I am not. Coldmachine was accused of the same. I am not Emnx and I am not Coldmachine.

My crime was to vote for delete and then subsequently ask for the AFD to be suspended and dealt with independently (check the record see bottoem of the page on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mandrake of Oxford (2nd nomination)). For that and a typing mistake in an edit summary I got banned.

In my haste I typed in error I am not Emnx I am Coldmachine which should have been I am not Emnx I am not Coldmachine.

How that typo happened - I added a speedy delete to the RFC/IPSOS because Coldmachine had already blanked the page and I had supported the request. Coldmachine had also put a statement on his user page to the effect he had finished with the whole affair. So, as signatory to the RFC in support of Coldmachine I thought it would be reasonable to put the speedy delete tag on the page . . . it was immediately removed as I was trying to add a note to explain what I was doing. There was then an edit clash and my note was lost. In the end I tried to add a m change with an note in the edit summary and in my haste I made the typing error.

If you look on Coldmachine's talk page you will see 'we' discussed (before we were banned) which ISPs we use. We are both in the UK, Coldmachine uses 'Orange'. I use BT. Now, the thing is Orange rents server space from BT (the largest ISP in the UK) so IP addresses of Orange users appear as BT IPs. That is a combined customer base of four to five million customers all accessing the same IP ranges. Furthermore, if you check our edit records you will find that we were editing completely different articles at the same times - so how do you figure we are the same with two ISPs, two accounts, editing different articles at the same time. There was no real evidence against us just circumstantial and a typo . . . the real question you must look at is our motivation. What did we stand to gain from trying to protect the integrity of Wikipedia against a disruptive, edit-warring, aggressive editor (IPSOS) who was working with a meatpuppet (GlassFET) to impose views motivated by a blatant COI.

If you want a clean decision on a new AFD then you must prohibit IPSOS and GlassFET (the alleged meatpuppets with a COI) from particiating too! If you allow them to contribute to a new AFD you bias the result.

IPSOS is continuing with his COI and promoting Mandrake of Oxford i.e. he proposed the review! Remember, IPSOS moved Mandrake of Oxford material into the Mandrake Press article during the AFD to circumvent the process.

During the whole dispute it has been the intent of IPSOS and GlassFET to remove the revival Mandrake Press from Mandrake Press which they have just done despite several failed attempts to split the article so they could attack the revival company on a stand alone basis whilst at the same time promoting a rival company Mandrake of Oxford.

During the 2nd Mandrake of Oxford AFD IPSOS and GlassFET were accused of acting as meatpuppets and also that both had a COI. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hermetic_Order_of_the_Golden_Dawn for where they start working together and being disruptive. They both have a declared interest in Golden Dawn and IPSOS has an interest Sexual / Magic, and Tantra. Mandrake of Oxford runs the Oxford Golden Dawn Occult Society (http://www.compulink.co.uk/~mandrake/ogdos.htm) and publishes books on Sexual Magic. The very name IPSOS is connected to this subject (he created an article about his own name) - Kenneth Grant runs the Typhonian OTO which is a magical order which teaches sex magic.

To give you an insight into the character of IPSOS. Until very recently, despite numerous complaints from editors and Admins, this was on the IPSOS user page :-

Problem with Wikipedia

The main problem with Wikipedia is that complete fools cribbing from books consider themselves the equals of people who have studied a field and are intimately acquainted with it. Like people who don't even know how Maugham or Goethe or Jung are pronounced but edit their articles just the same, or who don't know how the word draught is pronounced but are editing beer. Can you believe I was asked for citations to prove that a well-known anthropologist with a double-barrelled name actually shouldn't be cited using only the second half of his last name when a simple phone call to any anthropology department or a simple search of the Library of Congress catalog would have cured one of one's ignorance? When those who don't really know insist they are right rather than admit that they don't really know, I suggest that they simply leave Wikipedia. Why invest your ego in proving yourself right about something which you don't know anything about?!!! Damn silly. IPSOS!

Arthana

Sorry to bother you again but just how reliable is Checkuser. I have a dynamic IP. Yesterday it was briefly 217.41.217.24 . . . if you go to that page you will find a number of vandalism warnings. They were certainly not me.

My postings were

1. 14:28, 21 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:MaxSem (→Coldmachine page protected?)
2. 14:03, 21 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:MaxSem (→Coldmachine page protected?)
3. 13:15, 21 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:MaxSem (→Coldmachine page protected?)
4. 12:32, 21 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:MaxSem (Coldmachine page protected?)
5. 07:50, 21 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:86.131.37.11 (top)

As you know I have protested my innocence all along. This latest info makes me wonder all the more at the level of evidence you used to make your assumptions of guilt! How would I prove I didn't commit the vandalism? (Which I didn't . . . but no doubt you will think this another attempt to deceive you but I can assure you it is not)

Arthana(--217.41.217.24 01:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC))

That is insane!!! I signed with four tildes . . . my router tells me my IP is 86.131.37.11. If I have retained the IP 217.41.217.24 from yesterday and I swear I didn't make all the other edits (see the contribs page) what the hell is going on here? Is there a problem with Wikipedia reading IPs?

Arthana (--217.41.217.24 01:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC))

The issue is closed.--Chaser - T 04:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Danke

[6] Yeah, that probably shouldn't have gone right on the main page; thanks for moving it. I'm just getting really frustrated at Miranda's asinine questions and complaints.

Thanks for helping me not make an ass out of myself. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but read my comment on the RFA's talk page before you thank me twice.--Chaser - T 05:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey now, pointing out where I'm wrong is an equally valid reason to thank you. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Okay, thanks:) Have a nice week and God bless:)--†Sir James Paul† 07:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

†Sir James Paul† has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks

Thanks for your edit to 172's talk page. I'm not sure if it's vandalism or not and I appreciate the more informed follow-up. WLU 18:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure.--Chaser - T 18:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Dispute at Dragon Ball Z

I noticed TheManWhoLaughs adding comments in the talk page of User:TJ Spyke that appeared to be only for the purpose of antagonizing the user for a previous dispute. Then he began adding unsourced info in the article on Dragon Ball Z. This user has previously had problems with discussing the removal and replacement of cited info with uncited info, most recently in WrestleMania 22. Usually after a dispute has begun the user engages in an edit war and adds personal attacks to the talk pages of the opposing parties. Just my two cents here.-- bulletproof ^3:16 19:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. I'll look into the wrestlemania issue, but perhaps in the meantime you can join us at Talk:Dragon Ball Z.--Chaser - T 19:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest moving this discussion to the WP:DBZ talk page so that members of the Wikiproject can also take part in the discussion?-- bulletproof ^3:16 19:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I left a note at that talk page directing them to the article talk page.--Chaser - T 19:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Image Question

Hi Chaser, thanks again for unblocking me. I have a quick question about images. I took a picture, but that picture has the logo of another business in it. It is a fairly conspicuous part of the picture. Is it acceptable to upload this image to Wikipedia? Seeing as I have been blocked for this in the past, I thought it would be good measure to check.
Thanks,
Bfissa 14:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Answered at Bfissa's talk page.Chaser - T

hello

just figured id let you know that user Tenebrae is trying to use your name to get me banned.TheManWhoLaughs 00:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This whole thing started because he kept reverting my Batman and Robin plot when there was nothing wrong with it. He then reported me to 2 different places trying to get me blocked. He then talked to me like a was being uncivil. All i wanted was a Batman and Robin plot. And i did archive most of it.TheManWhoLaughs 00:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

very much so. He just wont shut his mouth about me calling me childish and saying im doing something wrong.TheManWhoLaughs 03:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Posting

Done as asked. --Tenebrae 03:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This time I accept

Couldn't wait for me to ask you, hmmm? :-) I'll be filling out the questionnaire soon. Hope this goes well. Daniel Case 04:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for protecting my user page from a persistent vandal. Willie Peter 04:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. If this isn't some more "trying to game the system," by sucking up to an admin, I don't know what is. Chaser, you've no doubt seen the facts ad nauseam on the 3RR page. I'm convinced this less-than-one-day-old user who has appeared only to save Crockspot and Bellowed from 3RR violations is a meatpuppet, and I've got the diffs to back it up. Can you direct me toward the best way to have this investigated? Many thanks. Eleemosynary 05:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This guy loves me, for reason only known to him, any rate, please tell this guy to spot harassing me and slandering me and other people with his deluded agenda.Willie Peter 05:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Tiny piece of information

Just as a trivial piece of information: WP:CIVIL#Examples mentions profanity in general, but not "Bullsh*t" in particular. I mention this in case the word has been removed from the page since you last read it. (I can't be the only one to find it irritating when policy pages keep changing like that.)

Anyway, as I've said on my talk page, I now consider the matter of the block closed. Thank your for your detailed response to my unblock request. Cheers, CWC 06:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment on William's page

I left the following comment for you on William M. Connolley's user talk page, let's see if he deletes this one too. He has deleted several of mine off his page.

::Ahem... He blocked me while he and I were in a dispute. He also likes to delete peoples comments and warnings off his user talk page.

--Britcom 11:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think your comments are helpful. It strikes me as "rubbing salt in his wounds." My opinion.--Chaser - T 14:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Please correct the record

On the Willie Peter sockpuppet report, you include me in an "edit war over the last few days". I think you should recheck the George Soros edit history. I haven't edited that article in several days. - Crockspot 12:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Just checked, June 16 was my last edit, and I don't think my previous edits constitute "warring". I stopped editing the article completely when I was directly warned. - Crockspot 12:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Done.--Chaser - T 14:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

guess

so but if he says anything to me from now on in a direspectful manner hes gonna get it.TheManWhoLaughs 14:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Our standards apply universally to every editor.--Chaser - T 16:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

thanks

for getting me unbanned. ill try to stay clean.TheManWhoLaughs 17:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do that. BTW, it was a block, not a ban. See Wikipedia:Banning policy.--Chaser - T 17:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Im trying to add in something a have a source for. they wont quit so im gonna have to report them.TheManWhoLaughs 18:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I blocked User talk:TheManWhoLaughs for a week for the abusive use of a sockpuppet with User:Goblin420. The articles edited were too common plus the 420 in the name's link to his myspace link. I am 99% sure that is what kicked off his autoblock. If you have an issue with this block, please let me know. Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

He is requesting an unblock. I have very little doubt that User:Goblin420 is the TMWL's sock. He edited only pages TMWL edited and had issues with. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Cydonia Mensae

Please stop with the inappropriate warnings. Thanks. --Ronz 21:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop with the inappropriate warnings. Treating everyone equally when they've done nothing wrong is inappropriate. Stop. --Ronz 21:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. My apologies in coming across so strongly to you efforts at helping. --Ronz 21:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

3RR Incidentsheader transclusion

Hi -- Regarding this edit: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentsHeader can't be used for the 3RR noticeboard. Thanks -- AvB ÷ talk 23:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for catching that.--Chaser - T 23:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Movement to impeach George W. Bush

Now this is one that needs some mediation. I gave it a try a while back, but found it pretty much futile. While I'd still like to help, I wasn't even able to get editors to consider what they're doing in the light of WP:NPOV and WP:OR. I'll look for opportunities to step in and assist though. --Ronz 23:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm equally not hopeful.--Chaser - T 23:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

TheManWhoLaughs

I was just following WP:SOCK procedures. Why is it unhelpful if it puts him in the sockpuppet category? Lord Sesshomaru

Because it was likely a one-time thing and the tag is more likely to cause trouble by setting him off than helping with identification.--Chaser - T 00:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, was at least this cat. ok? What I can do also is categorize him in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppeteers without resorting to the "annoying" tag. Your thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru

What's the purpose of placing the tag or putting the editor in the category?--Chaser - T 05:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was just a thought. Maybe it could help keep an extra eye out on the user by those whom casually browse sock-related categories. Ideas? Lord Sesshomaru

That's the thing. I think these tags are just so that editors can quickly assess if a blocked editor was using socks abusively and then block when new socks turn up (and a dozen more reasons). There just doesn't seem to be a good reason to place the tag on his userpage because the sock was so obvious the first time and he's blocked for two days rather than banned.--Chaser - T 06:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No, no, I meant just categorize without resorting to the tag. It's easy, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppeteers; he might not even notice it and if he does, he wouldn't be inflamed by it. Its just a category. Lord Sesshomaru

Sorry. Sloppy wording. I understood. I feel the same way regarding the cat. I have his talk page watchlisted and should be able to handle problems in the near future.--Chaser - T 06:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Good luck. Lord Sesshomaru

Willy Peter

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I moved your notice on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Willie Peter down after "conclusions", I hope that is proper, unless that is considered more evidence. I also linked in the diff to your message. Thanks again. - Crockspot 01:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I stuck it in evidence because I'm still suspicious about the account, but I don't have anything else to go on, so that report may as well be closed.--Chaser - T 01:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, you have the user name that I was told. We'll just have to see what kind of editing pattern develops. - Crockspot 01:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well in the mean time, as you ponder Mr. Goethean's musingsthat every one from Illinois is a sock, how about you kindly remove, this slander and personal attack off Eleemosynary user's page. Thanks.Willie Peter 05:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've asked him to remove it. Please be patient.--Chaser - T 06:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

OK I will Willie Peter 06:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I am still waiting, [7] when will you enforce WP:HARASS , WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL ? I have been cleared, as well as others. Why don't you remove this personal attack, I want this to end too. [[8]]Willie Peter 14:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You dug your own hole [9]. Now you get to sit in it. I have no sympathy.--Chaser - T 20:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You forgot to remove the lie and personal attack [10]from Eleemosynary user's page, who is an experienced and contentious editor and put all the blame on me, NICE it is like Orwell saids...some are more equal then others.? Willie Peter 21:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Chaser. I've responded on my Talk page. I would appreciate your taking a look at. I'd also appreciate you watchlisting the Henry Hyde page. Eleemosynary 13:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering if you are still going to remove his personal attacks onEleemosynary talk pages?

This guy is harassing me. I will move on to another subject. IF he should follow me I WILL FILE a complaint. You appear to be empowering this editor. Please tell him be civil, and assume good faith or I will follow with procedures outlined in WP:HARASS . Also his refactoring on his talk pages, is a violation of policy. [11] [12]

Also, BTW calling my edits "Nonsense" is out of line. I am willing to say you did not even read the cite I use to justify my edits on Henry Hyde bio. Now I add about half a dozen more cits from Tibune, Suntimes and the like and see of that proves my point.Willie Peter 19:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) I was referring to the situation, not your good-faith edit to the article.--Chaser - T 19:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC) BTW, I did read the article. I read it carefully to see if the article said that his telling the crowd to shut up indicated seriousness. It didn't.--Chaser - T 20:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry for my misunderstanding of your intent. please forgive me. Also, not to belabor the point, but when are you going to remove personal attack of me, off of Eleemosynary talk page?Willie Peter

It's OK. My comment could be read two ways. I understand.--Chaser - T 20:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

How about removing this off of Eleemosynary talk page, [13]

Two hours. Give me two hours.--Chaser - T 21:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enoughWillie Peter 21:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I have wait for about 11 hours and if I still still find this still up [[14]] up on Eleemosynary Talk page. Now I will give you the opportunity to remove it first as well as the other "WILD Rants" and "personal attack", then in the next 6 to 12 hours I will. I have been cleared all of his charges and frankly, I have been trying to be patient, but it's wearing thin and I hope Eleemosynary can end his wind mill joust now and leave his obsession of me behind him. Willie Peter 04:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you just ignore it and go do something else instead of making this any worse than it already is?--Chaser - T 04:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

WHY don't you just remove it and we can be done. Is that so hard?

Also, BTW, I READ. In particular this.Wikpedia Help files to get my extraordinary knowledge.

Your statement imply that I have have come by my knowledge though other means.

"This suspicion had some evidence to support it, notably that all three editors were reverting in the same direction in a content dispute and Willie Peter was operating from a very green user account [49] with an extraordinary knowledge of policy for a new user, including plausible citations to WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:BITE [50] even though there was no indication anyone had told Willie Peter about these policies. "

Just because other can't read and think don't assume I can not read as well. Your comment smacks of implication of wrong doing. Please change it.

Also, I do thank you for spending the time and trying to be fair. I do give that credit considering the others that populate Wikipeida. I just ask this last thing. Since you cleared me, please remove the smear and personal attack off of Eleemosynary Talk page and I will move one. In fact I have things to do in the next few days and will not be on the computer for a little while. So. Please to this thing and it will be done.Willie Peter 05:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not changing my own statement. In context (However, the checkuser evidence exculpated all three accounts of charges of sockpuppetry abuse.) the statement is fair. You can stop with your petty criticisms of my handling of this situation. I'm quite tired of it after I've put an enormous amount of work into ending this stupid bickering between you two while you both have distracted all three of us from contributing to articles, which is the purpose of the encyclopedia to begin with.--Chaser - T 06:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Why was it "tiresome" considering, again, that it was at Eleemonsynary insistence and instigation for all of this and you then chastise me for the blame?. I will be well with this [15]but your crack, "we will continue to collect evidence...", really shine as a Wikipdia "Assume Good Faith Moment".

Now I did recognized your work in this [16]and your efforts to try, in your own "Wikiality" to be fair, but trying to be polite has it's rewards. Again all of this, was due to the absolute instigation of Eleemonsynary. Rather trying to further the project, Eleemonsynary rather be like the "Check Blocker, Enforcer" in a hockey game and push his "puppet filled obsession" against me. SO don't go putting guilt, for his actions or my efforts to clear my wikiname from the stigma of Eleemonsynary personal attacks, solely upon me.

I will consider this closed and I will go forth and edit on any subject as I see fit and try to make my small contribution to the greater Wikipedia good. Thanks.Willie Peter 13:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Willie Peter section two

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Please note that "Willie Peter" and "Bellowed" are carrying on a dispute, in almost identical language and tone, with the same editor, "Goethean." I'm sure that's just a coincidence. Please also note that "Willie Peter," in the above comment, claimed you "did not even read the cite," implying that you lied in your edit summary on the Hyde page. This would appear to violate WP:AGF. Please also note "Wille Peter" is now accusing me of being in collusion with "Goethean," an editor I have never corresponded with. This also violates WP:AGF. Please also note "Willie Peter" is employing the "I know you are but what am I" defense re: meatpuppetry, a violation of WP:GAME. Eleemosynary 20:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note that there are no personal attacks against WP on my Talk Page, only evidence. Please note also that there are several attacks on you on WP's Talk page, specifically one that calls your comments "abuse" [17], and another that compares your comments to that of a Nazi character, as well as threatening you ("better tell me") in the edit summary, and claiming you "don't read." [18]. Please also note that any WP claims of not employing sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry have been destroyed by his IP sockpuppetry on my talk page.[19] Thus, my comments are not "personal attacks," but borne out by evidence. Also note that WP has now accused me of meatpuppetry on his Talk page, so his request to remove my comments from my own page in the nature of civility ring rather hollow. [20]

I don't want to continue this dialogue, but I can't let dishonesty, nor "working the ref" stand. I'm not asking him to remove his attacks from his talk page, as they will eventually be of use. I'll add a question mark to my Talk page in the nature of fairness. I do wish this would end. Eleemosynary 20:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about me. I'm letting it all role off my back. I've already asked him to strike that.--Chaser - T 20:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note he has not struck the accusation at all, still claiming I'm in collusion with the other editor, while employing a dodge.[21] I don't care if it stays up or not, but it's interesting to note the figurative "thumb in the eye" he gave to your admonition. Eleemosynary 20:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Would you chill for a couple hours? If I can tolerate being called abusive, accused of not reading, and compared to a Nazi, you can tolerate being called someone's friend.--Chaser - T 20:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Let's see what transpires over the next few hours. Eleemosynary 20:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

How about removing this off of Eleemosynary talk page, [22]

Also, stop Eleemosynary from removing my comments from this place [23]. It's rude and uncivil.Willie Peter 21:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

And while you're at it, stop WP from vandalizing my comments. [24]. It's rude and uncivil. And this whole episode is tiresome. Eleemosynary 21:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

TDC, parole status and 'good behavior'

Hi Chaser. We've not yet met, but I'd like to recommend that you take a look at this April 5, 2007 3RR report for consideration of TDC's compliance with the 'good behavior' terms of his parole status, should it be necessary. [25]. As I say on that report, TDC should not look at the lifting of parole (when and if that happens) as mere license to return to 3RR. In short, a user's behavior can't be described as 'good' if it's fundamentally unchanged from that which got him the 1RR ban in the first place. Thank you. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

In the end it was this that did it, but thanks for bring that to my attention, as well. Cheers.--Chaser - T 21:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Chaser - thanks for the response. Jayjg's final comment on that thread is helpful, insofar as users who re-offend with the same behavior that earned a prior ArbCom ban can have their behavior addressed more readily by ArbCom directly, without necessitating a whole RfAr 're-do'. I'm hopeful I won't have to deal with it at all, with the user in question choosing constructive resolution over revert warring and tendentious editing. We'll see. Thanks again for your response and your involvement. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. In fact my understanding is a community consensus can create and apply certain sanctions much like ArbCom does, though those sanctions are still appealable to arbcom. See Wikipedia:Banning policy for more information.--Chaser - T 04:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Xenophrenic's block in February, I did seek advice from User:Longhair at the time see this discussion. Any how you'll see that I was troubled by the actions of TDC. To me it appeared that the issues with the articles at the time would have been resolved otherwise. Also given that the Arbcom was against a range of IP, I WP:AGF with Xeno after some email discussions, hence the unblock. Gnangarra 01:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

New issue

I'm presently having an edit issue with the above mentioned user, and I came across this discussion of yours after reviewing several related edit histories. User TDC has recently reverted whole sections of an article to his previous version from several months ago. [26] This edit was made without an edit summary and without a notation on the article Talk page. Bad form, at the very least. I have had discussions with him on this article previously, so I plodded through his edit to try to determine his intent. I noticed large blocks of content were just copied and pasted from one section to another, needlessly duplicating whole sentences while other content was deleted. I reverted TDCs edit, and noted it in the Edit Summary. He reverted the article again, and yet again, even after I explained on the Talk page that he was creating duplicate sentences, etc. He continues to revert, even after new content is added - wiping it away. When spelling or grammar are corrected, he reverts away those edits as well. 5 reverts in the past 36 hours and counting. Sometimes they are full 100% reverts; sometimes they are full reverts minus a duplicated sentence or two that he catches. I frankly don't wish to join him in an edit war and I am not pushing a 3RR report - I'm sure he's skirting the time requirements precisely with stopwatch in hand. I'm looking for a more durable solution; got any suggestions? (Unrelated: I like the header you have on your talk page. I'm implementing a version of it...) Xenophrenic 21:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

One good solution is for you both to stop when you see a change you don't like, not revert, but ask the other editor to explain the reason for the change on the talk page so you can discuss it.--Chaser - T 23:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Chaser, before you respond to this please allow me to provide some context on the situation. I am on my way home and cannot do this immediately, but I promise that within a few hours I will respond to this. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I'll wait. This better be good.--Chaser - T 23:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I will try and keep this as brief as possible. I was involved in an arbitration decision on a related article about a year and a half ago with this user. He will deny that he was the user, but a checkuser found this to be likely.

Xenophrenic has an extremely long history of WP:OWN on this and related articles. He has edited these article anonymously for over two years because he realized that at the time (this was before special protection was available) that there was no way to block him, and he could, and did quite often, claim that when multiple violations of 3RR were being violated by him 15 times on one day was his best I think, that it was another anonymous user and not himself.

Another reason for editing in the way he was, was because it was some kind of experiment for him:

"RE: my not logging in under my registered psuedonym - please don't let that be a distraction from the real issues here. Almost 2 years ago there was an argument that resulted in a challenge to me, which then resulted in a little experiment, which is presently ongoing. I beg you to humor me on this. On a Wikipedia that claims anyone (even the unregistered) may contribute, and prides itself on the content of articles, not the contributors of them, this should not be an issue. I will continue to remain not logged in, while reserving my logging in for voting and other procedural matters as required. Rest assured that TDC would still make his misrepresentations of me even if I were logged in - his sleights really have nothing to with his confusing multiple unregistered editors, but in the interest of polite discussion I figured I'd leave him that egress. -Rob 06:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)"[27]“

Logs of Copyvio corrections

This would make sense, as he, even now, is able to revert any edits to the article that don’t satisfy his POV within hours. It’s pretty obvious that he has another account that he edits with frequently and uses this to watch the page.

Much of the Rv and nearly perpetual edit warring that took place on this article had as much to do with the removal of massive swaths of copywritten material that Xenophrenic inserted, and would not remove. User:Duk spent a good deal of time attempting to remedy this [28] [29] and got absolutely nowhere. So he got sick of it, and gave up. Most of the other users who were involved in this gave up [30], I did not, and I have gotten hosed for it.

It’s the same thing with Xenophrenic, over and over. He removes material, and takes it talk for an endless discussion, labels every Rv of his as either vandalism patrol, and drives off any user who he disagrees with. He never once leaves material in the article to discuss its removal or inclusion if he wants it out. In short, there is no way to deal with him effectively, as he cannot be held accountable to any administrative injunctions the way I can, and he knows this. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any substantial comments from anyone other than you two on the talk page in the last six months. Why do you say he's dragging people off?--Chaser - T 02:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The decline in participation of editors on the page and on the talk over the past 2 years is evidence that he has driven people off. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Responding to Cudgel's "brief" comments above: Of course I deny being the various users he would like me to be, just as I did when he pulled this stunt a few months back. [31] With that clear, Cudgel can deal with his evil-doers (article OWNers, Copyright Violators, Anon Experimenters, ArbCom Parolees, Robs, Snobs and Billybobs) somewhere else, freeing us up to deal with the real issue here: Cudgel's article revert to material from several months ago, without an explanation on the Talk page or even an edit summary. I came here asking you for suggestions, and you offer to mediate. That is far more than I expected; of course I accept. Xenophrenic 05:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

At this point you've both violated 3RR, but your postings here and on the article's talk page suggest this is amenable to some mediation. I want to do that via email, as the posts between you are angry and bitter and filtering out the non-productive attacks would help make the dialog productive. Are you willing to mediate this issue?

Just to clarify, several months ago I was briefly blocked for violating a 1RR parole. The block was removed. I am not the user subject to that parole. Furthermore, as Gnangarra has pointed out, the parole condition supposedly violated had already expired anyway. As a humorous aside, I now find out the parole never passed ArbCom in the first place [32]. I hope to have that errant notation in my block log expunged. I am of the opinion that having a clean block log is something worth struggling to maintain - more valuable than a dozen barnstars of recognition. On that note, I'd like to disagree with your assessment that I've violated WP:3RR. In addition to not exceeding 3 reverts in 24 hours, I chose to cease even attempting to revert even though I could, opting instead to open dialog here. Xenophrenic 05:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I take copyright violations seriously, but will wait to see if this becomes an issue in the future before commenting. Whether or not you want to mediate, I will interpret further reversions as continuation of the edit-war and block accordingly or protect the article.--Chaser - T 03:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I also take copyright violations seriously, but it doesn't appear to be a current issue, just something tossed up to fog matters at hand. I won't be reverting as long as dialog ensues, but between you and me, Cudgel's latest revert where he renames the Saigon Consulate to "conciliate," and removes the page numbers from reference citation, etc., boggles the mind. Xenophrenic 05:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Commentary about original post

Following precedent [33], now User:RyanFreisling should be taken to ArbCom for reporting another user's violations. But don't tell him that.[34] (SEWilco 05:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC))

The cited case says nothing like that.--Chaser - T 05:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my phrasing was ambiguous. By "don't tell him that", I meant "don't tell him what the ArbCom case is about", not "don't tell him about the ArbCom case". (SEWilco 18:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC))

RyanFreisling isn't a party to that case, and anyway how does a workshop comment qualify as precedent?--Chaser - T 20:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The case involves punishing the reporter of violations. I can't say the case is about that, because no reasons for the case were ever specified. (SEWilco 01:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC))

As far as I see, the case in no way involves punishing the reporter of violations or RyanFreisling. I'm failing to see why anything in that case is relevant. I do see that you were subjected to arbitration under protest and are still angry about it; is that what this thread is about?--Chaser - T 03:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

88.112.222.56

Please note that the self-reverting edits are the way 88.112.222.56 vandlizes pages. If you look at his/her history of edits, this is all s/he does to hockey-related pages, constantly changing statistics anc changng them back. Please re-consider a block. Thanks Gmatsuda 06:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked one month. Thank you for pointing that out to me. Hopefully this will prevent the problem for some time.--Chaser - T 06:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, it'll probably just fix the problem for about a month...I doubt this person will ever learn or care much. :( Thanks for looking at this more closely. Gmatsuda 07:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

User talk:207.144.215.42

Unblock request at above page that you might want to handle? SGGH ^speak! 19:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Related IP block

You asked: "Yamla, can you clue me into the reasons for suspicion of 207.144.215.42. It would help me do a better review of the unblock request."

This IP address came up on one or more unblock-auto requests from known Wrestlinglover420 (talk · contribs) sockpuppets. As another sockpuppet of that account was blocked today shortly before this unblock request, it looks likely that this vandal is trying to create a new account. --Yamla 20:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You said: "Which sockpuppet(s)? I believe you, I just want diffs to stick in the unblock denial."

TheManWhoLaughs (talk · contribs) was on the same subnet (User talk:TheManWhoLaughs/archive01). I can search the archives if it would help, one of the sockpuppets in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Wrestlinglover420 made an unblock-auto request with that address. --Yamla 20:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

William M. Connolley

He did it again. William deleted my reply to another user off of his user talk page. See here: [35] He chose to keep the unsolicited accusation against me by another user, and deleted my reply to that user leaving the impression that I made no reply and preventing the other user from seeing that reply. William is supposed to be an Admin. Do you think that William's deletion of my comment is appropriate? I don't think so, I think he is out of control. --Britcom 00:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't violate any policies. See WP:TALK#User_talk_pages.--Chaser - T 01:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it is conduct unbecoming of an Admin, do you disagree? --Britcom 02:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not getting involved.--Chaser - T 03:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think you would disagree. --Britcom 11:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't read into my comment things that aren't there.--Chaser - T 17:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Unblock of Gr8India

Fair enough. He isn't a sock but his edits show that he is definitely an impersonator/meatpuppet. You can see from his contributions Special:Contributions/Gr8India, that this guys knows Wikipedia too well to be a new user. I don't recall anybody voting on an arbitration case for their second edit. Perhaps my reason for unblocking was wrong but I doubt the account will be used for anything but trolling. We can wait and see what Gr8India does now however and judge whether the account will create havoc or contirbute. I'll AGF for the time being. Thanks! Gizza^{Discuss ©} 03:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Thanks for the unblocking and for the welcome :-) Gr8India 04:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Your welcome Gr8India, [36] [37]. Please block him again. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 05:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indef.--Chaser - T 17:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Chaser, since you blocked gr8india (the user was a troll) I would like to invite you to this discussion on impersonation at ANI.Bakaman 03:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows redux ad naseum

You posted on Sandpiper's talk page something regarding an old 3RR report, and then go on to ask him to contact you should the situation arise again. Well, it has, sort of: he has put back in speculation into the article. Now, I am no wiki-expert, but based on what I have read, this would be considered invalid. Is there a mediation or arbitration process? That is, can someone please interpret the rules regarding this? Thanks. Ccrashh 00:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want another opinion, I'm happy to do that. I don't see anything wrong with the edits in question. The two refs inserted in the second edit [38] probably aren't reliable sources, but they just serve to verify that the speculation exists, not to import the speculation as original research. Since the existence of the speculation was reported by the Washington Post, I don't including the other two refs is a problem as far as WP:NOR is concerned. I also don't see why the references are necessary, but it's my opinion that they aren't against policy. Please let me know if I didn't read your question correctly.--Chaser - T 03:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I meant the Horcrux page. There has been a whole section that is put in by Sandpiper, then subsequently removed by Folken de Fanel. It is in a current "removed" state. While I don't want to get into a constant revert war, I do believe that speculation about a fictional book to be ridiculous. Essentially, this is content which will be removed once the book comes out anyways. Ccrashh 12:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I left my thoughts on the talk page. Please don't edit-war over this. That would be a shame.--Chaser - T 20:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet allegation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Chaser, please check this page as soon as possible [39]. What's abundantly clear is that WP is yet another sockpuppet of Joehazelton. Please read the identical language. The identical misspellings. The identical screaming caps. The identical tone. Please also check the 80+ sockpuppets this guy has used[40]. Please note that nearly every sock account uses the identical language/tone/screaming caps/misspellings.

This sock has been lying to you for days. I was confident he was a sock the entire time. I would like you to revise or delete your edits on my talk page exonerating him. Thank you. Eleemosynary 04:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is IP evidence.: The sockpuppet edit he did to my talk page is here [41]. Please note the IP address falls within the numerous sockpuppet anon ID addresses he has used in the past. [42] Eleemosynary 04:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll agree that enough is enough. And, for the record, I find the rallying of Crockspot and Bellowed to his side almost immediately after account creation to be suspect.Eleemosynary 04:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do. I've already got Gamaliel and Luna Santin reviewing it. (They've blocked Joehazelton in the past.) And I've got a bunch more of admins to come. Eleemosynary 06:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Chaser, he's been permanently blocked as a sock. Luna Santin has issued it. When he returns under his next sock identity, I'd ask for your help in blocking him. This guy took advantage of your goodwill. And that's a shame.Eleemosynary 06:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Willie Peter's new section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

When I am cleared of this I would like you to ban Eleemosynary for his gross abuse of WP:NPA WP:HARASSWillie Peter 05:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:BAN. Individually, I don't have that authority, but I'm going to get another admin to look at his claims and surrounding behavior.--Chaser - T 05:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Chaser, I'd like you to remove any of your language exonerating the Joehazelton sock from my page as soon as possible. I understand your wanting to assume good faith, but this sock did nothing to warrant it. As a result, a lot of my time and yours was wasted by trollish behavior on the sock's part. If you don't wish to remove the language, that's fine. But if you choose not to, I'll be removing any language that is no longer valid.. WP was a sock from the start (thought not of Bellowed and Crockspot--I was incorrect on that), and though I do suspect collusion, but I'm not going pursue it at the moment. Eleemosynary 06:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added a note and a msg on your talk page indicating that you have the right to remove the comment entirely if that is your preference (archiving is generally preferred, but not mandated).--Chaser - T 07:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is also this section I removed.--Chaser - T 05:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

17 life fables was deleted

17LF is the first interactive movie done, and would like it to be in Wikipedia.

I am wondering why the page I created about 17LF was deleted.

Cheers, Matías—Preceding unsigned comment added by Guisado (talk • contribs)

I actually deleted the redirect. The article was deleted by another sysop [43] as not meeting WP:CSD#A7, or not asserting notability or significance. Interactive cinema indicates the first such film was actually some 40 years ago. Looking at the deleted content, I don't disagree with the deletion.--Chaser - T 19:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC) BTW, my delay in responding was because I was working on some other things and watching the film. I quite enjoyed it. Well done.--Chaser - T 19:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your rapid response and for pointing that out (and the right sysop).

Glad to know you enjoyed the film. In any case, I meant to say the first Web interactive movie, but I guess that still falls into the WP:CSD#A7. I´ll have to upload it to youtube then :) Cheers, --Guisado 12:20, 27 June 2007 (CEST)

Horcrux

I have (see horcrux chat). This whole business has been proceeding for months and has been debated to death with probably thousands of lines on several pages. The only conclusion I have reached is that Folken's strategy of persistently reverting as many times as is needed to maintain an article in the style he favours is highly effective. I am a little bored with patience in this matter. If you read further, I think the argued section in Horcrux was probably inserted originally by michaelsanders, but then disputed by Folken. I came on board later. Michael has jumped ship, I would guess because he does not want to argue HP until the final book is out. I quite understand. Whether you consider this material speculation or not, I and others consider it entirely different to spoiler material about the actual final book. Rowling thinks so too. Many people have taken great delight in analysing the books to work out what must be the 'real' situation not explicitly stated. This is an exercise in puzzle solving, and we shall see how it comes out. However, quite obviously, other elements of the final book will be entirely new and the final fates of just about everyone are up for grabs at the authors discretion. I am not interested in discovering wiki previews of that sort. Sandpiper 22:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that you are revert-warring, Sandpiper, in order to impose your views that are highly controversed. It's you who are "persistenly reverting as many times as is needed", and that's how you do all your edits on WP, because there are so many people thinking your edits are not encyclopedical. And you just don't want to discuss, you merely revert, again and again, and that's why "this whole business has been proceeding for months", you refuse to take opinions from others into account and you consider that only your opinion has value. You even call these other editors a "bunch of newbioes" ...You're always accusing me, but when we look at other articles in which you're revert warring, I'm far from being the only one opposed to your edits.Folken de Fanel 22:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I can we aren't going to resolve this today.--Chaser - T 22:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It really sounds like you need some new voices in this. I'll do my best.--Chaser - T 22:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought the tone of your reply was a bit odd, untill i noticed it was signed by my shadow. However, in 23 days the issue will hopefully largely resolve itself. Or not, we shall see? Sandpiper 23:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

There have been talks and debates about it for months, various consensuses were reached against Sandpiper's revisions, other users asked him to "stop trying the patience of other editors", an admin asked him to stop revert warring, but he never listened and never bothered to provide convincing justifications in debates...What can we do about it ?Folken de Fanel 23:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the links you cite are meritiously helpful, but, more importantly, carrying three months of baggage isn't a good way to solve this disagreement now.--Chaser - T 00:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

New Account?

Hi Chaser, I have one final question. Basically the Wikipedia community has no faith in me left, (and rightly so). I have read over WP:SOCK, to see if it is allowed in policy that I could start a new account. I know "block evading" sock puppets as not allowed, but I was unsure if this applied to me since my block has ended. However, if I wanted to start a new account to be trusted by Wikipedia again. Also, if I were to do that, would people be able to tell I was using another account? If so, what powers would they need to have to see it, and how would they know? Thanks! --Bfissa 17:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Except for getting banned (which is different than a block) or having a current block, one can always create a new account. That said, I unblocked you with a lot of conditions. If you're contemplating a new account to avoid those conditions, then I think it is disallowed. If you are creating a new account to have a fresh start, I think that would be OK. If so, you should email me your new account name, and perhaps Yamla and John Reaves, as well. Of the community, only checkusers can determine whether two accounts are using the same IP (and therefore probably the same person). Through requests for checkuser, everyone can get checks done (just as everyone can get administrator attention for something that only sysops can technically do). See Wikipedia:Checkuser for more.--Chaser - T 18:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, if I choose to create a new account I will e-mail you and let you know what it is. --Bfissa 01:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Adoption

Chaser, I seek to be adopted by you. --The source of the cosmos... 23:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC) --A legend—Preceding unsigned comment added by A legend (talk • contribs)

Response on A legend's talk page.--Chaser - T 23:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad of your response! --The source of the cosmos... 23:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion:

Hey, Chaser! After what I read, I think we should delete that dangerous attack page! With me? --The source of the cosmos... 00:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

What page?--Chaser - T 00:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The one attack page. --The source of the cosmos... 00:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific. I have no idea which page you mean.--Chaser - T 00:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Look on your userpage! You'll see there's a attack page. And look in category, you'll see 2 attack images.

Oh, thanks. Got it. Actually, that category tracker summary is on lots of people's userpages. I attend to it when I see it, but there's no reason it can't sit there for a while if I don't. Somebody else will get to things like attack pages and request for unblock even if I don't. Anyway, thanks again.--Chaser - T 01:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Adoptee helps Adopter, and Adopter helps Adoptee! --The source of the cosmos... 01:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly!--Chaser - T 01:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

1 attack page and 1 attack image! --The source of the cosmos... 14:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hey Chaser, know something weird about your vandalism gauge? --The source of the cosmos... 01:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

What's that?--Chaser - T 01:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It's on 3 instead of 4. --The source of the cosmos... 02:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Acceptance

Sorry about that ... I hadn't realized I actually had to accept on the page. Well, now the clock is rolling. Daniel Case 05:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It's OK. I just figured you were waiting for a freer seven-day period or something.--Chaser - T 05:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for reformatting the time/count etc. In the heat of replying to questions, I neglect the obvious. Glad you caught it (lest my RfA end before it even began!) Regards --Milton 07:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Good luck.--Chaser - T 07:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much. --Milton 07:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Hey Chaser, just take care with the 3RR rule with Shuttle-Mir Program, you are one revert away :) SGGH ^speak! 11:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the point of "fairly simple vandalism revertion" is fair enough, never mind! :) SGGH ^speak! 11:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Username block

Chaser, is there a reason that you changed the block on User talk:I can't really think of a good user name right now. from usernameblock (defendable because of it's length, I suppose) to a vandal usernameblock? There is to me nothing in the name or the (non-existing) contribs from this user that suggested any bad intentions at the time (his anger afterwards may be understandable). Fram 19:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Reduced to soft. There were several clear vandalism accounts ("anothermeatpuppet" or somesuch) registered around the same time.--Chaser - T 19:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Allright, thanks. Fram 19:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Related complaint

Asshole, thanks for blocking User:I can't really think of a good user name right now., even though there is nothing wrong with that user name. (I didn't even have a chance to contribute anything yet.) I even tried to create another account, but it wouldn't let me. Thanks to this warm reception, I will no longer use Wikipedia and will tell all my friends to avoid it as well.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Secondattempt (talk • contribs)

I switched it back to a soft block some time ago and just cleared the autoblock. But if you're posting to my talk page, you're obviously not blocked. Can you use the current account for now and register a new username in a few days? Any residual effects will probably clear by then.--Chaser - T 20:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

LOPAWHBCOC

Hiya. I wanted to get more input from you on the List of professional athletes who have been convicted of crimes page. Is your main concern sourcing? Or is there another issue that needs to be addressed? Thanks. CitiCat 05:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, mostly sourcing. I'd be happy to help with that. In the long-term the other issue is controlling list bloat. We could restrict the list (by clear criteria for inclusion in the introduction) to only a certain level of felony or only a certain level of news coverage for the crime (obviously the Tyson rape is pretty significant due to his pre-existing celebrity and the nature of the crime). I have some ideas, but let's work on the sources for now.--Chaser - T 05:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I think it's done. How's it look by you? CitiCat 02:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Great job sourcing.--Chaser - T 06:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)