User talk:Commodore Sloat/Archive 3

Iraq

Did you see the June poll? It occured after discussion had begun and showed a drastically different result than the May poll, with 25-4 in favor of including it on the basis that the WoT is a specific campaign which the Iraq war was specifically begun under. But this poll wasnt binding and wasnt a consensus either. That was reached after discussion, and posted later that month [1]. You participated in discussion then, and you know what happened. This whole act thats being put on that no consensus was reached is pretty disheartening. While I can understand newcomers not being aware, someone who was involved in discussion should know better. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

No, because, again, a something is either part of a calculated campaign or it is not. There isnt anything to debate. The only issue that needs debating is how to present this information, and ultimately that was what the consensus decided. Please take a look at Publicus's latest statement which explains that. ~Rangeley (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Mediation

I'll be contacting those users who haven't responded by tomorrow to see why. For now, I'm happy for you to make that edit, but, if you're reverted, please don't revert back (I'm sure you know this, but still). If a reversion does take place, we can take this as a sign that your change was opposed by someone. Martinp23 19:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

mediation

i've begun the arbitration process to the best of my ability. it's dissapointing to see that you are unable to work in good faith on this matter. to whatever degree you are associated with the previous two auto-reverters notwithstanding, the precident set by your behavior merits 3RR. 67.175.216.90 23:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

this business of following my contrib log from article to artcle to revert my contribs out of spite constitutes WP:NPA violation. i wish there was a reasonable explaination for your aggression or why its fixated on me, but whatever it is, your abusive behavior is not helpfull. 67.175.216.90 00:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edits are almost indistinguishable from vandalism; that's why they were reverted. csloat 00:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

repeatedly asserting this does not make it so. this - your willingness to attack and mischaraterize - is why mediation is nessesary 67.175.216.90 01:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You are the one violating the rules. If you have an argument as to what the hell piss christ has to do with the abuse of prisoners at Gitmo, you should have told someone what it is. csloat 01:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

again, assertion does not make truth. you can refuse to aknowlege my argument, but by refusing to aknowlege that i made an argument, you've stepped outside of any reasonable congress which might occur. my argument is still there, for others to r4eview ad judge for themselves. this is why mediation is the nessesary next step to resolve this.

and my argument's merits notwithstanding, your "stalking" behavior constitutes WP:NPA and there's no excuse for it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.175.216.90 (talk) 02:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

Just leave me alone, alright? I'm not "stalking" you. Your edits were borderline vandalism and I reverted them. I saw an unexplained edit by you on another article so I reverted that too; you explained yourself there so I left it alone after you reverted me. However, you are flat wrong about the Quran article and you have refused to defend your changes. Your 3RR violation was reported and you will most likely be blocked for it; either way, your "piss christ" edit to the quran article will continue to be deleted by myself and others unless you can explain it in a manner that is backed up by reliable sources and makes encyclopedic sense. Now stop insulting me. csloat 02:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Help needed

I recall you've been an active editor on Saddam Hussein. As you can imagine, the page is turning into an utter mess. If you can help monitor the recent changes, your help will be quite useful. Happy New Year, 172 | Talk 05:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll take a look. I'm not too surprised that his execution has led to problems on the page; hopefully in a few weeks they can be settled and sorted out. csloat 05:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Piss Christ

When I wrote the following, I thought you were in favor of the Piss Christ link to the Qu'ran article, (you are against it right? ...the unsigned comments threw me off.) Let me know if there's anything more I can do. User:Pedant 11:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am against it. The anon who is making trouble about this refuses to sign his comments, adding to the confusion. My argument is that the only legitimate way this can be added is if there is a reliable source connecting the two and the anon can write a paragraph explaining the connection in a manner that is not WP:NOR. Happy new year! csloat 21:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree there is a connection between the two controversial desecrations, but there are significant dissimilarities.

Remember, too, that consensus is a fundamental core policy of Wikipedia, a policy which Jimbo Wales has insisted is, and will be, an unshakeable inherent part of Wikipedia.

The very idea that that the controversy exists, and that there is not an agreement on whether to link Piss Christ to 2005 Qur'an desecration shows clearly that there is not a consensus, and I believe it unlikely that a consensus could be reached such that an edit including Piss Christ as a cross reference would be a stable edit.

Edit wars of this type are generally unending: Neither including nor excluding the link is likely to be approved widely enough to become a clear consensus.

However, I think the issue could be satisfactorily resolved by connecting the two articles via an indisputably relevant cross ref, such as Desecration. That article could use some expansion anyway... so how would you feel about writing a few paragraphs there about notable desecrations and reactions to them? I am certain nobody would object to linking to the article Desecration from both Piss Christ and Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005, and anyone should approve of an expansion to the article.

The deal is that the 2005 Qur'an desecration is an act related to the torture and deliberate humiliation of a prisoner, and Piss Christ is a work of art by an artist, intending to make an artistic statement, to provoke a reaction in the context of what is and what is not art, what is allowable as art, the meaning of the concept of sacred... an attempt in other words to explore the concept of sanctity and the concept of what is permissable as artistic expression.

To engender more communication and understanding in other words.

This is a marked contrast to the intentional mis-use of a sacred symbol as a means to harm another human (assuming that it was not as has been claimed simply an accident in which case there is still marked dissimilarity: accidental vs intentional desecration) in the Qu'ran incident. One may say that art is intended to advance human culture and knowledge, but that torture and intentional humiliation have the opposite intent and/or effect.

In short, the two are dissimilar enough that I am sure that you can understand that some, or many, may object to a direct cross-reference.

Yet the two do share a distinct connection, in that there were very strong worldwide reactions to both.

Those who do not think the two are directly related might not, on the other hand, object to linking to both articles from a more generic article, and/or to placing both articles, as well as the Desecration article into a category such as Category:Desecration. Bear in mind though, that a category is very likely to be deleted if it does not have at least one parent category (ie, the category itself is a member of another category) and several articles as members of that category.

I know that once one has entered into an argument, in which they were certain they were right, that it is often hard to see the other side, but that is precisely what an advocate does, or attempts to do. If you ask me for help, the first thing I do is to try to understand both sides, and to express those sides to those who may not have seen the other side.

If you like, I would be happy to express your side to those who disagree with you, but it seems that they, and you, both already have a pretty clear understanding of the issues. It seems to me that it is simply the case that there is a disagreement over the inclusion or exclusion of the link, and that no consensus is likely regardless of how long the discussion continues.

I feel it would be fruitless, and a waste of community resources (your time and their time could be better spent working together) to attempt to reach a consensus for inclusion of a direct cross-reference between the 2 articles in question.

I hope that I have been of some help to you with this, and I welcome further discusssion, or questions. Feel free to contact me any time for any reason. Thanks for your efforts and contributions as well. User:Pedant 10:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not post offensive words onto articles or talkpages.Thankyou.Nadirali 03:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As user of anti-vandal tool,I ocasionally volenteer to filter recent changes.That is the program I use is automatically set to search for bad words.It may have picked up a word you posted and automatically informed me.I may have made a mistake and I apologise for that.Regards.Nadirali 04:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediation update

Sorry to talk page spam - I'm just informing you that we now have two items for discussion on the mediation page. Thanks, Martinp23 14:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

For you

Keep your head up, keep breathing, take the high road and believe in yourself. I believe in you. :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I got a 4.33 last semester BECAUSE I kept my editing to an absolute minimum and avoided late-night argue-fests. When you've got an outside life to attend to, working one's way thru instances of WP acrimony can be poison... and it certainly isn't worth it. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

thankyou

Thankyou very much for the barnstar.You have no idea how much this means to me.I very much appriciate it.

Such good faith is the key to good co-operation among users.

Again thankyou very much and please don't hesitate to ask for any assitance I may be able to provide you with in anyway that I can. All the best.Nadirali 04:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Iraq war

In past discussion, a majority of users opposed the use of the phrase "Part of the War on Terrorism" subtitle into the infobox on the [[Iraq war] page. Nonetheless, Rangeley has repeatedly re-inserted it. I'm hesistant to just remove it myself again-- could you look the situation over, deter Rangeley from continuing to re-insert the subtitle, and remove it if you feel it is appropriate to do so? --Alecmconroy 17:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed it, but I really can't "deter" rangely from continuing to be disruptive. If a majority of editors support its removal, they should keep reverting rangely; eventually he will tire of it or he will start violating 3RR and be blocked. Looking over the discussion in talk briefly, it looks pretty conclusive, so he should go with the consensus. csloat 19:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

RIP Robert Anton Wilson, fnord!

Robert Anton Wilson, one of the great writers and thinkers of the 20th century has passed on. His seminal work, The Illuminatus! Trilogy, and other writings, taught me not only to question almost everything, but to honor the power of, and sometimes even embrace the outlandishness of certain conspiracy theories, while not necessarily believing in them. After all -- how far apart in terms of probability, are the claims that aliens from the planet Xenu terrorized the earth, that the planes which hit the WTC were actually holograms, that George Bush and Queen Elizabeth are really Reptilian Humanoids, or that a man lived inside the stomach of a whale for 3 days and survived unscathed? Robert (RAW) was a libertarian, founder the Guns and Dope Party, The Pope of the Church of the SubGenius and Bishop of Discordianism. If you don't know his work, especially The Trilogy, you should. All Hail Eris! and fnord! - Fairness And Accuracy For Tom Delay 23:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Many user names mentioned

Among them is yours in the section titled "The barrier to re-inserting the disputed text" at Talk:Iraq War. --Timeshifter 06:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to remove it, do you mind presenting your argument for doing so? ~Rangeley (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I did; it was in the edit summary. csloat 06:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"rv consensus" is not an argument. And neither is "revert to version..." etc. Please participate in discussion. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I did. csloat 03:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The only one I can see in this round was here [2] where you say that there are more who oppose it. This obviously isnt an argument, as Wikipedia is not a Democracy. You need to present your line of reasoning which you beleive trumps the idea that campaigns are definable by their maker. ~Rangeley (talk) 04:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've presented it several times already; I'm not going through the arguments with you again. You're being disruptive. csloat 04:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Cole Mediation

Hi Cloat. Can you come in on the mediation page under "Isarig's Compromise"? Armon is saying, mistakenly I think, that you've rejected it. It would be a shame if the moment of possible resolution were to pass. --G-Dett 16:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This is bullshit. I don't see why anyone who wants Cole to have fair treatment would even go down a route that involves some minor slam from some nobody turn into a huge blown-out issue in his biography. Check out my edit. This is all that's needed. Anything more puts undue weight on some guy's smearing Cole. It's not as though this has made any wider splash.

This always happens. It's so frustrating. Rightists find some mud someone slung on the web. They add it to the article on a liberal figure. It gets removed. They put it back. Realising that they'll fight to the death to keep it because it has a "source" (even though the source is just some guy in this context; professors are experts in their field, not in every conceivable area), we try to "balance" it. What we end up with is the mud bloated out of all recognition, so that it seems to be of major importance in the guy's bio. This is just some guy mudslinging in the New Republic, not a major event in Cole's life. Grace Note 07:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Your input desired on arbitration request page

Here is the arbitration request concerning the issues discussed here: Talk:Iraq_War. Please feel free to comment. --Timeshifter 04:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

MEMRI page edit summaries

Look at the page history sloat. You reverted under me while I was making a series of minor edits. I thought I'd overwritten myself.

Or were you talking about this where I thought I'd removed something, apologized, then did. You could have simply written "rv" instead of being abusive. I could have made a big fuss about it, but didn't, I could also troll for similar examples -but what's the point? Either drop it, or dob me in, but PLEASE stop filling up the talk page with this nonsense. <<-armon->> 23:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I was talking about four times where you deleted the controversial paragraph and used deceptive edit summaries that made it appear you were hiding this deletion. [3][4][5][6].

I'm willing to accept your explanation that this was a mistake. I don't see where you apologized for it, but if you did, I accept your apology. When I said your edit summary was deceptive, that is what I meant; I was not trying to call you a liar or be abusive towards you. It was Isarig who made those assumptions, and it is he who is "filling up the talk page with this nonsense." Have a good day. csloat 00:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Read the edit summaries you are so obsessed with. <<-armon->> 01:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not "obsessed"; I mentioned this once and it was Isarig who chose to keep bringing it up. As stated above, I accept your apology and would prefer to drop the matter. csloat 01:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Your lack of an apology for calling me a lair and going off half-cocked, is noted -as is shifting the blame for your own behavior on someone else. <<-armon->> 05:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't comment on your personality - I said your edit summaries were blatantly deceptive; they were. It was you who was deceptive about your edit summaries, not me. I don't understand why you wish to dwell on this issue. csloat 05:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the link you provide above (when you say "read the edit summaries") is not relevant to the issue here; that was not one of the edit summaries I found deceptive. The ones I found deceptive are listed above and you can see them for yourself, but it is not necessary; I have already stated that I will accept at face value your claim that they were mistakes of some sort. And I apologize if anything I said appeared to attribute motive to the deceptiveness of your edits. I don't know why you were deceptive, but I will accept your explanation that it was unintentional.csloat 05:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Iraq War infobox proposed compromise

Hey Commodore,

I was hoping to get your opinion on a proposed compromise to Iraq War infobox-gate that Kizzle and I have proposed. As we see it, the core debate is between people who want to (1) identify that the Iraq War is technically part of the "War on Terrorism" military campaign; and people who (2) think that even if Bush defines it as part of the campaign, there is reason to doubt that it's rationally related to the campaign's goals, or that it has propoganda value. Kizzle's and my proposal is to clearly identify that the campaign is a Bush administration designation, as follows:

Identified by the Bush administration as part of the "War on Terrorism"

For me, I tend to think that future history books writing about Bush's war on terror will include discussions of Iraq -- they will probably conclude that the Iraq war was a misguided element of the campaign that failed to advance the campaign's strategic goals, but at the end of the day, was still part of Bush's campaign. The limited campaign identification above sticks to verifiable info and won't misinform anyone - it's for the reader to judge whether the Bush admin has correctly identified the limits of the campaign, as well as whether the Iraq war was a productive part of the military campaign. At the same time, it meets the WP:MILHIST goal of identifying the larger military campaign, without making any claims that anyone might dispute.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts -- here's an example of the proposed compromise on the actual Iraq page, and here's the section of the talk page discussing the compromise. Thanks, TheronJ 18:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

personal attacks, assuming bad faith

Sloat, after working with you for almost a year or so now on various pages, I continue to be distressed with your tone when you interact with editors you don't agree with. Here's a recent comment from the MEMRI talk page: "Again, you are intentionally distorting the issue." These comments are disruptive. Elizmr 01:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

And I continue to be distressed with yours. It's amazing that you complain about me making statements like this, while you never say a word about Isarig making frequent statements that make this one look mild in comparison. In the item you quote, I called Isarig on an obvious intentional distortion: he claimed a particular quote was in the context of something and a simple check of the link showed that he was wrong. I pointed this out to him and, instead of acknowledging that he made a mistake, he stated that the quote is in context. It is not, and he has reason to know it is not, and his assertion that the quote is on point to the MEMRI dispute is completely false. So I stated that he was intentionally distorting the issue as it appears he was. If he wasn't, he is perfectly capable of indicating that he made a mistake; but he has not done so and I don't expect him to. As I stated in the post, I feel that he is simply baiting me at this point. If you are not doing the same, I urge you to call Isarig on disruptive comments that he constantly makes towards me. Otherwise, please do not comment further on my talk page about a conversation you did not participate in. csloat 03:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

You and Isarig disagree. That is not a reason to say that he is "intentionally distorting the issue." He is not "intentionally distorting" anything or "baiting" you. He just doesn't agree with you. It is ok not to agree. Disagreement is not a basis for a personal attack or an assumption of bad faith. If Isarig is acting the same way you are and I am not calling him on it, then I apologize---I will look more carefully. Elizmr 22:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not just that he doesn't agree; it's that he has shown clearly a willingness to argue strategically rather than communicatively -- in other words, to make arguments he doesn't believe just in order to "win" or to "bait me." It's not just disagreement at that point, and WP:AGF does not mean "withhold all of your logical faculties when another user has clearly demonstrated a lack of good faith." I will continue to AGF when there is no evidence to the contrary (and I do so even with Isarig, as you will note from my recent post on the memri page), but I will not play dumb when another user is clearly being manipulative.csloat 18:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have reviewed Isarig's recent comments on the MEMRI page and have found nothing constituting an assumption of bad faith or a personal attack. I have found one rude remark, and will put a note on his user page about it. Elizmr 22:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Your comment on Isarig's talk page contains a backhanded attack on me (basically, you called me a liar), and it states that other than one rude comment that Isarig made no other personal attacks or assumptions of bad faith. You might want to review his comments again if you're interested in honesty at all here. Nearly every comment he makes to me contains assumptions of bad faith and threats as well as the occasional insult. It doesn't matter much - I've explained myself on the issue you brought to me, so I believe we're finished here. Enjoy your day. csloat 08:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Sloat, honestly, you can't make an outrageous comment like that and say "case closed end of story". I DID review Isarigs recent comments, but only found the one episode of rudeness that I in turn pointed out to him. I feel your summary above that "nearly every" comment Isarig makes to you contains "assumptions of bad faith" "threats" and "the occassional insult" is inaccurate. I continue to be on record as protesting your behavior. Elizmr 12:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing for you to protest; I have clarified the behavior you had a problem with. As for Isarig, you are mistaken. I think you are probably being honest, but I think your agreement with him is clouding your judgement. It doesn't matter - the important thing is that I have explained the matter you have brought to me, which is why I said we are done here. I'm really not interested in discussing Isarig with you further, and I'm not sure why we need to go on and on on my talk page. csloat 18:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Richard Clarke

(Cross-posted from here.)

Re: this edit. Please look at my edit summaries and at the discussion on the talk page, which I noticed you have not participated in. It is uncivil and inaccurate to call that edit "vandalism." It was clearly explained in talk and in the edit summaries, and a consensus of editors participating in the discussion supported the edits. Please participate in that discussion before starting an edit war over this. Thanks. csloat 06:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The edit summaries were clearly explained, but deliberately misleading and inaccurate. As to the first edit I reverted, the sentence may have been weird, but it was legitimate criticism from notable sources. Rather than just delete the sentence and its two references, it should have been edited for clarity. Criticism shouldn't be censored because somebody disagrees with it.

How was the second edit I reverted bizarre? It described an error that may seem minor, but has severe implications for the book's credibility. The small details Clarke purportedly remembers lend an air of legitimacy to his account, but falls apart under closer scrutiny. Maybe such minute criticism belongs in the main article for the book, but there should be at least a mention of criticism in the section. And this point isn't yet found in the book's article. Nathanm mn 06:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Please state your case on the talk page of the article. The passage about p. 237 was moved to the page about the book, and there was a discussion about the other stuff. Every user participating in the discussion supported the removal. If you want to add your opinion please do, but do not misleadingly call my actions "vandalism." There was absolutely nothing "misleading" in my edit summary, and saying that it was "deliberately" so is a violation of WP:AGF. csloat 19:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know Wikipedia had a policy requiring the discussion of every possible edit in committee. As far as I know, it doesn't. So when I saw some blatantly POV deletions, I reverted them. The error on p237 wasn't in the book's article at that time (although it's since been added), and the other edit removed valid criticism, rather than just rewording a weird sentence. The reason I called it vandalism is because the edit summaries didn't match the edits. Referring to the deleted material as bizarre and weird makes it seem like it was just vandalism or poorly written, unsourced allegations. But in fact, it was properly cited and perfectly legitimate criticism. I can't accept in good faith that the craftily deceiving summaries accompanying the edits weren't deliberate. Nathanm mn 18:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not about what Wikipedia policy says; this is about common sense. The fact was that there was an ongoing discussion and other users agreed with my comments and my deletions. If you disagreed you should have said something. As for calling it vandalism, it is pretty clear that you were wrong; best thing to do at this point is apologize and move on. Thanks. csloat 20:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and please stop accusing me of lying. Please see WP:AGF. My edit summaries were anything but "crafty" -- perhaps they were lazy but they were not deceptive. I thought a minor error on p, 237 was being blown way out of proportion by having a paragraph as long as the summary of the book itself. That struck me as "bizarre." The other sentence was "weird" to me because it seemed to both attack and defend Clarke at the same time. Anyway the edits were more fully explained on the talk page, which you should have looked at before calling my edits vandalism.csloat 20:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Juan Cole arbitration

It should be noted that arbitration doesn't deal with content issues normally, but it will deal with BLP issues. I would recommend that you and others read over the recent BLP case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rachel_Marsden for an idea of how things will go, or what rulings can be applied to this situation. Feel free to share this past arbitration case with others, as I am not interested in being "disruptive" by posting on the Juan Cole page while not having an account, or appearing to be a sock. Also, if it is decided to file for an arbitration proceeding, your case may be aided by having Juan Cole make a statement as Rachel Marsden did, something he would be likely to do, although it would be useful to inform him via email as to what his statement should focus on. --70.51.230.48 23:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip; I think the Marsden page will be helpful if this does indeed go to arbitration. Why haven't you gotten a userid? It would make some take you more seriously -- the "sock" nonsense is just that, but it's an easy charge for certain users to throw around whenever they realize someone new disagrees with them. In any case, I appreciate your contributions to the discussion. csloat 01:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking at Isarig and Armon's block logs, it is clear they are no angels when it comes to behavior: [7] [8]. I think that all will take some hits with regards to behavior, but it is understood that things can get heated during long running content disputes. What matters is the unacceptable BLP violation, the rest is just details, and the arbitration committee is likely to see it in that light as well. --70.51.230.48 03:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Your block logs, (and record in general) on the other hand, are obscured. It's precisely that avoiding of accountability that I object to with your edits strewn over various Ottawa IPs. <<-armon->> 04:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect to the anon editor from Ottowa, Canada (and at the risk of being accused of biting a newcomer even if that newcomer is engaging in Wikilawyering from an anop IP address[9]), your statement, "it is understood that things can get heated during long running content disputes. What matters is the BLP, the rest is just details," comes up pretty heavily against some core guidelines of Wikipedia, namely WP:NPA, WP:AGF. Sloat's behavior on the Cole page, in addition, has not deteriorated late in the context of a long running content dispute. His talk page comments from inception have been dismissive and snarky[10]. He has never been able to write for the enemy or even entertain a view other than his own. Elizmr 13:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:DE on MEMRI

Just to be clear. My suggestion was to Jgui. Your reinsertion of disputed text falsely called a "compromise" in the edit summary is further evidence of the pointlessness of any sort of WP:DR with you other than arbcom. <<-armon->> 13:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear. Your claim that I am being disruptive is both false and hypocritical. You are deleting sourced and relevant text that has been more than justified in talk. If you would like to take this issue to arbcom, that is fine, but we should go through the other steps in WP:DR -- e.g. mediation -- first. I believe you are deleting sourced and relevant text that has been clearly explained over and over again in talk. You continually ignore the arguments there. That is your right, of course, but you cannot expect to simply delete material you don't like when it has been clearly explained, evidenced, and justified. csloat 13:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way I did not "falsely" call that text a compromise; it was called a compromise a week or two ago when it was offered as such; it both provides the criticism and MEMRI's response. If you don't think it clearly articulates MEMRIs position, feel free to tinker, but do not simply delete. Thanks! csloat 13:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR on Juan Cole

You appear to have violated 3RR on Juan Cole, and have been reported Here by Isarig. I'm just notifying you because it didn't look like the typical back and forth intentional 3RR violation and thought you might benefit from a bit of a heads up. --Wildnox(talk) 01:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Widnox, in what way was this a technical 3RR violation? Simply because I edited the same paragraph again? Edits 1+2 are totally different from edits 3+4 and I believe Isarig's report is incorrect and possibly dishonest. csloat 01:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, the reverts do not all have to be of the same material to violate 3RR. You could make four reverts on the same article that are otherwise unrelated and violate 3RR. Usually they are all the same in violations that are clear cut. The reverts not all being the same was a big part of the reason I thought you deserved the benefit of the doubt. I didn't think you would be blocked so quick and would be able to comment on the report and explain any misunderstanding here. --Wildnox(talk) 02:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

See below. They are not all reverts. I do not see 4 reverts here and I don't understand why I was blocked. csloat 02:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking at that #3 again right now. I think you're right about it being quite a stretch to call that edit a revert.--Wildnox(talk) 02:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked you for 48 hours. This was your 3rd 3RR on a Cole related article and your second on this article directly. This is not an acceptable method of editing. JoshuaZ 01:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

((unblock|This was not a violation of the 3RR in any way. The first reverts concerned the word "Jewish" which was not removed in the other changes. The "fourth" revert was a revert of a different change, where Isarig, who reported me, had deleted sourced and relevant content that had been agreed to in the talk page and that he did not discuss there. I believe I should be unblocked forthwith and that Isarig should be blocked or at least warned for abusing the 3RR process. He knows very well that there was no 3RR violation but his report was very deceptive.))

As the one who made the block, I will point you to the relevant quote from WP:3RR "An editor does not have to perform the same revert on a page more than three times to breach this rule; all reverts made by an editor on a particular page within a 24 hour period are counted." JoshuaZ 01:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

But where was the fourth revert? The changes listed as revert #3 are not a revert at all but the addition of text to the paragraph -- text that I had discussed in talk openly and had been accepted by at least one user who was on Isarig's "side" of this topic. At most you can count three reverts but even that is problematic. csloat 02:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? The fourth revert is explicitly stated as restoring in the edit summary. The third revert listed added material that had been removed prior and specifically under contention. JoshuaZ 02:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't think that's correct at all. The thing listed as revert #3 is not a revert. It added material based on the discussion on the talk page. This material was being discussed, true, but I did not think my actions were out of line in any way and I certainly don't see that I was reverting. I feel that this is a stretch. csloat 02:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

(By the way, I think edit #2 is also not clearly a revert.... true, "Jewish" was removed again, but I also added language that I felt was more specifically useful than the word "Jewish" in that context. I did not revert to the same thing and specifically in my edit summary explained what I was doing. That's why I feel completely blindsided by this block -- when editing I only saw two reverts, #1 and #4. I understand how #2 could be construed as a third revert, but #3 I just don't see it at all.) csloat 02:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Revert #2, where csloat replaced the word "Jewish" with "who have close ties to the Likud party", is not a revert, it was a good-faith attempt at compromise. Given that we are slowly but surely reaching consensus on this section, I don't see this block as justified on technical grounds nor helpful on practical grounds. - Merzbow 03:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've unblocked for now since a) this was just barely 3RR and b) it may actually be helpful to let the user be unblocked. If however, I see you engaging in any revert warring at all, the block goes right back on. JoshuaZ 04:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

As of right now, I am still blocked. Hopefully the unblock will take effect soon? Also, you say that if I engage in any revert warring I will be blocked again -- fair enough; but does that rule apply to the other editors who were reverting me? Thanks. csloat 05:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Your log says unblocked. Glitch maybe? --Wildnox(talk) 05:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, what message are you getting? JoshuaZ 06:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Found and disabled a related autoblock -- try now? – Luna Santin (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

semi-formal mediation attempt

I've put pages at User:JoshuaZ/Juan Cole and User:JoshuaZ/MEMRI. I'd like if for each disputed passage you would put your version and then right under it an explanation of your logic. Hopefully we can come to some agreements on these issues. JoshuaZ 19:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"Elizmr you are well aware of this; it is not helpful to play dumb about any of this"

Sloat, wp:agf. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elizmr (talk • contribs) 23:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Sloat, assume good faith. I left my explanation of why I feel that a TRANSLATION and an INTERPRETATION are different things and why they are different in this particular case to expand on the quotes from the Oxford English Dictionary that I had left earlier and expected to suffice. I fail to see how leaving quotes from the OED could be interpreted as "playing dumb". Elizmr 23:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to assume good faith, Elizmr, but you're testing the limits. You have been involved in the conversation for weeks now, so you know very well what it is about; the definitions seem like distractions from the issue. Do you really not understand what this dispute is about? I find it hard to believe, that's all. csloat 00:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I was discussing, on a talk page, the difference between a translation and an interpretation. The difference between the two terms is very relevant to the topic. The dictionary definitions I posted are relevant to the discussion. I fail to see how this qualifies as "playing dumb" or "tests limits". Elizmr 01:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was playing dumb because you seemed to be acting like you didn't understand the issue. Those definitions are distractions from the issue. csloat 01:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Those definitions are part of the issue, but let's take it back to the talk page. My intent here was to ask you to stop saying things like, "stop playing dumb". Elizmr 06:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

And my intent was to ask you to stop playing dumb. csloat 22:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Cole paragraph

Please read the "off the map" paragraph I added again carefully. I think it is balanced as it is - and personally I don't think you should be arguing this point. (On the other hand I could understand an argument that this whole paragraph is not justified, but I assume that would be an uphill battle). email me if you want to discuss further. Thanks, Jgui 18:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP

Sloat, Given your efforts to uphold WP:BLP when it comes to some (Juan Cole), I find the the language you are using to describe others [11] somewhat ironic. Please consider this a formal attempt to ask you to address your behavior on this point. Elizmr 03:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you indicate what provoked this comment Elizmr? I find it strange that I am being blocked for this comment when the comment caused no controversy whatsoever on the page when I wrote it and has not been mentioned in two weeks until today. csloat 05:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If you didn't notice, I made the blocking decision. This is not the first time you made a major BLP violation. This is your wakeup call that BLP doesn't only apply to people you like. JoshuaZ 05:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I am completely aware of that; my questions about the block to you are below. I was asking Elizmr what prompted her to bring up this comment, which is two weeks old. I am not blaming her for the block, though I still do not understand it. I have no wish to violate BLP in either the articles or the talk pages. csloat 05:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

A simple, "I'm sorry, I should apply the guideline more evenhandedly" might have sufficed, but instead you choose to make a bad faith assuming insinuation. Not that I owe you any explanation, but I had not been watching the mediation page since the mediator was away. I saw mention that the case was closed and went back to wade through the page just last night. As I said above, since you are an editor who talks a great great deal about BLP protection I found it disturbing that you apparantly only feel the guidlines applies to some, and not other, individuals. I think that we need to be responsible for our actions, even if they were something we did two whole weeks ago, so I decided to call this to your attention. Please note that I did not go behind your back to report this problem without letting you know first and I had nothing whatsoever to do with your block Elizmr 02:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

WTF are you talking about? I made no "bad faith insinuation"; I just asked what provoked your comment about something two weeks old. Do me a favor and stay off my talk page from now on - I don't find your comments helpful at all. Thanks! csloat 01:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked you for 24 hours for this gross BLP violation. JoshuaZ 04:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC) {{unblock|Can you explain the violation or why something this old is even coming up now? I don't see how I've violated [[WP:BLP]]. Hitchens' alcoholism is well known and is something he is proud of -- note his 2003 article in which he states that his daily intake of alcohol could "kill or stun the average mule." That article (it's cited in the Hitchens biography page -- Christopher Hitchens, "Living Proof," Vanity Fair (March 2003)) is a virtual praise to his own alcoholism. I was given no warning at all about this block (for something I wrote two weeks ago, that apparently caused no controversy at all at the time, on a mediation page that is apparently defunct at this point). It is strange and rather disturbing that something I wrote weeks ago can be ignored but suddenly and without warning become the basis of disciplinary action, without even an explanation.}}

Amazing, you don't learn do you? What is well known is that the man drinks a lot, not that he is an alcoholic. Your insistence here on repeating it makes me inclined almost to lengthen the block. JoshuaZ 05:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm really sorry. Perhaps I am inaccurate but it is my understanding that someone who drinks a lot daily -- in his own words, an extreme amount -- is "alcoholic." Is it really a BLP violation to make that connection under the circumstances? If so, I withdraw the remark. Is it ok to refer to Hitchens as someone who states his daily intake of alcohol is enough to kill or stun the average mule? I'm not being facetious here; I'm really trying to understand why I have been blocked. csloat 05:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. If you simply made a comment about his alcohol consumption that would be one thing. However, we both know that he doesn't identify as an alchoholic and to claim that saying he drinks a lot is the same thing is almost ridiculous. JoshuaZ

It's not just "a lot" -- it is an unhealthy amount, and it is on a daily basis. But I will refrain from referring to Hitchens as "alcoholic" on Wikipedia in the future and refer to him instead as "someone who states his daily intake of alcohol is enough to kill or stun the average mule," when his alcohol use is an issue. I just wish I was warned about this before being blocked, since it seems to be a narrow semantic disagreement rather than an actual violation of BLP. csloat 06:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

And, just so we are clear, can you please cite the section of WP:BLP that this word is in violation of? I'm not trying to wikilawyer this - I accept that I have been blocked and I agree not to call him an "alcoholic" anymore - but I'd like to know what this violates so that I can understand why it is not ok to say someone admits to being an alcoholic in a talk page but it is ok to insert in someone's biography page the statement that they responded to an argument by calling the other person an alcoholic. csloat 06:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, this should be obvious. Saying "X called Y an alchoholic" is verifiable if we have a source for X doing so. "Y is an alcoholic" unless you have a reliable source that says so is not acceptable. If the New York Times for example, said he was an alcoholic that would be citable. JoshuaZ 06:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

An iffy block. I think the comment was in poor taste, but given that it was on a talk page and was clearly the expression of one editor's opinion as opposed to, say, an uncited addition to an article page, removal of the comment and a polite user talk page warning would have been more appropriate. - Merzbow 06:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

See WP:BLP. BLP applies just as much to talk pages as it does to mainspace. JoshuaZ 06:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

And people who violate BLP in article space are rarely blocked without warning -- the item is removed (usually immediately, not two weeks later) and a polite warning precedes any disciplinary action. I accept that I am blocked (and I acknowledge that my comment was in questionable taste) but I still don't understand the block, and I haven't seen reference to any specific part of BLP that was violated. I still think this is largely semantics -- it is one thing to say that a person is an alcoholic out of the blue; it is quite another when the subject openly admits to getting halfway through a fifth of hard liquor before 1pm on a daily basis. Good day. csloat 06:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back

Watch our for violations of BLP and stay on the high road, it's where you do your best work!  :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Two days after a block for BLP violation

OK so 2 days after you're given the benefit of the doubt re: your BLP block, you decide to reinsert your BLP violation on the Hitchens page. You've been reverted -now cut it out. <<-armon->> 23:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not a BLP violation. See JoshuaZ's comments on the matter above. What is fascinating is that the information you are removing here is the exact information you are insisting on in the Juan Cole page. Now, you cut it out. csloat 04:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is a BLP vioaltion - a clear and gross violation. JoshuaZ's comments above say ' "Y is an alcoholic" unless you have a reliable source that says so is not acceptable.' - and that is exactly what you have done - taken a self-published comment from a partisan blog, an unreliable source if ever there was one, and put it in the biography of a living person. Do it again and you will be blocked for a long, long time. You have been warned. Isarig 04:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You are knowingly misinterpreting the discussion above in order to threaten me. Please don't ever threaten me again. Thanks. csloat 05:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Everyone can read the discussion above, which I quoted verbatim. You are not fooling anyone with this clumsy slight of hand. I am warning you for the last time: DO NOT REPEAT THAT BLP VIOLATION. Isarig 06:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes you quoted the above out of context as is your wont. Now I'm warning you for the last time: Stay off my talk page and STOP THREATENING ME. csloat 06:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Not that it matters now - the block was overturned long ago, and it seemed obviously inappropriate from the beginning - but it is worth mentioning that both Hitchens and his wife have described him as "an alcoholic" in published sources (Hitchens in the Atlanta Journal Constitution in 1999 and his wife in the New Yorker, October 2006). I've added this material to the Hitchens bio along with other relevant and notable references. The Cole quotation was fine, despite the posturing by armon and Isarig above, but it's not necessary to include it. csloat 12:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The block was not overturned - a lenient admin who was misled by you into believing that this was your first block cut it short. Inserting offensive material from a partisan self-published blog is not fine, and if you believe it is - go ahead and reinsert that quote. Nothing would please me more than seeing you blocked for a long time for such blatant flaunting of one of WP most basic policies. Isarig 16:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong but I do not care what you think. Your comment is very telling about your goals on Wikipedia. I asked you to stop posting on my page; any further posts by you to my talk page, about any matter whatsoever, will be deleted without being read. csloat 19:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Isarig, please do note that you are heavily insulting the involved admin there. But you are all being terribly uncivil, and it would help things considerably if you would stop launching personal attacks against each other. --Philosophus ^T 04:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Second opinion from a BLP patroller: You're skating on very thin ice by continuing to push this with poor (read blog) sources. - Crockspot 19:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about Crockspot? I'm not pushing anything with blog sources. Check your facts. csloat 19:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Misrepresenting Sources

I have little patience for your apologia that your lying about offline sources is a simple "difference of opinion". That might be plausible if it were about a text all parties had in front of them. Instead, you said, and I quote:

Both Hoffman and Taspiner are specifically commenting on whether the word should be translated as individual state or nation-state. The PDN article is specifically about the MEMRI translation. Fisk is not specifically commenting on this at all. I do have statistics, if you must -- 3-0. Three experts looked at this issue and all three found MEMRI's interpretation to be illogical. But I never said we should put the word "most" in the article in any case, so that really isn't a relevant question. csloat 03:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC) diff

Instead, once I found the cite in question, I found that four experts had been canvassed, and only one actually commented on the translation of "wilayah". Those are facts, not opinions. <<-armon->> 11:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Who is the fourth expert specifically canvassed about MEMRI's interpretation? Even if you are right, this is a far cry from "lying". I didn't say all three experts commented on the translation of wilaya - I said they found MEMRI's interpretation illogical. You are confusing the translation of a particular word and the interpretation of whether that word is used in one way vs. another. The three experts who were asked about this question - Cole, Taspiner, and Hoffman - all agreed that the interpretation presented by MEMRI was illogical. Now, what you are doing is nitpicking, not demonstrating that I have "lied." You certainly have not demonstrated that I cannot be trusted to avoid making up quotes out of whole cloth, which is what you are claiming on the Hitchens talk page. I have been very patient about this; you have gone WAY over the line. csloat 11:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The fourth was Reuel Gerecht. Even if you aren't making quotes up completely, quote mining is almost the same. As you also have a history of that, it's necessary to fact-check and make sure you haven't. <<-armon->> 11:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Gerecht - this appears to be the first time you mention him, but thank you for finally clarifying the basis of your accusation. So it was apparently 3-1 not 3-0 -- this is neither quote mining nor lying. All you are doing is nitpicking about a mistake I made on the talk page; instead of pointing out the mistake and having a discussion about it then, you use it to claim I am making up things? Please. Finally, I have no objection to you fact-checking my claims by reading the Atlanta Journal Constitution article (or any other). But I do object to you claiming that my citations are inherently unreliable, and I demand your apology on this matter forthwith. Thanks. csloat 12:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I pointed it out as soon as I found the article. <<-armon->> 20:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL - on re-reading the PDN article, it turns out that the Gerecht issue is a matter of interpretation rather than a complete error. The PDN article does not even mention MEMRI's charge against other media interpretations until AFTER Gerecht is quoted. Scan the page for "wilaya" and you see that Gerecht is not even mentioned at all after that word is mentioned. Cole and Hoffman are quoted after the word wilaya is mentioned. Taspiner is quoted earlier, but he is quoted specifically on the topic of different American states (whereas the Gerecht quote is far more open to interpretation). I realize I am nitpicking at this point too, but that is my point -- this whole discussion is a nitpick, and a far cry from the character attacks you have been making. Now please apologize for your baseless personal attacks; you have gone way over the line of what is permissable according to WP:AGF and WP:NPA. csloat 12:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Spin Spin Spin. <<-armon->> 20:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a friendly little reminder that WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF are helpful for avoiding blowups. Surely you folks can discuss this without constantly accusing each other of bad faith. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've shown "reasonable supporting evidence" for sloat's bad faith and pov pushing, and this is just one of many examples. As for civility, this was never extended to editors whom he disagreed with. This has been a long standing problem with sloat, and is not solvable by platitudinous references to WP policies he is unable to adhere to. Frankly, I don't think he has the temperament or objectivity in order to be a good wikipedian and he's shown no movement towards improvement. That's too bad, but the AGF doesn't absolve disruptive editors of criticism. <<-armon->> 23:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find your opinion regarding 'the longstanding problem' is just that - your own. While he edits political articles that polarize by their very nature, I've not seen anything in his conduct that validates the kind of comments I've seen directed at him (like yours), implying he's somehow not entitled to good faith and civility. I urge you to reconsider your refusal to afford him good faith... people who lower themselves in that way undoubtedly weaken whatever factual argument you might make with such (unacceptable and blatant) conduct. Of course, you're welcome to continue to claim he's not entitled to a modicum of respect - but I've given you civil and polite advice and the rest (exercising judgment) is up to you. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

For you

For being brave and strong and facing the legions of detractors with patience. Humbly withstand the attacks from your foes and they, not you, will be turned to stone. Wishing you continued strength and peace. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"Legions of detractors" should, at some point, give sloat pause to think why this might be the case. Sadly, it does not. <<-armon->> 23:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if one boldly edits articles on the Iraq War, the Plame incident and other political topics, it's not surprising that a legion of POV-pushers should appear to beseige him. Such conduct happens all over the wiki, on articles of every stripe, but the difference here is that csloat isn't trolling - he carefully adheres to fact and while he gets frustrated and angry at times, I've not seen him behave in anything close to the kind of conduct I've seen from those 'detractors'... who even feel compelled to comment on posts like these, unrelated to the article disputes, in hopes of 'chipping him down'.

Fact is, he's a solid editor who is bold and confident - and I see him standing up to a number of other editors who are more interested in conflict and 'detracting' than in collaboration. When csloat acts inappropriately I'll be the first one to tell him so. Right now, I think it's pretty clear who is willing to follow WP policy and work with him in good faith to resolve differences - and it's also clear who is attacking him personally. Bad form indeed to be one of the latter. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Right. It's everyone else who are the uncivil pov pushers. You should have followed the link. <<-armon->> 23:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I did. Nice, tasty sarcasm (always a good collaboration-builder). Obviously the link (an attack in and of itself, calling sloat a megalomaniac) didn't justify your choice to attack sloat with a post here. You're not improving your case with such vitriol - neither directed at me nor sloat. At this point (which dispute are you trying to resolve, exactly?), you may want to declare victory and depart the field. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Another good collaboration-builder is referring to his "detractors" as bastards. WP:POT seems appropriate, and as your defense of sloat only consists of tu quoque and wishful thinking, I might as well leave. <<-armon->> 00:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

"Don't let the bastards get you down" is a fairly common quote (I even provided it in a known form, in Latin). It wasn't directed at you. If this is the kind of strawman argument you've provided in the past (in this case erroneously attacking me, by trying to imply that I called anyone in particular a 'bastard' and in so doing, avoiding responsibility and trying to justify your own unacceptable conduct), I feel vindicated in my perspective here that csloat is being treated unfairly - but I am of course always interested in learning more facts. Besides your 'megalomaniac' personal attack, you've provided none. I can only note you still haven't mentioned the actual dispute you're trying to resolve, nor acted here to resolve it. I agree however that given your (unproductive) conduct, you indeed might as well leave what is, after all, csloat's talk page (perhaps he'll wipe the thread and leave the image). -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sloat, Congrats on your second award. Your first was from this individual. Elizmr 01:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

What a bizarre non sequitur. I've asked you not to edit my page elizmr; your comments are not helpful, and this one is no exception. But it seems you are either referring to Jayjg, who has not "awarded" me, or Zephram Stark, a user with a lot of sockpuppets who I got into extreme disagreements over a year ago here, who wound up calling me and other editors "fucking Jews" before he was blocked for disruption. I don't believe he ever gave me an award of this sort. Anyway, Elizmr, just stay away from my page, ok? Thanks! csloat 01:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah on closer inspection I see who you mean - Kiyosaki, who commented on my user page a while ago. May or may not have been Zeph Stark; according to the page you linked he posted on the Zeph stark page some disparaging comments about Jews. I've never interacted with Kiyosaki nor do I have any idea why he posted to my user page, nor do I understand your point. Guilt by association, I presume? Are you suggesting that I am some kind of Nazi because an antisemitic sockpuppet commented on my user page? Never mind, don't answer. csloat 02:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Kiyosaki was a sockpuppet of the banned user disruptive apartheid editor. He gave you an award because admired your edits greatly per his comments on your user page. That's all I am saying. Elizmr 02:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said - what a bizarre non sequitur. Again, just stay off my talk page. csloat 02:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict--finishing my thought) Kiyosaki was a sockpuppet of the banned user disruptive apartheid editor. He gave you an award because admired your edits per his comments on your user page. I am fed up with the way you are interacting with me and others. I feel it is disruptive to the Wikipedia process and environment. I have been interacting with you for a year and this behavior has basically continued unchanged for this whole period of time. When I point out problematic instances to you on your user page you reject criticism and dismiss concerns, ridicule me in some snarky way, attack me for bringing stuff up, and then terminate the conversation in some pompus way. I thought it might give you pause to see that such a clearly problematic and banned editor as Kiyosaki admired you greatly. Elizmr 02:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Why would you take Kiyoakis' comment on my user page any more seriously than his comments on other pages? I doubt he admires me greatly, nor do I care. Your characterizations of my behavior are totally out of line. I have rejected your personal attacks when you made them, but I have never dismissed valid concerns. If I "ridiculed you in some snarky way" that was undeserved I apologize. But I don't feel that I have done that. csloat 02:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

not to go too far back in history, here is one of our last interchanges:

"Elizmr you are well aware of this; it is not helpful to play dumb about any of this"

Sloat, wp:agf. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elizmr (talk • contribs) 23:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Sloat, assume good faith. I left my explanation of why I feel that a TRANSLATION and an INTERPRETATION are different things and why they are different in this particular case to expand on the quotes from the Oxford English Dictionary that I had left earlier and expected to suffice. I fail to see how leaving quotes from the OED could be interpreted as "playing dumb". Elizmr 23:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to assume good faith, Elizmr, but you're testing the limits. You have been involved in the conversation for weeks now, so you know very well what it is about; the definitions seem like distractions from the issue. Do you really not understand what this dispute is about? I find it hard to believe, that's all. csloat 00:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC) I was discussing, on a talk page, the difference between a translation and an interpretation. The difference between the two terms is very relevant to the topic. The dictionary definitions I posted are relevant to the discussion. I fail to see how this qualifies as "playing dumb" or "tests limits". Elizmr 01:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC) I thought it was playing dumb because you seemed to be acting like you didn't understand the issue. Those definitions are distractions from the issue. csloat 01:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC) I disagree. Those definitions are part of the issue, but let's take it back to the talk page. My intent here was to ask you to stop saying things like, "stop playing dumb". Elizmr 06:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

And my intent was to ask you to stop playing dumb. csloat 22:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Just one example. Elizmr 03:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Another example of your talk page behavior, characterized by attacks, dismissiveness, and assumptions of bad faith [12]. Elizmr 03:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly

Dammit Sloat! You don't help matters by being as prickly as you are (like the Hitchens episode), so I have to say you'd have an easier time of it if you avoided those kinds of comments wherever humanly possible, if only to avoid drama. Drama is boring! :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed... I'm too easy to bait. And the Hitchens comments -- well, frankly, I never saw them as that insulting to begin with. But I've been trying to be better; the problem is these guys keep goading me *sigh*. Thanks for the comments and the support, and I'll keep trying. But frankly this whole thing is starting to seem far more trouble than it's worth. csloat 02:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This response is all too typical. The problem is never your behaviour, rather it's the nasty people who "bait" you. <<-armon->> 02:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sloat - in light of these kinds of comments by others I recommend a brief wikibreak. When you get back, focus on edits. Basic, constructive improvements. Bore those who would attack you in user talk spaces rather than argue in the article talk spaces - remember, that's the point of being on WP. The rest is boring meta, and I'm not sure the last time the actual issue under dispute in the article space was mentioned by the editors who cannot resist posting here. High road = willing to walk away if you fear you may lose your temper when taunts are flying. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

RyanFreisling, Your comment above is completely uncalled for. There is no need to insult me here. Here is just one example from just a few minutes ago in which I tried to discus an actual issue in the article space on an article talk page. Sloat responded (as it very typical) with disruptive assumptions of bad faith. [13]. I think you should probably apologize to me on this issue. Elizmr 03:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't speaking to you and csloat has asked you repeatedly not to post here. I will not respond to your comments here, I directed my words to csloat and they stand on their own - alone, without reference to you. I ask only that you do not involve yourself in them. Thank you. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Neither you nor Sloat has a right to ask me not to post here. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Editors are asked to bring instances where editors are not behaving in accordance with Wikipedia policy to the users talk page for discussion. I am doing that. If Sloat wants me to stop bringing instances of his bad behavior to his user page, he should stop making the kind of remarks that warrant it. Elizmr 03:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Elizmr, please stop posting to my talk page. Your comments are not helpful. I'm not going to respond to them other than to say you are wrong about them. csloat 05:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I will continue to post examples of your violations of Wikipedia's behavaioral guidelines to this page. If you wish to dismsiss concerns and ignore Wikipedia guidelines, that is up to you. Elizmr 13:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

So will I. This is the proper place to discuss such issues, NOT article talk pages. Ryan actually gave you some very good advice, in fact, the very same advice that your "attackers" have given you -repeatedly. <<-armon->> 23:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

csloat has every right to delete anything he wants from his own talk page. He absolutely has a right to delete anything you post here, and to request that you not post here at all. He's done so on multiple occasions and Elizmr has made no effort to honor csloat's request, instead returning time and time again to make comments here and there about csloat and his 'bad behavior' that do not indicate any interest at all in resolving the situation constructively - just a kind of accusatory one-upsmanship, regardless of the thread topic. To date, csloat has refrained from blanking disruptive comments to his credit, but he's not required to tolerate conduct here that he sincerely views as inflammatory or counterproductive.

Start an RfC or some other means if you feel so strongly about his behavior (I'll be sure to comment), but since csloat has asked you repeatedly to leave his talk page you might want to honor his numerous requests, lest you create the impression that you are trolling or harassing him.

Ask yourself "Is this comment likely to help resolve the situation?" before posting - and if the answer isn't a wholehearted "yes", don't do it. That's being considerate of csloat as a fellow editor.

If the editors here continue to disregard csloat's multiple civil warnings / requests and continue posting unproductive 'attack' comments in every thread (like this one), they will likely find disruptive comments being deleted as nonproductive with little (hopefully no) fanfare. I guarantee that's what I would do if I were being treated in this way.

I suggest you two also follow my 'very good advice' on this topic and make an effort to limit your use of csloat's talk page to directly productive posts. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ryan; and to the others - I'm done arguing tit-for-tat against every accusation and personal attack. I'm done. You guys win, ok? Now please get off my talk page and get off my back. I will unceremoniously delete unhelpful posts to this page in the future. I'm not interested in your opinions. If you think I am breaking some rule, file an RfC. But these hit and run accusations are simply no longer welcome here. csloat 00:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the "absolute right" thing, but there is such as thing as "tit for tat" and that wouldn't be of any help to this project. In general, starting a quarrel about whether the other party is "quarrelsome" is a bit absurd.

In any case, every page at Wikipedia is expected to have some relation to the mission of the website, which is to create an open-source encyclopedia. Maintaining the morale of contributors aids the project, so we get a lot of leeway on our user pages. Repeatedly telling someone he's rude, so that he gets a jarring yellow post-it notice everytime you do so, is probably also rude.

When I was an active mediator, I asked people to cool it. Go talk to someone else or do something else. If you need help, ask for it. "Be" the change you want in the world. --Uncle Ed 19:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Sorry, Commodore, I wasn't ignoring you when I posted my long comment about the Plame article. You were actually doing me the favor of giving me a long and pertinent answer to my question - while as usual I had an long after thought.

I will now study your answer to my previous question. ;-) --Uncle Ed 18:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for violating the three-revert rule at Christopher Hitchens. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or engage in dispute resolution rather than edit-warring. The duration of the block is 24 hours. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Without prejudice to the merits of the passage in question, I feel I must comment on one aspect of this situation.

You wrote:

• unexplained edits should be reverted until they are explained

This is close to what I think, but different in one important aspect. I agree that a matter should be discussed until it is resolved (or until it's clear that it cannot be resolved). But reverting won't force another editor to provide an explanation. (Peer pressure might, hint hint.)

Anyway, enjoy your time off and come back soon, okay? --Uncle Ed 05:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Ed. I was really careful to stay under the 3RR and I feel that I was blocked unfairly, but we shall see. Either way, if you can help me out with these pages it would be really appreciated. You and I don't agree on most of the material we've discussed but I've always appreciated your perspective as a straight shooter; perhaps you can help with the Hitchens page and the Juan Cole page, where two users jump on every single edit I make and revert incessantly, usually without explanation, and often get verbally (well, textually) abusive. I'm trying not to get sucked into their mode of argument but it is frustrating, as it often appears to me that they are being arrogant and deceptive. Perhaps you can help mediate, or at least offer your perspective. csloat 06:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Commodore Sloat (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have not violated the 3RR. There are only three reverts in 24 hours. Armon is the one who violated the rule. I checked the reverts claimed by Isarig; #3 was not a revert.

Decline reason:

3RR is not a guarantee that you get three reverts, it's an injunction against edit warring, something you are well aware of having been blocked repeatedly for violations already. — Yamla 14:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Fair enough. Can you tell me where to report revert warring that does not reach 4 reverts? The person who reported me (Isarig (talk · contribs)) is notorious for reverting exactly three times a day. I have reported this before and was told that only 4 reverts in a day may be reported. I feel it is unfair if I get blocked based on a deceptive 3RR report filed by him, whereas when he engages in the same behavior it is ignored, and even encouraged by administrators. csloat 18:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

#3 [14] is indeed a revert, removing material inserted by another editor is reverting. 3RR does not require that the reverts be on the same text, only that they be reverts. However, you have placed an unblock request, so someone else will review. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That is not a revert; look at the page it is claimed I am reverting to. That clause appears in it (and it appears in every version of the page that the rest of the sentence appears in). It was an unrelated edit, and I was not removing material that was recently put in by another editor. It was a copyediting move because I noticed that there was a clause that was not supported by the following quotes. My actual reverts were all restoring deleted material; not deleting material. There is no conceivable way that could be considered a revert. I should add that this is not the first time that Isarig has reported me for alleged 3RR violations that turn out to be inaccurate. csloat 05:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

copied from my talk page

You said: "Greetings. I posted the following to my talk page after you blocked me (Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs)); if you recall, you upheld the block even though there were not four reverts. I didn't argue with your decision but I am curious what to do with editors who consistently revert exactly three times a day.:

Fair enough. Can you tell me where to report revert warring that does not reach 4 reverts? The person who reported me (Isarig (talk · contribs)) is notorious for reverting exactly three times a day. I have reported this before and was told that only 4 reverts in a day may be reported. I feel it is unfair if I get blocked based on a deceptive 3RR report filed by him, whereas when he engages in the same behavior it is ignored, and even encouraged by administrators."

I believe WP:3RR would be the correct place. Note specifically, however, that the person is gaming the system. --Yamla 16:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Also note, reverting tendentious edits isn't gaming the system. <<-armon->> 03:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

And who decides which edits are "tendentious" enough to revert three times a day? Serial abusers of the revert system? csloat 04:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back

Stop violating 3RR. You're too good an editor to be forced out of commission because someone baits you into tit-for-tat. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but please note that I didn't violate 3RR. csloat 19:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

To me, going to 3RR is likely to be seen as just as bad as violating it by dispassionate admins seeking quiet :) . I apologize, I didn't mean to misstate the situation, though! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right, and it was seen as just as bad, since I got blocked for it ... I just wish there was some consistency here; these interlocutors almost never get blocked for far more egregious abuses. But I guess that is one of the pitfalls of the structure of Wikipedia -- what one admin sees as abusive, another may find totally reasonable. csloat 19:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit wars with 3RR being gamed are often used (as you know) as a means of baiting a user into acting rashly and thus eroding any 'esteem' held by the WP community. It's unfair and it's Machiavellian and it's petty and it's obvious when you're being manipulated so just don't play their game!

If you get serially reverted, mark the behavior. It's much easier to make a case for disruptive editing when you've got a history trail of one side (not both sides) having edit warred. This is all t say nothing of the most important point of all - Wabi-Sabi - everything here is impermanent anyway. Wishing you well. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - and, again, you're right as usual. I'll try harder to behave. csloat 19:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)

• Try a sandbox for the "drinking" thing on that writer you admire. I'll work with you on it, and then we can present it to the others. This could be a way to build consensus. --Uncle Ed 20:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Your esteemed name

May I congratulate you on your name? I usually take a minute from editing to praise editors with absurd, rotund, extreme, elegant or fanciful names. Yours has a rotund yet elegant quality, reminiscent of 1920s sailing trips, Wind in the Willows and a faint panache of L Ron Hubbardesque mockery. Well done. MarkThomas 23:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) Glad someone sees the humor. csloat 02:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I wish someone could explain it to me. I don't understand. W. Frank 15:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it a secret? W. Frank 14:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope; it's just not all that funny. Great name, lots of O's, and a real (and unlikely!) character in California history. Plus it makes some great anagrams -- LACTOSE MOM ODOR and COED MORALS MOOT. csloat 23:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Archimedes Plutonium

• Archimedes Plutonium (AfD discussion)

Please revisit the discussion. Uncle G 10:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Get over yourself and start actually looking at changes

The image I removed was not the one you uploaded, but rather a copyvio uploaded with a similar justification to the one you removed. Isarig 05:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Hi. I have noticed that Isarig have changed each of the two images I previously updated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Edward_Said.jpg, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Said.gif), which I understand the reason after. My question, given that I am indeed a new wikipedian, is: Does all images used on wikipedia include information on the photographer, even if the image was used numerous times over the internet by a variety of sources? The copy right information I have originally added for both images may not be appropriate, however, are there other tags that may be more more suitable, instead of having to contact Mrs. Mariam C. Said for example (Edward Said's wife), just to get permission for using 2 widely-used images? Thank you for your patience--NomadOfArabia 09:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

If you don't have specific information about the image, you should not use it. Simply because an image is publicly reproduced does not mean we have the right to reproduce it. csloat 09:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok thanks. I have removed both images from the article for now until I am able to obtain copyright information for any.--NomadOfArabia 09:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

bogus template

Why have you removed that "bogus" template? You know, I do agree that it's poorly named and that it should be pulled, however there was apparent consensus on it… if you would like to join the discussion, do so… here. Regards. Lovelight 00:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Because Karen Kwiatkowski is not a conspiracy theory or theorist. csloat 01:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

of course she's not, I'm aware of her work, admire her strength, as well as her honesty, that's why I'm pushing this, because enough is enough… decent people who are asking serious questions are not conspiracy theorists. Regards. Lovelight 01:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Then why are you pushing this template, which identifies her as a conspiracy theorist? csloat 01:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

That's the whole point, the template is malicious by its nature and it needs to be… pulled, that's why I'm adding names of Senior Military, Intelligence, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials… I'll rename it soon, although it will point nowhere, until that "911 conspiracies" article is renamed. Lovelight 02:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Interview. Here is the summary: "I have obviously followed the inquiries into 9/11 and I know Dick Clarke and Rand Beers very well but I am not an expert. I look to the "Jersey Girls" [Kristen Breitweiser, Patty Casazza, Lorie Van Auken, and Mindy Kleinberg] who have so assiduously pushed the case in the memory of their late husbands, for real understanding. I have great admiration for them and for what they have done. They are not satisfied, so neither am I."; but i won't push (revert) that one… Lovelight 03:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

And where does he identify a conspiracy theory? The Jersey girls are not conspiracy theorists either. I get what you're doing but you should stick to debating the template and don't disrupt wikipedia to make a point.csloat 03:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I've already stated that this is not about making a point, enough is enough, information suppression and censorship all around? I've elaborated all this on the relevant talk page, that conspiratorial label simply won't suffice; too many decent folks are questioning attacks… I'd guess we'll need to add "calls for independent investigation section" or something similar to the template… hmm, really not sure where are all the "usual editors"… it all went very smoothly!;), take care. Lovelight 03:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I see you pulled the link off Karen Kwiatkowski too. I think the best move is not using the template if you think it is problematic. Using it where you don't think it really belongs is not helpful. I agree it should probably be deleted; at the same time, there are some people and theories that belong in such a category. We shouldn't be conflating Karen K. or the Jersey Girls or Joe Wilson with David Icke or the like. If anything, why aren't Doug Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, and Dick Cheney in there, since they believe(d) in a true 9/11 conspiracy, that Saddam worked with Osama to plan 9/11... none of them probably believe it anymore, but still... csloat 10:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Juan Cole

I've put a note on the article Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I took a brief look at the Talk: page. armon seems quite active on it. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

If you like, and armon agrees, I can attempt to mediate. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation/Commodore Sloat and Armon

Your request for community enforceable mediation has opened. I hope it goes well. I'll be in touch with you there and feel free to contact me as needed. Regards, Durova^Charge! 09:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Laurie Dann

Hi CS I have reverted your edit to Laurie Dann because the reference that you cite, which you can find at [15] supports the Associated Press and Toronto Star version that the note went to the family not to the Fraternity. I think there is an urban legend out there since this is not the first time that people have added this version of events. Slp1 22:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologize and take it back, as I didn't see you note on the talkpage before writing the above. However, that the note was sent to the families in several other articles at the website above. The article you cite is not quoted in its entirety, unfortunately. Where did you get your quote from if you don't mind me asking? --Slp1 22:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

From the article itself in the Chicago Tribune; a copy of the text can be found in the ProQuest electronic database, owned by most university libraries. You can also look it up in the Chicago Tribune archive or even at many public libraries in the US. The CT article is more detailed than the ones you cite, and the note makes a lot more sense going to the fraternities (who actually have "little sisters") than to families, who may not. csloat 01:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding but I would be very interested in getting a copy of the article. I tried to get hold of the Chicago Tribune articles through ProQuest but I am in Canada and I guess there are different access rights, depending on what the university chooses. I will send you an email with my email address. Incidentally, the Toronto Star was actually an AP article and another version published in the Los Angeles Times.

I think the people that wrote the Chicago Tribune articles also wrote a book and I will try and locate a copy to get the final word on this subject! I myself wouldn't be at all surprised either way, since she babysat for the families and presumably knew who and who didn't have little sisters. --Slp1 16:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much! You seem to have had trouble! As you will have guessed, I couldn't send you an email, but this is great. Incidentally, I have found two books written about her, and have asked for both via inter-library loan, so it will be interesting to see what these will bring. --Slp1 02:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Tequila

Your edit to Tequila, recently, included an edit summary which read in part, "drinking with sangrita is common throughout mexico; this is well known and easily verified." The problem with this is that Wikipedia requires the citation of sources, which facilitates verification, rather than the assumption that a practice is verifiable. I, for example, live in New England in the United States, and do not know that that's true, and would not know where to go about verifying it. If you add a citation, then it's easy for others to verify that the material is accurate. Thanks. -Harmil 19:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

That's what the tag is for; if I come across a citation I will add it, but the cn tag will do for now. The material shouldn't be deleted since anyone who has been beyond the border towns in Mexico and has drank tequila can confirm it. You can probably even find a Mexican restaurant in New England where you could ask someone if you find the information difficult to believe for some reason.... Though I highly recommend a trip to Mexico when you have the time :) csloat 19:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Juan Cole

Due to your participation in an edit war on Juan Cole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I have proposed that you and Armon be placed on community revert probation. Please see Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard#Cole. John254 02:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Refactored macro problem

Hi I've refactored your solution to the macro problem with a cut and paste here. Please rv if I've grabbed the wrong text, or if it's in any other way objectionable. <<-armon->> 21:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Brief Laurie Dann update

I have just received book number one, Day of Fury by Joyce Eggington, a substantial and apparently well-researched tome, not the pot-boiler I was fearing. I will have a busy weekend with it! Very intriguingly a "little sisters" note is not mentioned in any context. However, the plot thickens: "Laurie had become friendly with some of the male students there [at the fraternity houses] the previous summer, and made no attempt to hide her identity. Attached one of the paper plates [of cookies she had delivered to the frat houses] was a handwritten note on her father's business stationary (From the desk of Norman Wasserman, Certified Public Accountant.) With her typical misspellings it read: "I'm going to be in Glencoe when your in town-look forward to seeing you guys. I was going to send you coffee cake, but I was making rice crispy treats for school and decided to send some. Enjoy. Love, Laurie." The mystery deepens. It will be interesting to see what the other book brings to the saga! --Slp1 20:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Help needed

Could you comment on Biophys revert warring on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_and_possible_wikistalking? Your help would be appreciated. Vlad fedorov 08:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Douglas Feith

As an editor who has worked on the Douglas Feith page in the past, could you please comment in the unfolding discussion concerning George Tenet's memoir on the Douglas Feith talk page? [16]. Thanks in advance. Abe Froman 22:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I just wanted to thank you for all your hard work on the McGovern and MacMichael AfD's. I would say you single handedly saved the latter article from deletion and did it the old-fashioned way--by improving it. I've looked through some of your edits and talk page comments and know you catch a lot of flak since you often edit on controversial, polarizing topics, so this message is designed to give you props instead of grief. I don't think I'm really into the whole barnstar thing (maybe I'll change my mind someday), but consider this note akin to one of those. Debates over content can be so exhausting and pointless (these were the first controversial AfD's I've been involved in, and I found them extremely frustrating, though I was obviously happy with the outcomes) so it's refreshing to see someone who not only argues their point well but also improves the quality of the encyclopedia in the course of the discussion. Best.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much both of you! I have to be honest, every time I see the "You have new messages" flag on my watchlist, I cringe a little; I was really pleased to find these two messages instead of the usual bitterness. csloat 02:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Heads up on "State Terrorism by United States"

Hey, just wanted to let you know that a brief vote on the "State Terrorism by the United States" page would be welcome. Just a "Keep" is all that's needed -- the nationalists on the page are taking an up-or-down vote on whether to rename it.

Suffering thru the Taiwan summer -- SFT (chinese for "Stone put to sky" ^_^) Stone put to sky 12:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: The Intelligence Summit

Hi, thanks for alerting us to the recreation of The Intelligence Summit! I informed the administrators and requested page protection so that it cannot be recreated. In the future if you encounter a recreation of a page deleted through the Articles for Deletion process or via a CSD template, you can alert the admins by putting {{db-repost}} at the top of the article in question. Relisting the completed AFD or starting a new AFD discussion is usually not nessacary, unless the article is a drastically different article under the same name. Take care!Rackabello 15:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Well done alerting other editors to this noxious recreation. It's a hard slog, but glad to see there are those willing to make the effort. Eusebeus 21:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if the absolutely putrid State Terrorism by United States article also qualifies as "noxious".--Mike18xx 04:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• [17] I don't mind, though the practice is usually discouraged because some people do mind (so now you know in case you didn't before). In any case, usually the closing admin reads the discussion closely enough to figure it out.--Chaser - T 21:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

i saw your AN/I post. as i haven't interacted with Biophys, i cannot comment on him. i have previously interacted with Mike18xx however. some of his recent edits have been reasonable, but it is unfortunate to see a recurrance of personal attacks and other inappropriate behaviour. this, and other issues, have previously been raised at a RfC. ITAQALLAH 19:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration on MEMRI

Hello. I've requested arbitration on the disagreement over the MEMRI page. I did not include you as an interested party since you are not one of the editors who has been attempting to OWN that page, but I thought you might be interested since I included one of your statements on the MEMRI talk page in my summary at Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration. Thanks, Jgui 15:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit Warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Operation Sarindar in Iraq. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.54.227.252 (talk • contribs)

I believe the above poster is a sockpuppet of either Biophys (talk · contribs) or Mike18xx (talk · contribs). csloat 15:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not me.--Mike18xx 21:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

American murderers

I think the best way is to add them manually - this is a bit of a pain, as they all need to be tagged. See discussion athere. I think I will still be against it btw, Johnbod 11:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI

I've filed an report on ANI re: your latest article creation. here. <<-armon->> 12:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not abuse the Wikipedia process with phony ANI reports like this. csloat 17:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The verge of arbitration

Sloat, I'm very concerned that matters haven't settled down since mediation. The latest content RFC hasn't brought the editors closer together. I think it's time for arbitraton. Since I'm a neutral party and I've watched this from the sidelines since last fall I'm offering to write the arbitration request.

If you like that idea, please respond with a brief summary of the points you'd like me to raise and links/diffs of the formal dispute methods that have already been tried. My total RFAR post will be around 250 - 400 words.

I'm planning to list the involved parties as you, Armon, and Isarig. Is that correct?

If you don't like that idea, please respond with an alternative solution.

Best regards, Durova^Charge! 15:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer simply to live and let live with these guys as much as possible; it just pisses me off when they blatantly lie to get their way. But the issues we're fighting over right now are ridiculously minor, and I don't have time to draw this out further. In the coming months I will have a lot less time for wikipedia than I do now, which is already a lot less than I used to. If it helps avoid this at all, I will back off completely from the argument I've been making regarding the infocus quotes on the MEMRI page. Even though I find Armon's claims hypocritical at best, I won't try to add anything from Southern California InFocus to the MEMRI article. I'm sure some other issue will blow things up again in the future, and arbcom may still be indicated, but at this point I'm not interested in compiling lists of links to examples of bad behavior to throw back and forth. csloat 21:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

RFC on Islamophobia accusation

I am sorry it has come to this, but I really find your accusation of Islamophobia unacceptable. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Commodore Sloat. Bigglove 00:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry by User:Isarig

For your information, I noticed that you have had content disputes at Juan Cole with both User:Isarig and User:Teens!. User:Teens! is a sockpuppet of Isarig per CheckUser. Italia^vivi 19:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I was strolling through the suspected sockpuppet page and noticed that you asked that whoever runs the checkuser on this request to be aware that Isarig is a confirmed puppet master. Problem is, cases filed at WP:SSP are for behavioral analysis only and there generally is not a checkuser performed against requests submitted there. If you want a checkuser run on Bigglove as a puppet of Isarig, just go to Isariq's RFCU and add a new section above the current one and move the RFCU back into the outstanding request section. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to do a checkuser comparing him to Qaiqu as well? I explained the worrying behavior pattern on the SSP page and the behavior has continued to be problematic, but I am still not convinced he is a sock. It would be nice to be sure though (of course, I guess we're never sure, since he could be using a completely different computer). csloat 21:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Despite it being used for one at times, checkuser shouldn't be used for fishing expeditions. In most cases the people that do the checkuser will only do so if the sock has been used to circumvent a ban/block, 3RR, or to change the outcome of a consensus discussion. So if you have reason to believe that Bigglove is a sock of Isarig, it is generally acceptable to request that a checkuser be run since Bigglove was in use during Isarig's block. However if the belief is that Bigglove is a sock of Qaiqu, you're pretty much out of luck as Qaiqu is currently not blocked/banned and there isn't any overlap between their editing periods to indicate an attempt to circumvent 3RR or change the results of a consensus discussion. Another reason you're out of luck with using Checkuser on Qaiqu is the age of the user's last edit. I'm not sure exactly how long the information used for checkuser is kept, but from what I've seen any time an editor's last edit is over a month or two prior to the current date, it can not be run. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 15:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of other drama

Sloat, the comments at the heart of your User conduct RfC do deserve a real apology by you. Please see non-apology apology. I think it would go a long way if you unresevedly apologized without condition, for making personal attributions of bias. Of course that's never productive. Whatever happens, you are smart and well-intentioned and you will persevere if you focus on resolving the dispute in good faith - whether on the articles or in dispute resolution. And that way, WP is improved and maybe people learn a little from each other in the process. Good luck and I'm wishing you well. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Commodore Sloat

Commodore, could you take a look at the talk page and say what you think we should do with the "outside comments by biophys" section orig on the main page before we close? Many thanks, Bigglove 00:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm writing to let you know that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Commodore Sloat has been archived. All the best Bigglove 23:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Bigglove. I look forward to turning over a new leaf. csloat 07:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Biophys

Please respect his (her) wishes and don't reinsert this again. The repeated insertion of comments on a third party's talk page is needlessly tendentious Raymond Arritt 17:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I won't replace it again. But I was not being tendentious; I was simply objecting to an extremely unfair (and, indeed, tendentious!) characterization of my actions. If I posted "Biophys is a poopyhead" on my user page and he came and responded "no I'm not," and I censored his post, which one of us is being tendentious? csloat 17:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Juan Cole GAC

Have you thought about nominating Juan Cole at WP:GAC?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

24 hour block

For this edit. Please do not alter another editor's talk page post. In this instance it's a violation of WP:CIVIL and in general it's blockable because it appears to attribute opinions to them that they didn't write. In productive editorial discussions it needs to be clear who wrote what without recourse to the page history. Durova^Charge! 20:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't edit his post; I edited the title of the heading to more accurately reflect the content of the discussion. Your block is totally unwarranted; you could have warned me with reference to a specific Wikipedia policy (and in this case I don't see how CIVIL was violated, but a simple comment to that effect might have helped clear things up for me and I would have changed the title back as necessary). In addition, your block has given license to Biophys (talk · contribs) to extend his violations of WP:SYN to another article (take a look at his changes on Operation Sarindar, which have been discussed over and over in the past, and roundly rejected by participants in the discussion; his invocation of two users who have not participated in the discussion in months notwithstanding). I don't think my changing of the title was any different than similar actions by Biophys and many other Wikipedia editors; I certainly did not attribute opinions to biophys that he did not write (and your claim that I did appears nonsensical). I had no idea such changes were against Wikipedia policy in any way and I am still at a loss to understand the specific part of WP:CIVIL violated here. Calling allegations "false" is not uncivil; it is essential to a substantive discussion (rather than dancing around the issue). csloat 22:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, you might take a look at this series of edits as an example of Biophys' own hypocrisy in his post to your talk page. The numerous WP:SYN violations aside, he has continued to remove the "Totally-disputed" tag from the page in spite of the fact that I made six arguments establishing the basis for the disputes and he has not addressed a single one of them. I have warned him several times about removing the tag but he keeps on removing it. Since you blocked me he has taken the opportunity to remove it again, knowing that I am in no position to restore it. I'm not asking you to unblock me - you're the admin, it's your decision, even though it seems horribly wrong to me - but I think you should take Biophys' allegations and attacks on me on your talk page with a big grain of salt. csloat 23:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually the alteration of another user's header into something inflammatory is indeed a blockable action. I've blocked for that before.[18][19] Shortly afterward I opened that situation for review on the administrators' noticeboard and no one contested my use of the tools in response to that action. Tu quoque is not a defense: I'll gladly consider evidence of policy infractions by other editors, but that will have no bearing upon my decision here. Durova^Charge! 20:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Understood. A heads up -- "Altering a header created by another person is considered a personal attack; please do not do it again" -- would have been all that it would have taken to address the issue; I think the block was unnecessary and it was destructive to the ongoing discussion. But it was your decision. csloat 01:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's talk

O'K, let's discuss our problems. It seems that we are not able to find a reasonable compromise in articles Operation Sarindar and Communist terrorism. You think I violate WP:SYN by including irrelevant sources. I think you violate WP:NPOV by removing relevant scholarly sources. We also have other disagreements, as one can see from our conversations on my talk page.

This is not good. I suggest to minimize our interaction by avoiding each other's edits. It means that I am not going to edit any articles that you edited before me and expect the same from you (including article "Communist terrorism"). I think this should not be a problem since our interests are different: you are editing mostly articles on Iraq and US subjects, whereas I am interested in Biology and Russian history.

If you disagree and continue following my edits on Russia-related subjects (as in article Communist terrorism), I will have no other choice but to ask for an arbitration. Then ArbCom will have to consider the fact that I had serious problems with only two editors: you and Vlad (who is currently banned), but you had serious problems with at least six editors: [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26].

So, I suggest just to leave each other in peace rather than to start arbitration, which would be a significant distraction for us and fellow wikipedians. If you want to answer, please do not modify or break to parts this message. Thank you.Biophys 16:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to make myself clear: I am not talking about these two articles, but about any articles that you or me might create or work with in the future. If we simply avoid each other in the future, the problem would be resolved in the easiest way, which I think is the best for both of us.Biophys 03:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I asked Durova for advice and she suggested that arbcom was probably a good idea. I frankly think there are other steps in WP:DR that we have not tried yet, but you appear to be keen on escalating our dispute over your original research by involving unrelated conflicts that I had with other users (some of those conflicts over a year ago). That sort of thing is not productive at all -- I suggest that if you take this to arbcom you try to stick to the specific dispute you are having with me rather than trying to drag other users into this. I am the first to admit I have made mistakes in the past, and I have made amends when necessary. I have also helped reach satisfactory resolutions to most of the disputes you linked to above. I don't think you should be looking to disputes over a year ago to help you justify what appear to be persistent attempts to fill these articles with original research and fringe conspiracy theories. csloat 20:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

So, you declined my good will offer, judging from your reply and this edit [27], Well, I simply felt that it was fair to talk with you and discuss our possible options. Of course, the disagreement about two articles is not a reason to start Arbcom proceedings. The only reason can be a long-standing problem that persits for years and has been a subject of previous conflict resolution attempts. This is a community issue that should be decided by WP community. Contrary to what you might think, I am not your enemy. I believe that you made many valuable contributions to WP, and it is unfortunate that you follow my edits and delete well referenced texts in violation of WP:NPOV policy (as I believe). But I could even walk away from articles Operation Sarindar and Communist terrorism if you only promised me not to follow my other edits on the Russia-related topics. But your refusal may force me to resort to arbitration at any point starting from now. It is only fair to tell you that.Biophys 21:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not decline any "good will offer"; what I did was suggest that you follow dispute resolution if you have a dispute with me. Threatening arbcom and bringing up unrelated disputes from years ago is really not considered a "good will offer." I do not think you are my enemy; I think you are misguided as regards Wikipedia's policies on original research. I have never "followed your edits" and I would appreciate it if you did not hurl false accusations in my direction. The fact that two articles that I have edited are articles that you claim ownership of does not constitute stalking -- you should read WP:OWN before making such accusations. I am not sure why you feel the need to threaten me here -- if you have a dispute with me, there is a process through which we might settle that dispute, and arbcom is at the end of that process. It is not something to use as a threat; it is a final step in dispute resolution. csloat 22:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

May I make a comment here? Because I respect the level of intellectual discourse in these discussions I've sought alternatives to arbitration for a long time. But it's been nearly a full calendar year since I first encountered these disputes and they're still continuing. The involved parties have chaned somewhat, but only somewhat, and the dispute itself seems to migrate from article to article. I think arbitration would be the best solution here because it brings together a whole panel of people with no axe to grind. You can present your best evidence and get the fairest resolution this site can offer. Arbitration has its downside, but I think it's considerably better than a year of locking horns. And I really think that if other forms of dispute resolution could have remedied the situation it'd be resolved by now. Durova^Charge! 23:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I guess I don't agree that these are the same disputes. Biophys was not at all involved (to my knowledge) in the original disputes where mediation failed. He has used the evidence of those disputes to make a connection but I don't see the connection. I feel that this is a content dispute pure and simple. However, if arbitration is accepted, I will take it up there. My worry is that this will be used by various editors with whom I have had conflicts in the past to pile on and bully me, as was done with the recent RFC against me (an RFC that I will add reached a satisfactory resolution due to my willingness to own up to my mistakes and apologize for them). I think it is unfair of Biophys to use such prior disputes as evidence against me in what is clearly a content dispute about a particular issue. csloat 03:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration request

I have submitted an arbitration request where you are a party. [28] Thank you. Biophys 02:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

how about a link? csloat 03:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Please shorten your statement to 500 words are less, as per the instructions. Thanks. Picaroon (t) 01:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; I just read them and to me it looks like requests are meant to be kept to 500 words, not responses to those requests. I am not the one requesting arbitration here -- can you clarify the policy? Biophys' request is well over 500 words but I do not see a similar warning on his page. In any case I will try to get back to this in the next few days. csloat 02:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I made my response precisely 500 words. I've put the more detailed statement in my user space but my statement on the RfA page itself is exactly 500 words. csloat 07:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Commodore Sloat-Biophys

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Commodore Sloat-Biophys. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Commodore Sloat-Biophys/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Commodore Sloat-Biophys/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 14:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak

Hello, csloat. What is your response to my suggestion here? Nick Graves 16:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree -- an RfC is more appropriate here. I also thank you for calling JrFace on his incivility. csloat 16:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of CIA assistance to Osama bin Laden

Want me to merge it with the Operation Cyclone story? My idea was not to promote the theory but to gather together all the allegation and denials from two different articles in one big article and sort them out for everyone to see. I reckoned readers would come to the conclusion I had, (and that you have) that the allegations are not not true.

It is certainly true that "experts on terrorism" are not debating this issue but if wikipedia was devoted only to issues of interest to experts it would be much smaller than it is. It should include issues of interest to people who don't know about that issue and want to find out. --BoogaLouie 16:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That's probably a good merge except most people have no idea what that operation is. The thing about all this is that it's not just allegations and denials -- it is a complex narrative that suggests the CIA is implicated heavily in the rise of al Qaeda, but never actually met with them, trained them, or transferred any money to them. But the Reagan Administration rewarded Arab governments who pledged to do something about the Soviets in Afghanistan, and those who did, esp. Saudi Arabia, funded and supported what became a pan-Arab mujahideen. I didn't mean to suggest that only "experts" were worthy of comment here, but that the studied conclusions of those experts weighed much more heavily than the ravings of conspiracy theorists, left or right. I think if we keep the page as it is, it should be restructured as a chronological narrative rather than a he-said/she-said debate. Some of that debate will have to be kept, but that could be part of a brief introduction that indicates clearly that the experts (and journalists) who have studied the issue find the conspiracy theory unpersuasive. csloat 19:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Commodore Sloat-Biophys closed

The above arbitration case has been closed. Biophys and you are instructed to refrain from interacting with or commenting about each other in any way. Failure to do so voluntarily may result in the imposition of a formal restriction on him or you. Picaroon (t) 02:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Melt the clouds of sin and sadness, drive the dark of doubt away!

Joy

Marlith ^T/C has given you a kitten! Kittens promote Wikilove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Share the WikiLove and civility with everyone and keep up the excellent editing! Send kittens to others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Marlith ^T/C 03:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Distorted ArbCom, my opinion

I've mentioned an ArbCom case in which you were involved here, putting my own spin on things. I hope I'm not saying anything which contradicts your understanding of it. PR^talk 11:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Jersey Girls

I agree that the Coulter stuff should be limited. But your recent deletion removes her justification for saying what she said about them. That's not so good, IMHO. The basic story is that "They entered the political arena. Coulter blasted them because they were using their bereaved status to claim an immunity from criticism." Probably we could tell that story without excessively quoting her colorful language about it, or maybe without quoting her at all. Lou Sander 18:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Zubaydah

The article starts off with an opinion piece, rather than a quick synopsis such as I had proposed, and such as is used for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed...which, of course, I had already explained once before.

Keep the op-ed intro if you like, but it doesn't speak well for Wikipdedia. Peace. --24.28.6.209 (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Juan Cole and his Baha'i studies

Your attention to this subject would be welcome. The anon editor is back trying to unbalance the article to peddle his POV. Thanks, MARussellPESE (talk) 13:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)