User talk:Eleemosynary/Archive

Cindy Sheehan

Nice edits on Cindy Sheehan article. Badagnani 08:43, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Cindy Sheehan Technical Issue

Sorry for the comp problems on my end, I was just adding more anti-war mom comments, not vandalizing your work, which has been great. Just wanted to check in with that to avoid any confusion. Karmafist 23:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Cindy Sheehan

Don't revert any more of 4.228.90.146 edits to the summary; he'll be blocked shortly for 3RR violation and, in several hours, your can restore the summary. (That way you'll avoid 3RR yourself) Soltak 00:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Congrats

The Exceptional Newcomer Award for your work on Cindy Sheehan

You definately deserve it, that article is great, and you've put in alot of work into it. For more info on Barnstars, the awards given to Wikipedians who do great things, check out WP:STAR.

Also, your user page is your own, unless you want it there, Keetoowah's comment can be removed immediately. His behavior has been atrocious, he currently has a request for comment out on him, i'll report his rude behavior to you there and to Zoe, an admin who's been checking on him. Karmafist 21:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

No Problem

No problem, just one more thing, usually it's customary to add 4 tildes like this,~~~~ at the end of a comment, so people know who wrote it without having to go to the history. Somebody should have said this when you first started, but the Welcoming Committee isn't able to get everybody. Karmafist 22:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Cindy Sheehan

Eleemosynary, Thanks for catching that. The jamboree reference could also have been labeled as POV since it's tangential to the Sheehan story. It's nice that Wikipedia is continually reviewed by others as its being created. Thanks again for helping. Kgrr 16:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

help

see the new arrival at Hurricane Katrina...

Vandal on the Air America Radio page

Hi there... I noticed that you were involved in many of the edits and discussions on the Air America Radio page and wondered if you might be able to help me deal with a vandal who is pushing a political POV agenda on that page. The vandal's name is Keetowah. I noticed from the AAR discussion page that previous contributors including yourself had significant trouble with this vandal. Any advice or assistance you may be able to provide would be much appreciated. --Pmagnay 15:43, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Keetowah is certainly a vandal. He's been blocked several times, and is under arbitration now. Eleemosynary 03:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BigDaddy777

Since you have begun interacting with Bigdaddy again [1], and endorsed the original RfC [2], I thought you might be interested to know that since the dispute resolution process has stalled due to BigDaddy's refusal to respond to this RfC, some are now questioning whether an RfAr should be filed.[3] Your comments on this new issue would be appreciated. 69.121.133.154 20:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Rove talk post

Spot on. As long as he doesn't answer, I only see white space. Guettarda 01:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I understand that you are frustrated with BD, so am I. But, it might be prudent to disengage from unnecessary talk with him right now. First, he is probably understandably upset at the moment, given the RFAr against him. Second, it might cloud the issues from the arbitrators' point of view. They haven't been following everything all along, and it's hard to get a good perspective on it in a short time. So, you don't want to distract their focus from the evidence onto any back and forth about the RFAr itself. Just my two cents. Regards, Derex 05:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

"Little Baby's" paranoiac whining... deleted!

Yeah, you're right Derex. He's completely upset. He's even trolling my Talk Page for mention of him. A lonely, angry troll, that Little Baby! Eleemosynary 02:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to second what Derex said. No need to muddy the issues. Guettarda 02:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree as well. Best to try to take the high road. · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Nonsensical blather from humiliated vandal, aka Big Daddy, (whose sockpuppetry has been discovered)... deleted! Eleemosynary 13:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

boy it's tough not to engage that guy. i found myself doing it all morning, breaking my own advice. something about his attitude just gets me in a fighting mood. Derex 05:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

your NOW SUPPORTED accusations

your accusations of sockpuppetry and constant reverts of every one of my edits show a complete lack of respect for the validity of my contributions as well as my attempts to reach consensus, often at odds with BigDaddy I might add. please provide either support for your claims or an apology. Consider this your final warning before I seek escalation of this matter. 67.124.200.240 12:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Seek all the escalation you want, BD. I've provided supporting evidence (more of which is to come) on the Ann Coulter Talk Page. I will present my evidence of your sockpuppet use in arbitration and let the arbitrators decide. Cheers. Eleemosynary 13:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

You got some nerve accusing me of that garbage. You want to know my IP address? JUST ASK NEXT TIME.Gator1 14:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Always a good method of researching possible sockpuppetry... just ask! Eleemosynary 16:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Now that you know I'm not a sockpuppet, I hope you can apologize. If I falsely accused someone I would certainly eat some crow and do that for them. That was a serious and ugly accusation that hurts a person;s reputation. When made incorrectly, you owe that person an apology.Gator1 15:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I only inquired it of a third party researcher, and never "accused" you of something. Thus, no apologies are necessary. Cheers. (By the way, I do not yet "know" you are not a sockpuppet, but I'd be grateful if you could point me toward that info. Thanks.) Eleemosynary 16:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Apology accepted.Gator1 16:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

LOL! I didn't apologize. But of course, you know that. Speaking of sockpuppets, there have been some very juicy revelations of late, wouldn't you say? But what I don't understand is... why did you blank them from your Talk page. Oh, well... thank goodness for the history pages! Eleemosynary 16:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

worrying about sockpuppetry is really kind of pointless, unless it's an issue of counting votes. what does it matter who said what; it's what's said that matters. but anyway, i highly doubt that gator is a sockpuppet. you can usually tell by the little things like punctuation and favorite words and turns of phrase and such as that. Derex 16:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Usually, but not always. And it's completely possible that's he's not, but there's no harm in checking. By the way, there was an administrative IP check on BD777 recently that seems to have unearthed a whole bunch of sockpuppets he was using... including ones containing hilarious back and forth protestations that he was not a sockpuppet. There was a good, in-depth conversation about it on Gator's Talk page. But for some reason... Gator blanked it! Hmmmm. Eleemosynary 16:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Read his edit summary - there was nothing sinister in blanking the conversation. Guettarda 16:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I've read it, and while it may not be sinister, it is in fact curious. I'm really not going to expend more time on Gator today. Read his puerile responses to my non-apologies, and you'll be able to figure out why. He's demonstrating the Wiki equivalent of sticking fingers in both ears and going NYANYANYANYANYAIAMNOTLISTENING!!!! Eleemosynary 17:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to unblank it if you think there is a cover up. I for one have no idea what you're talking about so couldn't find it if I wanted to. oh and is this an accsation or just another "inquiry?" I'll accept your forthcoming apology now. (give it up)Gator1 16:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Nope, still no apology. You have no idea what I'm talking about? Okay, I'll spell it out. Guetterda and you had a conversation on your Talk Page (under the caring, gentle heading "Since BD can no longer speak for himself"), in which Guetterda presented you with evidence of the administrator investigation and IP check of BD777's many sockpuppets. Not long after that happened, you blanked the message. Not much longer after that, you blanked the entire conversation.

By the way, here are the results of the IP check.

There are no results of the IP check there. The only thing I have found on the subject is a statement by Fred Bauder that the results of the IP check were ambiguous: [4]. Do you have a real link to the real results of the IP check? Do you have a link to the diffs where results were posted on Gator's page? Jdavidb 16:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

In case anyone like me is researching, here's the diff on Gator's page [5]. Nothing there but the same (broken) link to the same non-results. Jdavidb (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I just read your spirited defense of BD777, and your argument that he wasn't using sockpuppets until recently. I disagree, based on some pretty damning correlations between BD777's postings, and both anonymous ID's in question on the Coulter page. When I have a bit more time, I'll post my own argument under yours. Though more research is being done on the sockpuppetry, there is no question that some sockpuppetry has been unearthed. I trust the administrators' judgments who have temporarily blocked BD777 based on their judgment calls and the evidence at hand. You yourself have suggested BD777 may have recently begun using sockpuppets (as, I might add, he has promised to do). As for "real results" of the IP check, my link is not broken and works fine. Now, I don't really want to get into an argument about it. I'd rather await the arbitration results and enjoy the reason I started using Wiki in the first place... to edit an encyclopedia. Eleemosynary 16:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The anchor of the link is broken. There is no place for #Sockpuppets to go to. You mean #Sockpuppets_of_BigDaddy777.

I'm not defending BD777 in general, but I am disputing the charges of sockpuppetry.

Whatever sockpuppetry has been unearthed appears to have involved some or all of the users you listed, but as of yet I've seen no statement from David Gerard that it involved BigDaddy. You keep linking to nothing but a list of names as proof.

I have no problem with BD being blocked. I could reverse it myself if I cared to, and I sure don't.

If BD has started using sockpuppets, it's because he was more or less goaded into doing so. Jdavidb (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with your last statement. BD777 has been a highly abusive and destructive editor, so claiming his use of sockpuppets was from being "goaded" is a bit of stretch, at least to me. I would suggest he's been using the anonymous sockpuppets for some time to build consensus on the Coulter page. I also take issue with your contention that the anonymous IPS on the Coulter page cannot be him because they have a different tone than BD777's rants. On the contrary. One of the more sophisticated(?) uses of sockpuppetry is having a few that sound nothing like the primary user, so as to better give the impression that the primary user is (falsely) building consensus. You've taken the position that the IP check is not "proof." It may not be incontrovertible, ironclad proof at this point, but it's very likely the beginning of something. Again, we disagree. I look forward to the arbitration decision, though. For the love of sanity, if nothing else. Eleemosynary 17:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

You've misunderstood. I have not taken the position that the IP check is not proof. I have taken the position that noone has ever posted any IP check results. The posting there is just a list of names. There is no statement from anyone that BD was any of those people. There are no posted results of an IP check anywhere that I can see, or else the posting on the Workshop page needs to be clarified to actually say what it means. As near as I can tell, that list of names was placed there by Fred Bauder. He has neither confirmed nor denied that that posting is "results of an IP check" or "record of an IP check in progress." But he HAS stated that the results of the IP check were ambiguous. Unless you have something I do not, there are no public results of an IP check. I'm waiting for a statement from Fred Bauder to clarify if the stuff over at Workshop is supposed to be the results of an IP check or not.

As for goading, my statement was not that any sockpuppeting done by BD in the past was prompted by goading. My statement only concerns some stuff that happened this morning on his talk page. Jdavidb (talk) 19:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I haven't misunderstood you, nor do I understand your contentious tone. Considering the fact that BD777 severely attacked you on his Talk Page, I can see why you might be upset right now. But I have no desire to get into a talk page war. And as far as "goading" goes, BD777 (as you may now understand) needs no "goading" to revert to abuse, childishness, or sockpuppets. "Remarkable restraint," indeed. Eleemosynary 19:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Understand it now? Yeah, I thought so. And I accept your apology. Eleemosynary 16:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

If you feel I have wronged you in any way, then I apologize and regret not doing so earlier. Thank you for calling me on that. You're a class act.Gator1 17:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Actually, Eleemosynary, I do think there's a harm in checking. I think a sockpuppet check is a good idea when a vote or the appearance of a consensus is seriously disputed, with strong probable cause of sockpuppetry. Otherwise, it's just a distraction. It promotes a culture of calling "sockpuppet" instead of responding to arguments. It's sort of like arguing that the US 4th amendment against searches is pointless, because if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear. Maybe that's just the libertarian in me. But, I also think there's probably a thoughtful reason why sockpuppet checks are made difficult here. Derex 20:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I would agree with you in most cases. And this whole sordid BD777 affair (which has finally degenerated, like many third-rate tragedies, into farce[6]) has left a lot of mud on the walls. But again, it was only an inquiry, supported not by vindictiveness or a hunch, but stemming from BD777's (now apparently untrue) protestations that he never used sockpuppets, and Gator's immediate leap to decry the admins who ran the IP checks. It's all a bit "the lady doth protest too much methinks."

I also agree that, in the overwhelming majority of disputes, "sockpuppet" accusations are and can be damaging to the group spirit. But this BD777 case is a special case indeed, soon to draw (one hopes) to a just and fair conclusion. Eleemosynary 02:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BigDaddy777

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BigDaddy777 has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BigDaddy777/Evidence Fred Bauder 15:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

64.154.26.251

The following is the response I have sent to the person behind Viper Daimao (talk · contribs). The ip is an open proxy at Haliburton Corporation. I think most folks using it are just Haliburton employees doing ordinary editing, not connected to our edit warriors.

I have thought overnight about the proxy 64.154.26.251. There are two problems, one of the edit warriors from Ann Coulter was using it extensively as an alternative to a block of their account (At this point I don't know which, but you could look at the user contributions for 64.154.26.251 (talk · contribs) and figure it out. That takes a bit of time and actually doesn't matter (exactly who was using the proxy as a sockpuppet). The other problem is that you, and other Wikipedia users, those named on the /Workpage, were also using the proxy. Bottom line, once a vandal discovers an open proxy we can't leave it unblocked. I'm sorry for the inconvenience. It does not seem reasonable to request Halliburton to identify them and block them.

Use of the open proxy seems to be part of the arbitration case involving BigDaddy777, it actually is not as that case centers on personal behavior of a person you and the other users of the open proxy have no connection to.

Fred Fred Bauder 12:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Move for a temporary injunction against BigDaddy777

A move for a temporary injunction has been filed to prevent BD from altering or removing comments on his talk page. Please support. --Woohookitty 07:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Personal comments

• revd the commentary of the leftwing nutjob. [7]

Please do not make personal attacks on other contributors. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In serious cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be banned from editing. Comment on content, not on the contributor. For further help, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Thank you. -Willmcw 00:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I guess your Arbitration Decision failed to convince you. You will be now reported for personal attacks. Eleemosynary 03:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I made that comment on purpose. I made the comment to point out the one-sidedness of the policy. In the same article just two edits before you, Eleemosynary, called an editor a "rightwing nutjob." So what we have here is an example of the system where the people that constantly engages in personal attacks, Eleemosynary, and he/she is the first person to file Arbitration complaints against others. Thank you, Eleemosynary, for making my point for me. --- --Keetoowah 12:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

You misunderstand, as usual. You are also mistaken in your accusation that I filed any Arbitration complaint against you. Nope (though others thankfully did). Your marked pattern of POV, vandalism, and personal attacks deftly classifies you as a "right wing nutjob." I'm surprised you don't embrace the rubric. Eleemosynary 03:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Willmcw: How come you did not warn Eleemosynary when he made this comment that I found on the Talk page for Kathy Lopez --- :I re-added the C-Span photo. Why exactly, don't the wingnuts want anyone to see what Lopez looks like? Are they ashamed?  :)--Eleemosynary 06:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Have a good day Willmcw and Eleemosynary, your silly one-sidedness has been exposed. --- --Keetoowah 12:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't you be working on filing on arbitration complaint against me? LOL! Eleemosynary 03:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Keetoowah is correct that disparaging comments about other editors is not helpful. This, for instance:

• Why don't the wingnuts want anyone to see it?

is not conducive to building a collegial editing atmostphere. Please focus on the edits, rather than the editors. Thanks, -Willmcw 19:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Worst supporting actress razzie

I was curious if you have a reason for removing Condoleezza Rice from Category:Worst Supporting Actress Razzie nominees as she was indeed nominated for this category last year. --Fallout boy 07:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The Category of Razzies seems to be overkill. It is not just Condi Rice. It is all of them. Even the people that I don't particularly like. There is no real value in constantly talking about the Razzies as if they are important, etc. They aren't important. They are superficial and shallow. The category should be removed entirely for all receipients. I mean, it make sense to mention the Razzie in the article (for whomever), but creating a whole new category that is redundant and it places the Razzie in a context that it does not deserve. --- --Keetoowah 00:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Nope. Keetowah is rather famous 'round these parts as a shameless POV disseminator, personal attacker, and vandal. He's even been disciplined by the arbitration committee. The "Razzie" category is completely fine for the Rice article, and will remain. Eleemosynary 03:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Eleemosynary, why do you feel the need to libel me throughout Wikipedia. If you don't stop, I have several examples and this is just one, then I will file an Arbitration claim against you--even though I find the Arbitration process to be silly and it tends to limit free speech. Concerning the Razzie awards, I just expressed an opinion and you more.however your constant and repeated personal attacks on me must stop. --- --Keetoowah 13:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I haven't made any "personal attacks" on you. I have pointed out that you're a vandal, and I have the proof to back it up. Go ahead and file your arbitration claim. Like so many other of your Wikipedia crusades, it will be baseless and amount to nothing. Eleemosynary 00:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Your recent comment to Big Daddy

I'm sorry to bring it up, but please try not to "taunt" or try to ridicule other editors, no matter who they are. I know the, how should I say, interesting past between the two of you, but I encourage you to not act like you are better than others. He is gone, so it may be time to move on. Sorry to have to bring anything up. See you around my friend. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

No worries. Thank you for your understanding. We can't let people push us to do what we shouldn't. I hope you, and everyone for that matter, can refrain from such hostility towards those we disagree with, even people as bombastic as BD. I appreciate your acknowledgment of your error. See ya. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

3RR on Matt Drudge

I had blocked you for violating 3RR; however, I'm willing to let it slide if you don't edit the sexuality part of the article for 24 hours. If you do edit this part of the article, you will be blocked, no questions asked. Ral315 (talk) 21:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I had blocked Giles32 as well, but I saw that he had been trying to work it out on the talk page, so I unblocked both of you. See my suggestion on how to restructure that paragraph and make it a bit more NPOV (you might have to scroll upward a bit) Ral315 (talk) 23:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Making Amends

So we don't see eye to eye on a lot of things, but maybe there's some common ground. I noticed that you are a fan of film (from your Felini edits). That's cool. Can I assume that you appreciate Woody Allen as well? Please come help me at his entry. Some of the material on the site is completely inaccurate and inappropriate, e.g. "white man with an Asian fetish." I fear an edit war is on the horizon. I'm trying to build a consensus and would appreciate your input. It is not a very popular talk page to say the least. Giles22

I very much appreciate Woody Allen, and I'm all for moving on. See you on the page. Eleemosynary 00:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

How pathetic. "White man with Asian fetish" has been removed and he uses that to draw you in? -71.112.11.220 18:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Awww.... someone's a widdle sad their little POV campaign is over. LOL! Eleemosynary 18:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Where have you been? I need your help on the Woody page. Giles22 20:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Disagreed with your Al Franken edit but, nice job on Mark Levin.

I disagreed with your recent edit on Al Franken re his apology to conservative leaders and I'm happy to discuss at length if you want. Just wanted to acknowledge, however, that you are SPOT on with your Mark Levin edits. Liberal POV jumps out and grabs me (due to my beliefs) but conservative POV is just as ugly. Nice job.  :-) Lawyer2b 21:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Mark Levin

Thanks for the nice note. Articles about strident radio personalities seem to attract strident editors. Cheers, -Will Beback 18:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's not be too strident ourselves. Things get heated enough around here without making thing harsh over a speakers bureau. The first spamblast was in August by a different account, so it is not blatant or acute. However, if they do a third run my patience may not last. One of the worst cases I recall was Fresno, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), with a real estate agent who kept sneaking his website URL into the text for months. He was doing it from multiple IP and oblivious to reverts, etc. I think we finally got his attention when I posted a note on the talk page, and it began showing up in Google. I was biting my tongue when I wrote it, and I think he realized that. Most businesses don't deserve, and are better off without, a Wikipedia article or even mention. -Will Beback 04:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It's just another annoyance on a heap of annoying abuses of Wikipedia, and I plead guilty over having a bit of a hair trigger. Yesterday, I learned about the Free Republic attack at the beginning of the year. The madness, apparently, will never end. Eleemosynary 04:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there was more, or rather less, to that "attack" than is obvious at first glance. It seems to have really been one disgruntled Wikipedian who sought to gain revenge by starting a war between FR and WP. However if you read the comments of regular Freepers they mostly all recognized his agenda and blew him off. The prevailing attitude there towards Wikipedia was more dismissive than combative. I don't know if any new editors came over, and we didn't really see much activity from it. It may in fact have been related to the "press release" about pedophiles on Wikipedia, also put out by a disgruntled editor. What I really like are the boycotts of Wikipedia. I mean, what's the point? -Will Beback 06:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Mark Levin II

I agree with what you are trying to do on the Levin article in terms of excessive POV, advertising his book and the excessive quotations, but stop putting in ones that Levin did not use (unless you can identify a source and cite it). I've changed the remaining 5 to ones that no one would ever dispute Levin using, as they are used most every night. Back door smears under the guise of cleaning up the article are still just as POV as some of the other stuff you fixed.

Comments on Levin

Sorry, I'm so busy dealing with anti-userbox crusade that I haven't had the time to comment on Mark Levin. I agree with 95% of your edits. My suggestion is that you allow 14 nick names to be listed as Mike Malloy has the same amount and it seems to be a fair comparison. Keep holding down the fort. Whoever wants to list radio station air times must be in PR. Ridiculous. LOL Lawyer2b 05:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I have no problem with 14 nicknames. The article has now been locked, and the anonymous user has deposited another screed on the Talk page. If you get a chance, any comments coming from a conservative user such as yourself on the Talk page should be quite helpful. Thanks again. Eleemosynary 18:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

LISTING THE AIR TIME THE SHOW IS ON, IS PR???? IT IS PROBABLY THE MOST VITAL PIECE OF INFORMATION THERE IS, TO SOMEONE LOOKING FOR INFORMATION ABOUT A PROGRAM. OF COURSE THAT"S IF THIS SITE WERE TO BE USED AS AN ECYCLOPEDEIA AND REFERENCE TOOL, RATHER THAN A PLACE WHERE LIBERAL BIAS, BY THOSE OF YOU WITH A POLITICAL AGENDA, SEEMS TO RULE. -- 205.188.116.69

Thanks for checking in, Mark. Eleemosynary 00:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Word... er, User of the day?

Congrats on your accomplishments... ;-) Sorry I'm a few days late.

This is what I am talking about. Cheers. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I saw that too! I immediately laughed and thought of wikipedia.Giles22 21:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Thanks. Eleemosynary 23:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Everything seems to come back to Wikipedia! It's taking over the world. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 00:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Powerline's Retraction of Schiavo Memo - Substantiation?

El, You clipped a piece of Powerline's article re Hinderaker's retraction on their "Schiavo Memo" flub, claiming that it was unsubstantiated and POV.

Now, I'm sort of new to Wikipedia - but I'm a colleague of Hinderakers, and in fact they did retract their story "as soon as possible" - as in, as fast as they could write it.

Just curious - where's the POV? Mitchberg 10:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It's unsubstantiated because, as of my revision, there was no demonstrable independent evidence supporting it.

First-person accounts (e.g., "I'm a colleague...") fall under the heading of "original research," and are not an acceptable Wikipedia encyclopedic standard. That's not my rule; it's Wikipedia's.[8]

While it's not horrendously POV, it does smack of POV damage control. "As soon as possible" can be construed as a post facto way of trying to burnish Power Line's reputation after it made a mistake. Your revision to "prompt" is more NPOV.

I don't wish to further stir the pot, but there's some question as to whether Power Line's "retraction" was a full retraction at all. Beginning with the querulous heading "Mystery Solved?" the entire "retraction" post is several miles short of a mea culpa, and is begrudging at best. Eleemosynary 02:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Jim Aubrey

Thanks very much for your praise. And great user name, by the way. PedanticallySpeaking 15:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Jill Carroll

Glad you liked it. Feel free to include it wherever you deem appropriate. - Jersyko·talk 21:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

regarding Clarence Thomas

Replied on my talk page, in case you missed it. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Laurie David

Hi, User:Eleemosynary. Regarding your reverts to Laurie David, I disagree that consensus has been reached since every revert by one editor clearly is a disagreement with another and there has been no discussion here. I can't speak for past edits, but my most current contribution presented both sides to offer a neutral point of view and cite very credible sources in mainstream media. The controversy section only contains documented facts from credible sources, including the subject of the article. Please discuss any further changes in Talk:Laurie David. Dbchip 04:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Pioneer Playhouse

Do not reinsert the defamation regarding Pioneer Playhouse until you can source it to a reputable source. There is no such newspaper as the "Lexington Star-Tribune". Let's put an end to this edit war. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea whether the paper exists or not. Until your message on my Talk page, no one had made that claim. I will, however, be deleting egregious advertising/plagiarism from the page. Eleemosynary 16:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

As I've indicated in the talk page, the content you refer to as "plagiarism" appears to have been contributed with permission, and as such is not plagiarism. If you feel that it is "egregious advertising" I suggest you edit it. Repeatedly removing it, as you are doing and especially without comment or discussion, is edit warring and incivil, and if you persist you will be blocked. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Spare me the threats, and please assume good faith. "I have reason to believe" is hardly a Wiki standard. When you show your reason (and if it's legit), then you may reinsert it. Your threats to block are uncivil and combative. In removing plagiarism, I am adhering to a Wiki standard. Eleemosynary 16:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I have informed you that it's not plagiarism; I am in receipt of communications from an employee of the theatre authorizing the content. Your insistence that it is "plagiarism" is misfounded, and you are edit warring by repeatedly reverting without discussion. I'll be glad to pass this matter onto another administrator if you feel that I'm being unreasonable. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Woody Allen

Hey, can you come weigh in on the current debate on the Woody Allen page? Thanks!Giles22 12:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks like we are starting to move towards a resolution. I'm curious to know your thoughts on the rewrite.Giles22 17:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

your note

Thank you for your comment. I would very much appreciate it if you woudl email me at [email protected]. There are some matters concerning the revert that I would like to discuss with you personally. Danny 16:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You have mail. Eleemosynary 21:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

More related pages (Re: Mark Simone)

You should check the WABC (AM) page for more personalities who have pages similar to Mark Simone. Particularly, those during the "Musicradio 77" days. I'll show you a list of possible names from the article:

Early 1960s disc jockeys included Herb Oscar Anderson, Charlie Greer, Scott Muni, and Bob Lewis, but the best known WABC DJs are the ones that followed them in the mid-1960s and beyond: Harry Harrison, Ron Lundy, Jim Nettleton, Jim Perry, Dan Ingram, Radio Hall of Fame member "Cousin Brucie" Bruce Morrow, Chuck Leonard, Bob Cruz, Frank Kingston Smith, Roby Yonge, George Michael and Johnny Donovan. Also heard on WABC was sportscaster Howard Cosell.

Also, the Rewound page and the Saturday Night Oldies pages should also be reviewed. The edits of related pages from Nycjobs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should also help. ErikNY 01:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look. Eleemosynary 02:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I watchlisted the page. If this continues for much longer, I'll semi protect it. --Woohookitty^(meow) 06:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

In response to your RFI: talk page blanking is vandalism, and can be reported to WP:AIV after warning. The article edits aren't necessarily vandalism, but as Woohookitty says, page protection can be applied. See WP:RFPP if you need to post a request for that. If the edits aren't that frequent though you are best off just watchlisting and reverting when need. Cheers, Petros471 17:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Star Jones Reynolds

It seems to me that you have acted in an uncivil manner on Talk:Star Jones Reynolds. It is important to keep a cool head, despite any comments against you. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and action can be taken against the other parties if necessary. Your involvement in attacking back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors, and lead to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! Lbbzman 02:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Kathyrn Jean Lopez

Hi, I noticed you reverted someone who added her birthdate as 1976. Given that she graduated from university in 1997, 1976 makes a lot more sense than 1963. I was wondering if you had any additional information on her age? (Just giving the month and day looks kinda silly imho). Thanks. Makgraf 02:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The List of notable CUA alumni gives it as 1997. To confirm that, I went to the Catholic University Office of Alumnai Relations here [9] and typed in Lopez , K , 1997 which shows a "Kathryn Lopez" from "NY" that graduated at that date. Makgraf 04:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, how does "probably" sound to you? Makgraf 20:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

RE: Limbaugh

In response to your note on my talk page (this is posted there as well):

You're right in that Limbaugh's page is littered with fancruft, and I submit that none of it really belongs there. Given the amount of People magazine-type garbage that seems to infect the pages of all celebrities, it's kind of a pointless battle to start. I don't feel strongly one way or another, but my instincts are telling me that four paragraphs about a story that turned out not to be a story is too much. From the talk page, I got the impression you agreed in part on that measure. I don't have the time (or interest) to fix/remove the section right now. Every time I make edits to that page I'm leaped upon by Limbaugh fans who suffer little disparaging material, including the removal and rephrasing of laudatory material. It's a tough page to work on. Thanks for stopping by and offering your opinion and insight. Bjsiders 03:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks.

No problem. I'm still pretty confused as to why someone would want to make Neoconservatism look like Libertarianism. --User:Zaorish

An Invitation

I've looked over your edit work and I'm impressed with your reasonable attitude towards political theory and political rhetoric. If you've got time, I would appreciate it if you would review my addition of Aristotle to Contributions to liberal theory. --Zaorish 19:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

"Controversial Statements" section in Rush Limbaugh

I noticed that you restored this section, minus the neutrality dispute and citation needed templates, claiming that there was no consensus to delete the section. Could you please take a look at Talk:Rush Limbaugh#NPOV problems with new "Controversial Statements" section and comment there on how the restored section addresses any of the problems that caused the original deletion? --Allen3 ^talk 02:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I took a look at the section. The "problems" that caused the original deletion were not "problems" at all, but POV-based, non-sourced opinions presented to whitewash the section from the article. The deletion was precipitate. Feel free to copy my response to the Limbaugh Talk page. Eleemosynary 05:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Irregardless of the level of obfuscation employed in defense of the section, the fact remains that the claims made by introductory paragraph and section title were unsourced original research that extrapolated the views of partisan sources to reach their desired end (neither source used by the section claims that the quoted statement caused controversy). As Wikipedia policy places the burden of evidence for verifiability on the party desiring to add the information, the ball is back in your court to provide a reliable source to support the claim that the statement was controversial instead of merely disputed by partisan parties in general disagreement with Limbaugh. --Allen3 ^talk 11:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Mark_Levin talk page comments

Please try to keep things civil on the Mark Levin page. I have no beef with you and you have no basis to make accusations for an editor not making good faith edits. Our interactions so far on that page have been civil and I think what we need there is consensus, not more of the revert wars that seem to be the norm on that article. Thank you.FLeeLevin 12:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I indeed have several bases to categorically state you are making (albeit subtle) bad faith edits on the Mark Levin page. Your edit history is confined to tamping down criticism of Levin, and dismissing sites that criticize him as "unremarkable blogs" and "press releases." Your two non-Levin edits (as of yesterday) were to tamp down criticism of Bob Grant and WABC. Wikipedia has several editors who seem extremely interested solely in burnishing the reputations of WABC radio personalities, and are probably employees of the station, or of PR firms the station employs. I have reason to believe you're one of them. Eleemosynary 00:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Your accusations are categorically untrue. I registered for this site after being directed here to view some of the controversety and otright vandalism taking place on the Levin artivle. My *one* other non-Levin edit had to do with reverting an unsubstantiated, POV statement about WABC (where I surfed to fromt he Levin page) only employing White, Male, Republicans (or some such nonsense). I think any other editor also would have reverted that. But back to the topic, I have no interest in being dragged down into the flame and revert wars that have held this page hostage (and you always seem to be in the middle of, based on an objective review of edit history). My question stands - is Wikipedia meant to be a clearing house for *all* blog entries of a personality, no matter how relevant the entry is? I ask you again to stay civil and don't make false accusations for which you have no basis whatsoever.FLeeLevin 13:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Your straw man arguments and huffing aside, you are not editing in good faith. Eleemosynary 16:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I ask again that you please remain civil and assume good faith. I have made numerous edits to help improve the Levin article (including reverting vandalism and violations of the consensus that only 5 "Levin-isms" at a time be included). I would be fine with a Media Matters link in this article, assuming it was of relevance (and one other editor, above, agrees on this not being the best example to include). I also stand by my question on whether this article need be a clearinghouse for every single mention of Levin in a blog, regardless of relevance. Or should we employ some standard (as used on many other articles) where representative, relevant items are included. My edit to the WABC page that you keep bringing up was to revert blatant POV (I invite any other editors to take a look for themselves). I have never edited Bob Grant's article, so I don't know what you are talking about there. I don't see any edit to that article in my history. Regardless, I find your beligerance and repeated unsubstantiated accusations that I work for WABC or a PR firm to be insulting and against Wikipedia rules. Please refrain from this. I'm here to participate in this communal effort and to help this particular article rise above the flames, revert wars and partisan hostage holding it has been subject to. I have no other skin in the game outside of an interest in the subject of the article and and won't respond in kind to the style of combatativeness that you are employing. FLeeLevin 20:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I am going to mediate this dispute. See article talk. Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Peace?

Hi. I'd like to address your issue with Kelly Martin and the death threats, with the goal of maybe helping you calm down a bit.

You did do the right thing in reporting the death threats, yes. And the anonymous user who made those threats has indeed been blocked.

And the death threats were removed from the database. You can understand why that was done, right? The relevant edits by User:666.666.666.666 don't need to be on the database, and in fact they need to not be on the database. They're death threats. So they've been oversighted out.

The problem is that you included the threats in your report, when you could have simply included a link to the diff. That meant that, in order to totally remove the death threats... your report had to be oversighted out as well. I understand that it's frustrating, but the dumbass who made the threats has been blocked, and the threats have been removed. So... well, to be honest, I don't really see what your problem is. Can you explain it to me?

Oh, and while I have your attention - The only reason to deliberately and repeatedly use male pronouns for Kelly Martin is to cause distress; this makes you seem like a petulant child who's obsessed with boobies and weenies. And I can tell, from your work on Cindy Sheehan and [[Mel [Gibson]], among others, that you are not a child.

I look forward to your response. DS 04:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dragonfly. To respond:

Very calm here, first of all. But many thanks for your concern.

Thanks for explaining the policy. However, if every single trace of the death threat (including questions about the threat that did not contain the threat) is removed from Wikipedia without explanation, that appears to be scrubbing. And when such scrubbing is not followed by any explanation after repeated requests for one, that makes it even look more like scrubbing.

That was my "problem." Questions I posed to "Kelly Martin" about why the death threats were removed were scrubbed as well, without comment. Rather Orwellian.

And no, I don't see why the death threats had to be "oversighted out" immediately. Such an action impedes the work of law enforcement in investigating a crime. It sounds like a CYA policy. Surely Wikipedia's "no legal threats" policy doesn't mean "do not report a death threat to appropriate law enforcement." Wouldn't Wikipedia want to assist law enforcement in pursuing a death threat, rather than run the risk of destroying evidence?

As far as the male pronouns for "Kelly Martin" go, "Kelly" is both a male and female first name. The photo on "Kelly Martin"'s page appears to be of a man. "Kelly Martin"'s insistence of using such inane code as "e" for "he" might be a self-justifying crusade, but it's not one I need to subscribe to. But my problem with "Kelly Martin" is not one of sexual orientation.

"Kelly Martin" has a well-documented history of causing disruptions on Wikipedia. .[10][11] No doubt you're familiar with some of them. Issuing me an "infinite block," running a checkuser, and then locking my Talk Page was yet another instance of disruptive petulance on "Kelly Martin"'s part.

On top of that, the reason "Kelly Martin" stated for placing the block on my IP Address and User Name was that I "threatened to publicize information that should not be made public to Wikitruth." An outright lie. I learned a bit more about "Kelly Martin" on Wikitruth, but I never threatened to publicize any info there. And just who is "Kelly Martin" to dictate what information "should not be made public"?

The answer: "Kelly Martin" is a liar and a bully. And to have such an individual riding roughshod over Wikipedia only serves to hurt Wikipedia's reputation.

But I do thank you for taking the time to respond.

Eleemosynary 06:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sir or Madam:

The concealment ("scrubbing", as you refer to it) of death threats using the oversight tool from Wikipedia is standard operating procedure. I was acting at the request of Wikimedia Foundation staff when I did so. Those actions in no way impede the actions of law enforcement; oversighted edits are still available on the server and can be retrieved by Foundation staff should law enforcement wish to examine them.

Your persistent claims that I am "a liar and a bully" are baseless personal attacks and must cease. What hurts Wikipedia's reputation is not my dedicated efforts to protect it, but rather people like you who make mountains out of molehills, and focus on irrelevancies in order to create drama and controversy when none should exist. It is not welcome here, and if you do not cease, you will not be welcome here either.

Your "repeated requests" were all made during a very short period of time (four messages spanning approximately 24 minutes), during which I was on the phone with Danny and not in a position to respond to your inquiries. Your impatience with the situation and escalation of the matter into personal slanders and attacks, combined with what reasonably appeared to be a threat to publicize a situation that the Foundation did not wish publicized, necessitated a protective block pending a more deliberate review of the situation by Foundation legal counsel.

This is not the sort of topic we prefer to discuss on open channels, and you have not provided an email address or other non-private communication channel. In such situations, the only way to deal with the situation is to block the user with instructions to contact via email. The need to block you and disable your ability to post to your talk page were necessary steps required to protect Wikipedia, and were precipitated by your own impatience, suspiciousness, and hostility. They were unfortunate, and I wish I had not had to do them, but I saw no other option under the circumstances.

Brad has informed me that you contacted him and the situation was explained to you. Given your recent communications, apparently either Brad did not explain it to you satisfactorily or you have refused to accept his explanations. Your continued hostile behavior toward me is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. If you have further questions or concerns about this matter, I suggest you address them through private channels such as email or telephone. Kelly Martin (talk) 11:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You are continuing to lie and bully.

You have misstated the nature of my requests. No threats were made to "publicize" anything. By saying such threats were made, you were inventing a reason to justify blocking me, as the facts were not on your side.

You are engaging in slander and misinformation. I emailed Danny, not Brad, about your actions. Neither Danny nor Brad responded. It is a falsehood for you to suggest that Brad and I had any interaction. It sounds like you're trying to engage in triangulation. It won't work.

You are also projecting. "Impatience, suspiciousness, and hostility" best describe your actions, not mine.

You have a long, documented history of crying foul whenever your often malicious and spiteful actions are questioned.[12][13] When facts are presented to you, you block, rant, and obfuscate. Your recent behavior is not surprising. What's surprising is you still have sysop privileges.

And your stock-in-trade is intimidation. In your own words:

"Might I suggest that this discussion is pointless and irritating and should be terminated? I've already admitted that my intention were to intimidate. Of course they were. One doesn't threaten a block unless one's intentions are to intimidate. Anybody who says otherwise is lying (possibly to themselves). Since it is generally accepted practice that admins are expected to intimidate malcontents prior to blocking them, I would hope that we all now agree that intimidation of users is acceptable practice, under at least some circumstances, on Wikipedia. Can we now stop beating that particular equine? I'm getting really tired of the juvenile verbal jousting that is passing for debate here. It's not interesting, it's certainly not helpful, and it is neither appreciated nor welcome. Thank you, and have a nice day." [14]

Your attempts to intimidate will be ignored. If I "won't be welcome here" for standing up to your nonsense, so be it. By engaging in threats rather than owning up to your mistakes, you continue to hurt Wikipedia's name. Eleemosynary 17:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

More info on the death threats, personal attacks, etc.

I would like to agree with Billy Blythe and urge you to read WP:LEGAL.--Runcorn 19:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Runcorn. A brief history of this unfortunate affair: Billy Blythe left a death threat on this page (as well as at least one other page. The specific nature of the threat (in language quite similar to Billy Blythe's other threat [15], was so damning and incendiary that the Wikimedia Foundation chose to remove it from the public database (see DS's comments above). I retain a copy, and have been assured by a sysop that a copy is also on the Wikimedia servers, in case it needs to be used for law enforcement perusal, etc.

That is the original "legal threat" this pertains to. "Billy" is obviously stung by being found out, and is employing a heck of lot of projection in response. I've removed his latest unhinged personal attack (in which he, interestingly enough, does nothing to deny he left the death threat, and screams like a lunatic that contacting the police would be to no avail) but you can still read it here.[16]

Wishful thinking on his part, I suppose.

I'm well aware of WP:LEGAL. But when an unhinged user decides to unleash a death threat, playing by Queensbury Rules seems hardly appropriate. Eleemosynary 22:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

"Billy Blythe"

Hi, Guy (and any other interested users, admins, sysops, etc.):

Billy Blythe placed a death threat on this page approximately two weeks ago under an anonymous IP address, in specific language and tone similar to a previous death threat he placed on Wikipedia. A review of his editing history shows he is quite fond of making death threats. I called him out on it on his page. And, predictably, he ran screaming to an admin begging to block me. However, Billy Blythe did not tell the entire story. It's the all-too-frequent novice user tactic of trying to "game the system." Thank goodness for the history pages.

The spectacle of a user fond of making death threats crying foul over personal attacks and legal threats is amusing, to say the least. Here's Billy Blythe's previous death threat.[17] The one he made to me is still on the servers of the Wikimedia foundation, and no doubt Danny Wool can pull it up if an admin or bureaucrat would like to see it.

I would also direct anyone interested to this case to Billy Blythe's comments here[18]. They are quite telling.

I look forward to a full investigation of Billy Blythe's actions which necessitated my responses. As for the Mindy Kaling page, there was not an Office Action indicated as such. The page just simply disappeared one day, with no comment from the Foundation on the Talk Page for the reason for the disappearance. I'm willing to have my edits removed from any page after consensus is reached, but I won't take seriously any user employing death threats in lieu of discourse.

Thus, I confronted him on his page in no uncertain terms.[19] And I stand by every single word.

I welcome a full review of this matter, including the death threat Billy Blythe placed on this page, and its similarity to language of previous death threats he's placed on at least one other Wikipedia page. Eleemosynary 22:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You would need CheckUser evidence to confirm that, otherwise it is supposition. Guy 21:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, by all means run a checkuser on him. Danny Wool (or a Bureaucrat with the necessary sysop priveleges) should be able to produce the death threat from the Wikimedia servers. I've been asked by two admins not to repost it. Once you see it, I think you will find the tone and language identical to his other threats of violence on Wikipedia.

Billy Blythe's goading and continued threats (please see his latest threat) [20] are quite telling. Here are two threats of violence to other users that Billy Blythe has issued in the last 24 hours: [21] [22] Eleemosynary 21:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

And here's some more personal attacks and sputtering invective from him: [23][24]

I've just seen Billy Blythe has been blocked for incivility[25].Eleemosynary 01:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

And just a scant few hours after his block was removed... another death threat! [26]

And some more goading on his User Page. Honestly, this is going to make things so much easier. [27] Eleemosynary 20:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Billy Blythe/Brian_G._Crawford is TOAST

It is now abundantly clear proven that Billy Blythe is the latest manifestation of permanently banned user Brian_G._Crawford.

Some facts in evidence:

1. Billy Blythe is engaging in the same edit warring (complete with threats) to the same editor on the same article talk pages that he did under his previous user name[28][29].

2. Billy Blythe is once again using Guy as a "go-to" sympathetic admin [30], just as he did when he was posting as Brian_G._Crawford[31]. Though, as of this [32], it appears that ruse is no longer operative.

3. Just as Brian_G._Crawford had a habit of making death threats for which he was later banned, [33], so now is Billy Blythe employing death threats [34] hours after his temporary blocks are removed.

4. Here [35] is a post from Brian_G._Crawford in which, after threatening a user's life, he then goes on to scream about the futility of calling the police. (He also states, in this post, that he has another username, and fully intends to use it after his permanent block).

5. Here [36] is a post from Billy Blythe in which, after threatening a user's life, he then goes on to scream about the futility of calling the police.

6. And, finally... his impotent, cowardly, screaming rage at being found out.[37]

A question to admins/bureacrats looking in: Exactly how many more dots have to be connected before Billy Blythe earns his permanent block? Eleemosynary 04:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, not too many more.[38] Cheers all around. Eleemosynary 11:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Need your assistance

I appreciated your helpful editing on the Rush Limbaugh page. I need your help with the Mitt Romney page. Some folks (perhaps just one?) are intent on keeping the page as a campaign brochure for his future presidential bid. They keep deleting my well-sourced additions of critical info on his tenure as governor of MA. I have tried to engage them on the talk page, but without any success. The result is that I keep hitting against the 3RR while useful information is being censored. Could you lend some backup? Thanks. Notmyrealname 16:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Multiple reverts at Rush Limbaugh

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --Allen3 ^talk 16:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I've responded to you on the Talk Page. And you've dodged my most recent question. I suggest you take another stab at it. Otherwise I'll be giving further comments from you little weight. Eleemosynary 06:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

that revert rule can really be a pain when dealing with a group of bullies. i have run up against it on the limbaugh page myself. please keep checking up on the limbaugh page so that it doesnt turn into/remain a shrine to his infallibility. if more people like you enact checks and balances we will have a better wikipedia. check out how they dont want to mention that he was arrested and they want to make his drug addiction sound benign by making sure to include every time that they were prescriptions.

POV edits to articles concerning Mark Simone

Please do not edit Disc jockey again. You seem to be on an edit war on articles involving Mark Simone. The discussion on the Disc jockey talkpage concerns vanity edits which other editors monitor. A general consensus on Wikipedia is that if someone has an article on Wikipedia and fits another article's parameters, within reason, their name and achievements are included.

Please stop. Ronbo76 05:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Please be careful in your edit summaries. See WP:CIVIL. If you feel someone is adding their name to articles, please take it to an admin board. I have nothing to do with Simon and as per my previous message to you and asking you politely to stop your edits. Ronbo76 05:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If you had checked my history regarding the Simone edits with anything more than a cursory examination, you would have seen what I have done is remove an extensive amount of Pro-Simone POV spam planted by one user trying to game the system through several anonymous IPs.

The Simone information on the Disk jockey page is rife with vanity language. You misstate the "general consensus" of Wikipedia regarding notability. Simone is a disk jockey, but he has by no means achieved the "notability" that would merit inclusion in that section.

I will be editing the Disk jockey article as I see fit, within Wikipedia's standards. Eleemosynary 05:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not fill my page any further. I have all the facts I deem pertinent. If necessary, I will consult you. Thanks, Ronbo76 06:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Too bad the facts were not on your side. Eleemosynary 07:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of cited text WABC (AM)

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Please do not remove valid cited text. Ronbo76 14:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The text in question was not valid, as it did not support the claims made in the article. A single-article reference of a program director's comments does not an encyclopedic fact make. Your warning is superfluous. Eleemosynary 14:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

::Overstriking a warning is form of talkpage vandalism. Please un-strike it. You have had similiar warnings in the past. In addition, you have been blocked before for Wikipedia:Three-revert rule edits. Please, be careful in your edits. Ronbo76 14:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Sending me warning for a justified, explained reversion of a specious edit was a form of vandalism on your part, as well as a violation of WP:POINT. Once again, your warning was superfluous, and was placed on this Talk Page by you in a likely fit of pique over our previous discussion on your Talk page. Please cease sending unmerited warnings as a form of retaliation. Striking your "warning" was merited; it will remain struck. I'm quite familiar with 3RR, blocks, etc. Please desist your obnoxious behavior on this page. Eleemosynary 16:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh Chelsea Clinton

RE:"fake transcript found only on Free Republic"

Are you implying that the transcript that can be ordered would be different? Doug 06:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm implying that a transcript sourced only to Free Republic and right-wing blogs is not an acceptable source, per Wiki policy. (Please see WP:RS.) I've provided links to three separate sources backing up the incident. You seem to be suggesting you'll soon have a transcript, specially "ordered," that will magically dispel the three sources I've provided. Please see WP:NOR. Eleemosynary 07:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I actually went and ordered a bunch of Rush Limbaugh transcripts and they seem to be accurate. But they are primary sources, not secondary. I guess I will look for a secondary source, though I think the burden should be more on those who wish to dispute the WashPo claim --Ausman 16:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Getaway

I think you are being rather harsh with Getaway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He is not sockpuppeting, I just checked. With respect to Robert Byrd, the Klu Klux Klan episode has historically been presented in chronological order. I offer no comment on the proper order, both considerations raised have merit. Fred Bauder 14:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Getaway (aka Keetoowah)

Hi, Fred. Though Getaway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may not have been sockpuppeting/meatpuppeting over the last few days, he has a long, admitted history of it. Please see Woohookitty's comments on his Talk Page [39] for more about this. Getaway engages in bad faith edits, disruptive edits, personal attacks, and disregards consensus with nearly every edit he makes. His red herring tactic is to falsely accuse other editors of exhibiting the same atrocious behavior he is, then direct them toward nonapplicable Wiki policy pages rather than debate the issue at hand. I guess he's upset now that he's being called on it. However, he's going to continue to be called on it. Eleemosynary 19:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, it seems abundantly clear that Getaway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is just the latest incarnation of Keetoowah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as his personal attacks, bad faith edits, and disruptive, consensus-disregarding edits using the exact same words and tactics in the edit summaries of the exact same articles show. More on this soon. : ) Eleemosynary 01:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Eleemosynary, I've talked with Getaway and I'm working on getting him to edit in a more respectful and less disruptive way. I realize he has a long history of conflicts and problems, but I feel like it may be more productive to use carrots rather than sticks in this case. As such I would like to ask that you not to do anything that could be construed as goading or harassing towards Getaway over the next couple weeks. If he truly is intractable, he will just dig a deeper hole for himself, at which point he will probably face disciplinary action regardless of your efforts. If he is still editing in a contentious and disruptive manner, please bring it to my attention and I will attempt to handle it in a judicious and timely manner. Thanks. Kaldari 20:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by, Kaldari. Will do. Time will tell. Eleemosynary 22:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Getaway (aka Keetoowah)

Regardless of what Kaldari says, Getaway has been giving me problems with the Drew Gooden article for about two weeks. For whatever reason he believes he is the authority on what wikipedia is to be used for. I thank you for helping me out...I have never been in this situation before and was becoming very frustrated.

jfialkoff 12:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. Thanks for the kind words. Eleemosynary 19:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

JobsElihu (aka Getaway) (aka Keetoowah)

I believe you are correct in your assertion that JobsElihu is the latest incarnation of the artist formerly known as Getaway and prior to that, as Keetoowah. Among other things worth looking at (I'll only reveal one here) is the interesting spelling of the word 'consensus' that Getaway and JobsElihu seem to have in common. I didn't bother to check Keetoowah because I think you've already established, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Getaway and Keetoowah were the same individual. Cheers! Ossified 19:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC) (By the way, if you should file against JobsElihu, please let me know. Thanks!)

Another sock bites the dust

Read the whole shocking story here: [40] ; ) But please disregard anything I wrote re Crockspot. They weren't part of this. --Eleemosynary 14:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I got it all

I removed all the attacks by Willy Peter (against anyone) from my talk (I think). Take a look and let me know if I missed anything. - Crockspot 14:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you got it. Thanks. --Eleemosynary 14:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

<impotent rant deleted>

Unlike a true Stalinist organization, everything is always still available in the edit history, unless it is specifically deleted by an admin. And even then, admins can still see it. Gotta love the melodrama though. - Crockspot 22:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for dealing with the JoeHazelton sock puppet, I didn't have any clue what VictorCharles exactly wanted me to do. Sorry about the personal attack. --♫Twinkler4♫ ^{(Talk to me!)} 15:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Take care. --Eleemosynary 01:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Soros

Yes you did accurately state my views. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I have not been following the discussion and am dismayed it keeps dragging on.--Samiharris 20:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Have contacted the administrator who originally protected the page.--Samiharris 02:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection declined.--Samiharris 02:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Eleemosynary 02:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Have weighed in on Bill Moyers. I think the question is whether there is a strong consensus to include the O'Reilly material.

There seems to be an epidemic of POV pushing related to journalists. See recent edits to Gary Weiss.--Samiharris 17:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank You very much

I am really surprised that user getaway went to Fred Bauder but I am very greatful for the information that you provided. Thanks again Albion moonlight 06:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Happy to help. --Eleemosynary 06:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Purple Star Award

The Purple Star Given in recognition for doing a great job handling personal attacks, user page vandalism, and dealing with User:Bellowed in the Waterboarding article.

24.7.61.14 03:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Eleemosynary 03:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

That latest thing

Pretend that the source is written about George Soros rather than Matt Drudge for a minute, and rethink whether you would still support including that link. The piece is full of opinion, and comments like "nasty little faggot", and who is that guy? He's no Bill O'Reilly. Why would I (or anyone) care what he thinks? Also, you should have a look around here and let me know what you think of that editor you came to the aid of. - Crockspot 03:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Google "Michelangelo Signorile" or check his Wikipedia page if you'd like to know more about him. Apparently, quite a few people care what he thinks. Yes, it's an opinion piece, appropriately placed in the criticism section, and not used as a primary factcheck source. Check David Brock's page for much harsher criticism, from newspapers that are actually obscure.

Which editor are you talking about? --Eleemosynary 03:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think he's talking about me. See this post of his on the talk page of a RfM I'm involved with. If I'm reading between the lines correctly, he thinks I'm someone's sockpuppet. I'm not, as I think you'll see if you check my edit history. I think he's just mad at me because I reverted 2 of his edits yesterday. (This one and this one.) If I'm wrong, then I hope he'll forgive me for jumping to this conclusion. Yilloslime 01:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's hope that, if he's proved wrong, he/she has the decency to apologize to you. However, I wouldn't hold my breath. --Eleemosynary 02:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Waterboarding RfC, Need a statement

Hi, I'm sorry to drag you back into this mess which you have been a great help with, but as a previous contributor who has been involved in this dispute I would appreciate it if you have the time, if you could place a standalone statement in Talk:Waterboarding#RfC, as we have a new POV pusher; User:Bellowed is defying consensus and misrepresenting the situation in insisting that someone of note says waterboarding is not torture (as opposed to saying it is acceptable in some circumstances). 24.7.91.244 20:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Drudge

Was hoping to see your comments on the new RfC. Skopp (Talk) 21:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No? Pity. Here's the link to the RfC Skopp (Talk) 00:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Sorry it took so long. Great job seeing through Crockspot's antics. --Eleemosynary 02:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI regarding talk pages

I noticed you removed something based on my previous comment, so I wanted to make sure both Hiddekel and you saw this followup. Regards.--Chaser - T 02:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Eleemosynary 02:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you were blocked. You can come back better than ever! Bmedley Sutler 21:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

blocked

You have been blocked for 1 week for WP:3RR violation on Scott_Thomas_Beauchamp_controversy. The length of the block is due to your extensive block history for editwarring and 3RR vio, including recent blocks in the past months, June and July. Steven Andrew Miller was also blocked for 3RR⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 03:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

vectorsector?

Hi Eleemosynary; Did you post this at Digg? Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I really think it is a bad precedent to block any user for off wiki activities without any response or evidence beyond a

Nope. Didn't create it. Until today, I had no knowledge that the site even existed. --Eleemosynary 06:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No threat

No threat. No threat at all. I came across a thread on your page like this:

Please strike the comments accusing me from the RfA Talk page, and the ANI page, and I'll drop this. If not, I've prepared a response. The Giblets guy was Willie_Peter, as he burned out in exactly the same way he always does. --Eleemosynary 05:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, Joehazelton. Could it have been him? I think he is capable of writing coherently when he isn't foaming at the mouth. I'll go strike. - Crockspot 05:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to delete and strike your offensive comments about me or not? 81.169.170.70 05:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

{emphasis added for comparison}

Then User:81.169.170.70 went and vandalized Crockspot's RfA. I was going to report this series of unfortunate events, but I thought evidence of an abusive sockpuppet was so obvious that an admin could take action without going through the checkuser board. However, if you are telling me that I read those two piggy-backed statements wrong and you were not posting under User:81.169.170.70, I do indeed apologize. Perhaps, you can see how I read that wrong and explain to me what the second statement meant. I truly have only the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart. Please, assume good faith. Thanks, Ursasapien (talk) 09:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think it was a setup. Eleemosynary lives in the pacific northwest, and that IP address resolves to Europe. - Crockspot 12:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been corrected, the IP is a tor proxy, so there is no way to confirm or rule out anyone. - Crockspot 16:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't live in the Pacific Northwest. --Eleemosynary 22:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected again. I'm sorry I singled you out in my RfA. It was particularly unfair since you were not in a position to defend yourself. What else can I say, I had a really rough week. - Crockspot 02:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

No worries. --Eleemosynary 06:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Re Jayjg

I notice you posted a message at User talk:Jayjg. Note that User:Jayjg has not edited Wikipedia since Aug. 4. You might want to post a message at WP:AN/I. --Coppertwig 23:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Eleemosynary 23:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, Do you have an email that you can turn on? Thanks. •smedleyΔbutler• 22:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess not. Isnt it odd (not) that the well documented racist and Nazi ties and history of Regnery Press and Human Events are nowhere covered on Wikipedia? Link and Link and Link. "Regnery and two other isolationists began broadcasting Human Events and in 1947 started the Regnery publishing business. Interesting enough the first two titles published by Regnery were critical of the Nuremberg Trials. The third book Regnery published was another pro-Nazi book attacking the allies air campaign. In 1954, Regnery published two books for the John Birch Society" We have work to be done! •smedleyΔbutler• 06:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Marshall Sylver edit warrior

He doesn't seem to be edit warring very quickly this time, but if he does, request protection at WP:RFPP and leave a note at ANI, since the abuse is becoming long-term. --Coredesat 03:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: SPAs pushing POV, PR, and advertising on the Chapman University School of Law Page

Sounds like a good case for the conflict of interest noticeboard, you should post this there and see if you can get some more specialized help for this situation, since I don't know much about this particular dispute (unlike the Marshall Sylver one). --Coredesat 04:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Chapman

Please check my response at WP:COIN. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Rudy Crew page under threat of deletion

I would like your reaction to the controversy surrounding the biographical article on Dr. Rudolph Crew. Do you think that the article is POV? or worthy of speedy deletion? An editor tagged the biography article on Crew, an education chancellor under NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani, the longest tenure chancellor of education (NYC) in recent memory prior to Joe Klein, for speedy deletion. It seems that it got tagged, simply because it had comments that were embarassing to Giuliani devotees.

Crew gets 209,000 hits in a yahoo search. Given that Crew has indeed been quite notable, e.g. getting interview by high profile media, such as PBS, I consider the moves by the editors to be highly partisan /POV. Dogru144 03:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Your characterization of User:Mattsanchez on the Beauchamp talk page is crude and a blatant violation of WP:NPA. Please consider yourself warned. Ronnotel 00:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That may be not who I'm referring to. I'm referring to the article subject here, [41]. I have said nothing in any edit that isn't documented. Incidentally, there is an RfC up concerning this particular user: [42]. You might want to give it a look. --Eleemosynary 01:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This isn't about whether User:Mattsanchez is who he says he is or the Queen of England. This is about your completely unnecessary use of epithets. Don't engage in personal attacks. Ronnotel 01:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, I disagree with your characterization of my comments. --Eleemosynary 01:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite. How is Matt "Dirty" Sanchez to be construed as anything other than a personal attack? Ronnotel 01:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez, as the article page states, was a gay porn performer several years ago. It is my understanding that he used the soubriquets "Dirty Sanchez" and "Matt 'Dirty' Sanchez" in several of those pornographic films. As the genesis of the nickname comes from Sanchez himself, how can it be an attack? --Eleemosynary 01:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikilawyering aside, your clear intent was to use that epithet as a slur. Tone it down please. Ronnotel 01:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Your warning was noted. But now, you've not only mischaracterized my statements, you're claiming "intent" where there was none. Please see WP:AGF. --Eleemosynary 01:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, here's [43] a typical edit from this class act. I think he could stand an NPA warning, as well. --Eleemosynary 01:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply to user:Seicer

That really does not surprise me. I was awaiting his return, but lost interest in WP for a brief bit. I would file and RFA/RFC and go from there. I'll notify the incivility board about the return as well. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't seem to locate it in the archives. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I responded on my talk page. Xenophrenic 21:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours

After repeated warnings, you are still engaging in tendentious reverting. This is not the way to remove inappropriate category tags (which, BTW, I agree are probably not reliably sourced) and you should know better by this point. I have blocked 24 hours - I'm sure you know how to appeal this so I'm not using the standard template. FWIW, I would like to unblock if you would promise to tone down the edit warring. Ronnotel 15:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read Thumperward's comments and edit summaries on the Beauchamp talk page. The tags violate BLP, and two users are now engaged in game playing to keep them. Once again, you've locked the page with tags in place. That would make you 0-2. --Eleemosynary 22:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I was just waiting for someone to ask for them to be removed. Ronnotel 23:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thumperward has. As have I. You're one of the few editors on that Talk page editing in good faith, so please accept my apologies for being curt with my comments. --Eleemosynary 23:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Your point about WP:BLP is well taken. I've unblocked but next please be less hasty with the revert button. Ronnotel 01:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Unfortunately, I'm still blocked via my IP address. Is there a way you could possibly unblock that? --Eleemosynary 02:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, not exactly sure how that works. I think I found the auto-block and unblocked that as well. Give it a try? Ronnotel 04:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. --Eleemosynary 05:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Waterboarding

You should probably put "controlled drowning" back in the article, as we've discussed it and determined that the term does appear in several sources. Badagnani 04:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems someone's beaten me to it. And they've been reverted. Ad infinitum. In any case, I'm not much interested in parsing the obvious. Just as many sources describe it as torture. --Eleemosynary 21:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

"Controlled drowning" sounds like a torture method to me. The Transhumanist 23:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. --Eleemosynary (talk) 03:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:Article for deletion nomination of Controversies of Rudy Giuliani

I've noticed your edits re waterboarding. I thought you might be interested in knowing: The Controversies article has been nominated for AfD status. Hope you can get a moment to pipe in. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversies of Rudy Giuliani Dogru144 21:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The ethics thing

It doesn't look good for anyone to be edit warring over this, so I've requested full protection for a day.

I reckon we should let them have this one. "Ethics" doesn't necessarily mean "lying", it just means "controversy over method". Give the current state of US journamalism this should probably be applied more broadly than it is at the moment. Chris Cunningham (talk) 21:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I hear you, but the tag in question does not -- at least as of this writing -- link to anything remotely similar to the Beauchamp page. It's just another overly strained attempt by Calbaer to add POV the article. --Eleemosynary (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's address the problem properly, then, by sorting Category: Journalism ethics out. Edit wars don't just end themselves, they need some different approach to be taken. Put it this way, if I'd kept going like this back in the day I'd still be reverting Juan Cole and Glenn Greenwald dozens of times a month, and yet I haven't even needed to watchlist them since we looked for a different way out. Chris Cunningham (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, then I'd say the category tag is only appropriate in articles about specific areas of journalism ethics, and not as a qualifier on politically charged subjects such as the Beauchamp page. Otherwise, the tag could easily be placed on the Fox News page.

I'd prefer not to edit war, but some of the dead-enders on the Beauchamp page are hardly going to listen to reasoned arguments. It's been tried. The disgraced Matt Sanchez is only there to promote himself. Patsw moans that all editors must accept his opinions as fact. And Calbaer pays lip service to NPOV, then tries to slip POV into the article. It's tiresome. --Eleemosynary (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk Page Comments

From WP:TALK

Article talk pages are provided for discussion of the content of articles and the views of reliable published sources. They should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.

I don’t know what your problem is, but if you have a problem with me keep it on my talk page or take it to the appropriate authorities. Don’t clutter article talk pages with your accusations and allegations not related to article content. DJ Creamity^{Oh Yeah!} 21:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

My response was to YOUR attack. So now you're adding hypocrisy to your blanking? Good to know. --Eleemosynary (talk) 21:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Class Act

There's a Request for Arbitration on the class act right now. Aatombomb (talk) 03:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Waterboarding

Please see the above link as someone has requested arbitration for a dispute that you are or have been are involved in. Feel free to contribute there. Regards, Inertia Tensor (talk) 08:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 16:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It's been covered in great detail there already. By the way, waterboarding is torture. --Eleemosynary (talk) 11:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Sanchez talk

Hi, Please consider refactoring your comments here as I feel you're crossing a line, needlessly so, but accusing Sanchez of various things. You may be correct but I feel your ideas won't be heard when your calling him a liar in the process. As you know there is also an Arbcom case going on and showing a good-faith effort to giving Sanchez the benefit of the doubt (beyond and above the call of duty) will probably help ensure that process is kept clear and fair. Personally I feel his behavior on the talk page has been more than disruptive, it's easier to see that when he is the only one doing so. If we continue that supports his case that he's simply defending himself. Benjiboi 03:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I won't be refactoring the comments, as I stand by them. However, as I'm not a party to the ArbComm case, it shouldn't be an issue. I'm calling Sanchez a liar because he has now been revealed, on- and off-Wiki, to be just that. (I'd post the links but I think I'd be violating a Wiki "policy.") That Sanchez's unhinged behavior has been tolerated this long reflects poorly on the "bureaucrats," at least one of whom has been revealed to be mentoring Sanchez off-line, and libeling other editors. The whole affair reeks, with or without my Talk Page comments. --Eleemosynary (talk) 04:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Benjiboi 04:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No more drama (think of the children!)

Hi, although we seem to agree the entire Sanchez affair could have been dealt with much better it has been resolved for the moment and now is the time for those left on drama island to show we are acting in good faith and doing our part to present a good and neutral article. Actions like deleting his infobox don't seem to help and having a photo isn't required for an infobox. I do very much appreciate you helping reword the Beachamp thingy as I just didn't want to dig through any of it. If you're willing can you vet the remaining refs and give an assessment/recommendation as to if they can remain or we need to qualify them to stay? Benjiboi 21:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize an infobox without a photo was okay. Thanks for the correction. And I'll keep checking the article refs. --Eleemosynary (talk) 23:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

NP, I've switched out the celebrity box for a bio one as celebrity seems a reach at this point. Benjiboi 01:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding

This Arbitration case has closed, and the final decision may be reviewed through the above link. Further to the relevant findings of fact, Waterboarding and all closely-related pages are subject to article probation (full remedy); editors working on Waterboarding, or closely related pages, may be subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator, whereby any edits by that editor which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, may result in a block. (full remedy).

Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block length shall increase to one year (full enforcement). Before such restrictions are enacted on an editor, he or she must be issued with a warning containing a link to the decision.

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Sanchez sock blocked

I thought you might be interested to see this. The IP user who attacked you on here on the talk page of John Vandenberg has been blocked, as the editor was Matt Sanchez, who was posted in violation of both his indefinte community ban and his one yeat ArbCom ban. Jay*Jay (talk) 11:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! --Eleemosynary (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Your welcome, and I've already posted it at AIV. R. Baley (talk) 06:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

)

Blocked

You've been blocked for 24 hours for violating the three revert rule on Matt Sanchez. Your reverts were as follows: [44], [45], [46], [47]. You were warned of your pending 3RR violation here and referred to it as "officiousness", and you are aware of the 3RR as you have been blocked 4 times before for it. Continual disruptive editing will not be tolerated. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, this isn't surprising, coming from Swatjester. In short, the first diff he references above is my first edit, which was not a reversion. The second diff is a separate edit, with no reversion between the first and the second. The third diff is my first reversion. And the fourth diff is my second reversion. In short, there was no 3RR violation.

But I don't expect the facts to stop Swatjester from abusing his admin privileges, and issuing an unwarranted block. After all, from dissembling about me on his off-Wiki blog, to "fixing up" Sanchez's photos over at Commons[48], thereby providing a workaround for a banned user to continue editing his article page, why should he bother with the truth? ;) --Eleemosynary (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Please review what a reversion is. From the master page at meta, any removal of content to a previous version is a reversion. Each of your 4 diffs is a reversion of some content. You violated the 3RR. You should know what the rule is by now, you've violated it enough times. In the future, the block length will significantly escalate. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Spare me the threats, and your tortuous interpretations of policy. There was no 3RR violation, by any reasonable standard. --Eleemosynary (talk) 02:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That you refuse to see the violation, does not mean that it does not exist. I've provided you the diffs. They are undeniable. I'll also remind you that the Matt Sanchez article is under article probation, so conduct would not even have to rise to that of a 3RR violation for editors to be banned from that page. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Proclaiming that there was a violation in spite of the facts does not mean there was a violation. The diffs you provided did not show 3RR (see above comments). And yes, the Sanchez article is under article probation, but that wasn't your justification for the block. Post hoc rationales, changing horses midstream, etc., do not help your case. --Eleemosynary (talk) 04:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, apparently Swatjester's Talk page has become Sanchez's latest refuge. Good to know. --Eleemosynary (talk) 00:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Not that I imagine this to make any impact, but Eleemosynary did not edit again after the 3RR warning, and he was discussing the issue on the talk page:

• 04:40, 27 February 2008 [49] Eleemosynary's last edit.
• 04:51, 27 February --[50] warning by Philippe.

Discussing or talk page comment times:

04:42, 27 February

05:02, 27 February

05:17, 27 February

Submitted for your consideration by R. Baley (talk) 06:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You were right, R. Baley. With certain admins, reason falls on deaf ears. --Eleemosynary (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether he edited again after the warning is irrelevant. He violated the rule and dismissed it as "officiousness". Editors are not entitled to 3 free reverts before they are forced to use the talk page, and the 3RR page is very clear on that. Eleemosynary having been blocked for 3RR in the past, should have been aware of that, and should have been using the talk page from the beginning instead of edit warring. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope. As discussed above, I never violated 3RR. You misstated the truth when you said I did. And yes, I dismissed that warning as "officiousness," because it was. I would have dismissed your block as "gross abuse of admin privileges by an admin working overtime to enable a banned editor, after several months of harassing me both on- and off-wiki," but I doubt there would have been enough room in the edit summary. ;) --Eleemosynary (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to extend your block for personal attacks, if you'd like. Your hostility is not welcome on Wikipedia. I suggest you end it. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Pointing out your history of harassment, with relevant diffs, is not a personal attack. If you extend the block, you'll have compounded your original abuse, and I'll appeal to a more judicious admin to have the block removed, which it will be. I have not been hostile at all. And your threats are not welcome on Wikipedia, nor anywhere else. --Eleemosynary (talk) 02:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll be very clear then: Accusing me of harassment repeatedly is extremely uncivil. If you do it again, I'm going to block you for violating civility. If you want to allege harassment, you need to do it in the appropriate forum, which is AN/I.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Peppering this page with threats on the order of "If you do 'X', I'll block you" is not only uncivil, it's tiresome (and has the whiff of baiting). I suggest you go to AN/I and make your case so a disinterested admin may weigh in; I'll be over shortly. And no, pointing out untruths you've posted about me, with diffs, is not uncivil, but an important guide for other admins that may be looking in. Shortly after this unwarranted block ends, I'll post more at AN/I.

And Swat, please provide the link to the policy which says I may only "allege harassment" in the "appropriate forum." If this is a clearly stated policy, I'll abide by it. If it's not, your comments are troubling, to say the least. --Eleemosynary (talk) 04:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:HARASS says that you should bring complaints of harassment to WP:AN/I, which says at the top "If you want to discuss the possible misuse of administrative powers, you can do so here." However, please note that WP:HARASS also states that administrators discussing concerns over one's editing is not harassment. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

But neither of those are hard-set rules or policies. I've read WP:HARASS, and nothing forbids me from discussing your actions here. Neither is there a policy stating that "accusations of harassment" are "uncivil" and a blockable offense if done on one's Talk page. And I didn't claim your "discussing concerns over" my editing was harassment. It has more to do with.... well, you'll see soon enough. :) --Eleemosynary (talk) 07:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The article in question is under arbcom editing restrictions; edit-warring is simply not acceptable. I agree with Swatjester that even superficial changes to this article should be discussed first, especially changes which the subject would consider a turn for the worse. As a result, I endorse this block. An unblock would be acceptable if Eleemosynary agreed to not edit this article for a few days. John Vandenberg (talk) 06:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

John, I really think you should ask yourself whether you're acting in a disinterested fashion about the Sanchez article. I was concerned when you had no qualms about Sanchez violating his ban to post on your Talk page. But some of your latest activities, including accusing -- without a shred of foundation -- an editor of meatpuppetry merely for commenting on a photo VFD, are extremely troubling. --Eleemosynary (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

My involvement wrt these images is strictly to counter the inappropriate deletion of free content, or appropriate fair use, without solid rationale to delete. I stand by that diff, because there is a significant amount of justification of meatpuppetry. Benjiboi did not provide a valid reason to delete that image, only "Fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD)", and Benjiboi appears to have not even realised it was not a photo of Matt, which makes meatpuppetry very likely. Input like that stirs up trouble, and I am always going to strongly advise editors to avoid stirring up trouble when it relates to Matt. John Vandenberg (talk) 03:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Benjiboi's aversion to letting the photo stand was -- as I understand it -- because "Wall of Shame" was yet another photo that Sanchez claimed to "own." Sanchez's repeated untruths about "owning" the image that actually belonged the Columbia Spectator were eventually revealed to be just that: untruths. The ferocity of Sanchez's claims to own the photograph, coupled with vitriolic, homophobic attacks on editors who doubted him, raised more than enough reason that Sanchez's claims of "copyright ownership" should , at the very least, not be given the benefit of the doubt.

Also, there's no logic to support your claim "Benjiboi appears to have not even realised it was not a photo of Matt, which makes meatpuppetry very likely." Let me get this straight: You are not assuming good faith with Benjiboi, an assiduous editor in good standing; but you are assuming good faith with Sanchez -- a disruptive, abusive editor who is still launching hate-filled comments via anon socks, and who has been community and arbcomm banned?

John, can you explain to me how this hand-holding of Sanchez is anything more than a way of enabling him to continue to edit his article, and get around his block? --Eleemosynary (talk) 04:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, thank you for labeling his sock pages as such. That's quite helpful. --Eleemosynary (talk) 04:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is the foundation of my belief that he voted on the image without being aware it was not a photo of Matt.

"Eventually someone credible will take a photo of Sanchez and will give it freely to commons." --Benjiboi

I dont mind if I am wrong about the meatpuppeting, but I've noted how it appears. People commenting on that image have yet to provide any evidence that the image could have been owned by anyone else.

Copyright is not user conduct. The Bluemarine image issues so far have been due to limited knowledge of copyright and the usual lack of clarity about who owns an image. "Fear uncertainty and doubt" can be applied to free images uploaded by any users, and if pursued by a group of like-minded people, they would be deleted as well. Deleting free images without a good reason is the anti-thesis of free content.

I am not, and have never, been assisting Matt edit his article. That is a terrible accusation. Please withdraw it. John Vandenberg (talk) 06:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Two points. 1) Your contention that the "Bluemarine image issues so far have been due to limited knowledge of copyright and the usual lack of clarity about who owns an image" is one assumption. What's more likely, based on past incidents, is that some of the issues have been due to direct untruths intended to stall and game the system. Sanchez has posted virulent attacks on other editors here and at Commons, many concerning the photos in question. That's user conduct.

2) I haven't accused you of "helping Matt" edit his article, so there's nothing to withdraw. But I will say that, because of your tolerance of Sanchez breaking his arbcomm ban to post on your Talk page, your accusation of meatpuppetry by Benjiboi (about which the further comments you posted hardly augment), your contention (above) that an editor simply voting to delete a photo was "stirring up trouble," and your statement that you will also "strongly advise editors to avoid stirring up trouble when it relates to Matt" -- with such a low threshold for "stirring up trouble," one wonders if there's much you won't be objecting to -- the question remains: why are you going out of your way to still extend good faith to Sanchez, while not assuming it with editors such as Benjiboi? It's troubling. --Eleemosynary (talk) 07:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI, SwatJester has started a thread about you at ANI. Jay*Jay (talk) 13:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. --Eleemosynary (talk) 15:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for not notifying you. I was under the impression that you would be seeing it anyway since I had directed you to AN/I and you had said you intended to post. That being said, I get annoyed when a thread involving me goes on that I'm not notified about, so it's only fair that I give you that same courtesy. I fucked up on that, and for not notifying you, I apologize. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

E-mail me

Your email is not enabled. Urgent that you email me within the next 24 hours. Thatcher at gmail dot com. Thatcher 17:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)