Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Monday December 16^th 16:18

--

It seems you have attracted a fan club/shadow/stalker. --Tbeatty 05:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn’t be the first, and unless I turn into some mega wussie, it wont be the last. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the rampant edit warring, I've locked your user page. If you'd like me to make an edit onto the user page, let me know. MessedRocker (talk) 01:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make crystal clear - I would be very grateful if you would please remove the link to my userlinks and contribs on your user page. Thank you. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the objection exactly? Deleting these links yourself or enlisting others to delete them seems abusive even bizarre. No idea how or why 3 people showed up to help remove these links from someone else's user page. What's inappropriate about linking to other users or their edit histories? There's not even any commentary offered that could be construed as incivil. Many people use their user space as a sort of scratch pad for keeping track of important links. For example you yourself seem to have some precisely analogous links[1] on your talk page. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 02:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to meet you, fourdee. In any case just to be clear, I didn't touch TDC's page. It's his page and he can do what he wants. And indeed, I'm aware of the use of userlinks for these sorts of situations, as I believe I made clear on MONGO's page [2]. The links on TDC's page to select edits of mine are from an ancient dispute (October 06), left there and now irrelevant. Accordingly, I removed the corresponding links of TDC's notable behavior from my own page back in February, 3 months after the dispute ended. The userlinks there now (to Ribo) are for a more recent event (June 07), where it looked like a user was trolling TDC. Those links are due for me to scrub soon (next archive, I imagine).

If you want a complete breakdown, here you go.

TDC and I had a dispute in October '06, stemming from an exchange on Military Commissions Act, during which time I started tracking a few of TDC's edits that I saw as tendentious or intentionally disruptive [3]. He then acted capriciously, taking notes on my notes in kind [4]. That's his right. Despite my removal of the notes after the conflict had gone stale [5] he has not yet removed them 10 months later, preferring (I think) to leave them up because he believes it bothers me.

It doesn't. I was content to ignore it - since as I've said before, drama is boring.

But when MONGO removed the other userpages' links I asked him if he would intervene with his colleague TDC and help to remove them as well, on the same principle he stated. He acted unilaterally (and I appreciate his boldness) and others have objected - so, 'presto'. More WP edit warring. Yawnsville Central.

In any case, I hope that clears it up for you. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say it makes any sense to me at all. You say it doesn't bother you but if it didn't I daresay you'd ignore it rather than asking MONGO for help in getting it taken down. A watchlist of editors seems to me to be a perfectly appropriate sort of scratchpad to have on one's user page or talk page and unilaterally deleting something like that which is being used by the editor in the course of their work on wikipedia seems to be at best vandalism. In fact I could use something like this myself, seems like a very convenient way to do it. Some people edit from different computers or prefer not to use bookmarks or other storage outside wikipedia and I'd say this is quite a bit easier to use. From what you say you have a habit of this very behavior yourself and that's perhaps where TDC picked it up? Now you are complaining about it because you object to the the duration of it? I'd say the best thing to do is just ignore it and let it rest, and perhaps stop doing it yourself. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 02:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are determined to object to my point of view, there's little I can do to stop that. However, I hope that's not the case and you actually would prefer not to be 'devil's advocate' if the facts don't warrant it.

If you carefully re-read the information I provided for you above I think you'll find the comments you just made were already addressed:

• Yes, it's a useful practice for conflict resolution (see MONGO talk page link)
• Yes, unilateral deletion of content from another user's page is not appropriate (and I have not done so here)
• Yes, TDC did it after he saw me do it, specifically in retaliation for my note-taking. Noting notable edits for users with whom I engage in conflicts is not my 'habit', it is, as you say, a 'useful practice'.
• No, It doesn't bother me. Again, I only asked MONGO to help because TDC is his friend and the links are getting on a year old (and TDC hasn't maintained any other such links for other users despite numerous ongoing conflicts). The duration isn't the reason I mentioned it. That (plus the lack of any other such links) and MONGO's new policy were all reasons to ask for MONGO's help. If he'd simply asked TDC to remove them that would have been fine too - since again, I really am quite content to ignore the links for another year if TDC doesn't remove them.

Thanks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure he'll consider his friend's request to remove them. However, there is some considerable conflict between your assertion it doesn't bother you and your repeated explanation of why it does bother you. Perhaps we're having a language barrier but objecting to something and it bothering you mean basically the same thing to me. Similarly you said the "duration isn't the reason" in the sentence immediately after you explained that the duration was the reason. "Getting on a year old"... "duration isn't the reason"... "Don't bother me"... "[reasons it bothers you]"... I'm thinking maybe I need to add a link to your contribs to my page because if this sort of equivocation is a problem for you it must crop up frequently. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 02:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emphasis isn't clear - duration isn't 'THE' reason is what the sentence is meant to express. By asking if I am "complaining about it because you object to the the duration of it?") you seem to miss that I made quite clear in the very next sentence that there were a few reasons to ask MONGO for help with his colleague these 10 months after the fact, given his decision re userlinks today and his friendship with TDC.

And given TDC's name and his self-described reputation as an 'internet troll' [6], being actually bothered by TDC's non-content-related behavior is the last thing on my mind. Such user trolling is pretty easy to spot . ;)

So now we don't disagree on WP policy, the incorrectness of MONGO's unilateral removal, or the utility of userlinks.

What do we disagree about? While my comments have been clear regarding my motives, you seem very determined to orient this conversation away from these issues of agreement to a dissection of what you claim my feelings to be (rather than the actual issue at hand, which is whether TDC will maintain these links or not). Since I can't continue without feeding your 'fait accompli' that the more I elaborate the more bothered I am, I won't bother :) , except to say this has been an actual laugh, and that it's nice to 'meet' you. :) :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah...TDC...can you take down the links...I can detail all this if you want, but I'm rather tired now...--MONGO 02:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan, might I remind you that this entire shit storm began when you decided to begin posting links to my edits on your userpage and involving yourself in a third party dispute.

If you wanted me to remove them, you could have asked nicely (as you have done now). I have not been avoiding this, as I usually don’t edit from home and stop once I leave work. There is no reason to involve anyone else who was not a party of the original debate (but thanks for everyone’s involvement, seriously) and do onto me what you would like done onto you.

I will remove (or anyone else can if I am not available) the links, and consider this matter closed. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 13:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As will I - thank you, TDC. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 13:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you made your point, probably best not to antagonize further. I am recommending to him that he either ignores you, or takes up the discussion on the appropriate discussion pages. I don't think it's inappropriate to point out inconsistencies in policy application, I've done it myself. But it's best to make your point, and then let it go. Be the water. - Crockspot 20:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I have made my point, and hopefully, perhaps Gamaliel will recognize it. Thanks for playing referee, BTW. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A "significant" campain issue that went nowhere. I cannot beleive that you would argue so hard on this page for the inlcusion of material like this, but fight so hard on another page for the exclusion of the cape wind project. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I didn't "fight so hard", I removed it once or twice and then went on to other issues while other editors dealt with that article. Not sure why you keep bringing that up, other than a desire to make this editing dispute personal. Your judgement that this campaign issue "went nowhere" should not be subsituted for reliable sources which conclude this issue was significant during the campaign. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 19:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didnt fight so hard ehh..[7] [8], [9], [10] ..... anyhoo, there was a very good reason I brought it up. To some of the less experienced editors here your actions could be viewed as hypocritical, even biased. I just thought that you would like to opportunity to impress upon the dozens of editors on this page who disagree with you on this subject, that you do have a good reason for your actions, and that your actions and motivations are applied with an equal degree of jurisprudence on every article you edit, from the “lion of the Senate” to Tom Coburn. See, if you dont explain why you are acting the way you are on this page, some less experienced editor might even think that you are trying to WP:OWN this article, and we cant let that go unchallenged. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your comments as they serve no other purpose but to attack some minor edits on another article. If you have a problem with my edits there, take it up on my talk page or on the talk page of that article. If you have a problem with my edits in general, start an RfC on me. But I will not allow you to use this talk page as a forum for your personal animosity. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 21:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, they serve a very important purpose, and it has nothing to do with any "beef" you think I have for you, so please don’t attempt to divine my motivations. Other editors of this article might like to know why you would apply one standard to one article, and another standard on this article? While these articles are “different” in that they cover different topics, all guidelines and policies apply equally to both of them. WP:BLP, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV apply just as much to this article as they do to Ted Kennedy (or Joe Scarborough for that matter). So, I ask you again, why is material that would not be fit for one article you edit, be fit for this one? Its a legitimate question, and answering it could go a long way in easing this dispute. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've attempted to make this dispute personal from the beginning, so your motives are quite easy to divine. If I am wrong, then all you have to do to prove me wrong is stop bringing up irrelevancies from my edit history. I stand by all my edits and I will defend them, but in the appropriate forums, not here and not as part of your blatant attempt to personalize this dispute by inventing claims of hypocrisy. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 14:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm writing to let you know that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Commodore Sloat has been resolved and archived. Thanks for participating. Bigglove 23:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After processing your report at WP:AN3RR, it's clear to me that you and the user you reported are both edit warring. Given your history of being blocked for 3RR, I've blocked you for 1 week. As always, you can request an unblock with {{unblock|your reason here}}. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Your concerns: I looked at Xenophrenic's block log and saw that he had received blocks before, but that the most recent one had been immediately undone, while the first was rather unclear as to how 1R parole had applied. If you have some information about this user that would make it clear to me why he/she should be blocked for longer, please tell me. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[11] See the checkuser and associated RfArb.

Yes, that does change things a bit. I've reset Xenophrenic's block to coincide with yours. However, please note that you were in fact edit warring. Your edits did in fact revert: many of them did more than just undo Xenophrenic's edits, but they did nonetheless have the effect of reverting. This is still edit warring. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talking things out and attempting to modify text would seem to be a much better faith approach to an article dispute than rolling over another users edits, with each and every edit Xenophrenic made. Removing disputed tags (when there is clearly a dispute) is a form of vandalism. The only edits Xenophrenic makes is when he is edit warring. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that this block seems very excessive.--MONGO 05:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): To keep things equitable, as Xenophrenic has recently been unblocked. Request handled by: Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to take your case at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-09-07 Mark Lane (author). I would like a short statement from you--Phoenix 15 13:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you satisfied that the case is closed. If so, I can close it and you can go about finding another source--Phoenix 15 19:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am only chopping bad sections out of the article, as I am not sold on the temp idea. Want me to put a dozen links to back that statement up?Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

based on credible scientific evidence, there is no proven link between DU exposure and increases in human cancers or other significant health or environmental impacts IAEA. Good enough? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not revert you with the last edit. It was a different section. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing (not deleting) a months old edit, rife with factual errors is not a reversion. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing one word in an article is a RV? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A revert is to undo all changes made to an article page after a specific time in the past. The result will be that the page becomes identical in content to the page saved at that time. However, in the context of the English Wikipedia three revert rule, a revert is defined far more broadly as any change to an article that partially or completely goes back to any older version of an article.

There has never been a version of this article like this, the orginal content is still there in some form, but this is not worth the arguement. And how is the first edit a revert? I have never seen it interpreted this way. I asked someone, and will go with his opinion, whatever it may be. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this thread is misplaced. 3RR is a tool that we use to prevent edit-warring, but violating the rule is not the evil; edit-warring is. If either of you is edit-warring, then you both are, and the proper course of action is to stop editing the article and take it to the talk page until a consensus is achieved. A third opinion or a request for comment may be necessary, but futher reverts probably won't help.--Chaser - T 22:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, TDC. Would you be interested in improving article Communist terrorism? It does not mention even Red Brigades. I also left a couple of my notes at the talk page of "Communist terrorism" article. What do you think?Biophys 20:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion is sought on the question of a lengthy (and in my opinion, undue weight) Philip Agee quote as well as the question of Latin American dictatorships in relation to policy. 129.71.73.248 23:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently been trying to work to remove POV material from the Instant Runoff Voting article, and BenB4 had been very active there making sure that any information possibly damaging to the campaigns for Instant Runoff Voting was kept of the site, while at the same time protecting unsourced and POV claims in favor of IRV. My opinion, of course, but it was pretty blatant. Anyway, someone came in and started using reverts (a dozen in a day) to remove a whole series of edits of mine, including ones where I didn't think they would be controversial; this user had no login, and no legitimate claim made for a reason for the edit, and there was no discussion as far as I could see. BenB4 defended the anonymous editor (we know who he is in the real world from other evidence, including he left his IP out in the open by posting anonymously, and his style of writing and detailed knowledge is a dead giveaway); I made a 3RR complaint, which was apparently not understood and was ignored. I was not complaining about an edit war, but about the use of reverts abusively. I'm not here to bring you into that, but if it interests you ....

I'm here to note that a new user appeared two days before BenB4 said "au revoir." And suddenly dives in where BenB4 was before, including acting and arguing in the same way for the Instant Runoff Voting article, but also can be seen to have other interests as well that match, too many to be a coincidence. Clumsy. You'd think he'd at least wait a few days!

Special:Contributions/Acct4 'Nuff said. Except I have a question. Acct4 is shown in his log as having created another user account, andy R2. What is that? Is that identified from IP?

I'd make a request for check formally, but ... I'm overwhelmed. But if you think I should take this on, I'd try. I'd have a lot to learn.

I am so glad to know that there are people working on keeping Wikipedia fair, open, and neutral. It's crucial. Thanks.

And now, looking at the rest of this page, I realize that BenB4, shortly before all those reverts, was very interested in 3RR. I had thought that, no, BenB4 was not the anonymous reverter, but ... what if BenB4 is the person we know to be the anonymous reverting editor? Abd 23:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could be, I got rather cryptic email from him, it looks like he will be going above and beyond with his next sockpuppett account. More to come. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I reported this to WP:AE, but no action has been taken. Perhaps you should request a checkuser? - Crockspot 18:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, been out of town the past couple of weeks. I think this might fall under the WP:Duck clause. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably new sock for this series, same interest, but this time, so far, Single Purpose Account, Special:Contributions/VSJA. It is so likely that I've been confronting him as a sock. Timing: registration Sept 30, shortly after BenB4 was banned Abd 06:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have submitted an arbitration request about csloat where you might be a party.Biophys 02:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that someone removed your edit on Dalton Trumbo re Johnny Got His Gun. I don't have any references for all of this, or I'd put it back. I'll eventually dig something up somewhere. The film is being remade, and will be out in 2008, so the more we have on this the better.

BTW: If, by chance, you have anything on a May 1941 petition by members of the League of American Writers, I'd like to get that full list.
-- Randy2063 15:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making that change. The book's serialization in The Daily Worker is one more item I think would be worth addressing. I only know about this because it's in the short excerpt of the intro available online. But I don't know who wrote that part, as the writer's name didn't make it into the excerpt. It could be either Trumbo or Kovic or someone else. Could it use the same reference?

Whatever is appropriate, it's going to have to go into the Johnny Got His Gun article, too.

-- Randy2063 13:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not too important, but I've got a possible correction to my earlier question about that petition. It may not have been May '41. Although I still believe it probably appeared then, too, I've found another link that says the New Masses printed a petition on June 25, 1940 by 300 members of the League of American Writers. I don't know whether that includes Dalton Trumbo.

That's just FYI. Those old mags are still available on microfilm at the Library of Congress. I don't plan on flying there but it's nice to know they're somewhere.

-- Randy2063 00:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did a little digging for names on the A Statement by American Progressives on the Moscow Trials. I couldn't find anything that I didn't think you already knew but, as I see there isn't much on this in WP, I now regret not taking any notes. I've still got one link open on Langston Hughes. I'll add one reference to that article shortly.
The list seems to be in a box somewhere at Duke U. I do have hopes that more of these old documents will find their way into PDF (or whatever format) as the technology keeps developing. It's only a matter of time before computers become powerful enough to do text searches on what might be barely legible today. So, I'll be looking again every once in a while.
-- Randy2063 16:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just listed this at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TDC/Prize. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I've speedily deleted it. Please don't create competitions designed to hunt down or harass other users. If you have $100 to burn, consider doing something worthwhile with it, and donating it to charity. Neil ☎ 13:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion, but I already give at the office. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hey TDC, i'm working on that article too. The OR content you pruned belongs to a user named rewinn who's being somewhat obstinate about mucking the article up with POV.

i had an elegant solution of scrapping the ambiguously-themed "controversy" section altogether and replacing it with a "support for" section including only documented direct quotations of people who have expressed support for reinstating FD.

i was going to restore that version shortly and wanted to let you know where your edit went. but if you'd like to weigh in on the rest of the edt dsputes there, i'd welcome that greatly. 38.98.181.23 18:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reverting on this page is becoming excessive. I know you are not responsible for all of them but I would still ask for restraint. Also please note that you have three reverts in the past few hours on the end sentence of the first paragraph:

1. 18:04, 12 October 2007
2. 18:32, 12 October 2007
3. 05:02, 13 October 2007

This comes up to the 'electric fence' of the three revert rule. Sam Blacketer 09:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You refer to an ArbCom hearing. Who was Xeno in an earlier form?--JobsElihu 23:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was the anon editor in the arbitration case. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 13:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TDC-you are accusing User:Starkrm of being a reincarnation of a banned user, User:Nrcprm2026/James Salsman. This is evidenced by the history on Depleted Uranium. If you believe this to be true, you need to provide evidence, not accusations. I closed the WP:SSP case on Nrcprm2026 and as part of that was that I do not think Starkrm is a sock of Nrcprm2026. This content dispute needs to cease, on both your parts, work it out on the talk page. If you two can't do that, I will protect the page to admins only. If you, TDC, continue to accuse Starkrm of being Nrcprm2026/James Salsman without evidence, you will get blocked as this is uncivil and harrassment. You will also get blocked for continuing to revert edits without a valid reason. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello T.D. Cudgel! As you've noticed I have been pressing the James S. cases, and probably a bit too hard. I am awaiting the checkuser on Starkrm but expect it to be negative. Meanwhile, Starkrm's account pointed me to Dlabtot, whose evidence is too ambiguous for me to judge. I believe I have correctly pegged Squee23 and 209.77.205.2. I would appreciate it if you could compile the SSP evidence pertaining to uranium on all suspects, as you have the familiarity and I would be guessing if I had to compare dissimilar edits. I am working the political edits side. We may have flushed them all out of the science side for now, or we may not have, but please chip in what you can. Thanks for getting me started on this project!

BTW I deleted his comments (as Ben) above, per WP:BAN; you can delete your responses if you like. I have also just reflagged user pages to synchronize the lists of appropriate confirmed puppets (per admin actions) and suspects (per suspect inactions). At this instant I don't see anyone besides Squee23 additionally getting the eventual block. John J. Bulten 18:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for persistent violation of WP:3RR. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

as per WP:3RR report Ronnotel 01:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC) {{unblock|I have no Idea how the firs edit can be considered a revert. I only had a handfull of edits in three weeks prior to editing the past couple of days, and none of them were on the article that I had allegedly broken the 3RR on today. The explanation of this first edit was “Deleted sourced content w/o explanation; Wiki-link to Winterfilm Collective; inserted the word "allegations"; etc”, is a content edit, not a revert.}}[reply]

This is to inform you that I've started a discussion concerning your and TDC's actions here. Since you're currently blocked, if you wish to contribute to the discussion, you can post whatever you want posted there here on your talk, and I'll transfer it there. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked pending the referenced discussion. Ronnotel 12:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, try it now. The auto-block process can be a bit hit or miss when trying to unblock. Ronnotel 16:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message TDC. You have always been civil. I really appreciate this. Travb (talk) 23:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Always been civil? Is that some kind of joke? Thanks BTW. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a request for arbitration that lists you as a party. You may make a statement there. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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/Winter Soldier 2/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 17:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I received your email, I have already presented my evidence on the relevant page at Arbcom and made some proposals in regards to the matter. If you are unhappy with what I present you can make comments as you have already done.

What I will not tolerate is the email I received today telling me to "put a lid on it" any further such emails will be considered a public document and be forwarded to the ARBCOM itself. Gnangarra 07:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TDC, if you really have evidence that can't be posted on-wiki that the ArbCom should consider, I suggest you just email it to them now. The address is viewable at WP:AC. Your continued references to the fact that you have this evidence are doing nothing to help this case: either submit it to them or don't. Otherwise it looks like you're just making unsubstantiated allegations (not an accusation, just saying how it comes off). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I understand, and its done, all members got the goods. I had just assumed that had Arbcom wanted to hear the evidence they would ask. Torturous Devastating Cudgel (talk) 04:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to talk to you about DU and arsenic, the statement that they are similar, on the Depleted Uranium discussion page. I am sure you have not read what I said.

Please read the work you are citing: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp150.html

Use the search function to look for "arsenic" and you will find a handful of matches. Please note that each and every one of them says that uranium is DIFFERENT in its toxicological properties than arsenic. Please let me know if you have any trouble seeing this.

And this evening you say that Al Marshall's study at Sandia from 2005 is more recent than the US Army REVIEW (which includes Dr. Marshall's study) which was published this year. Can you not take the time to even look at the year in the reference I included?

See for yourself: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/07/050724094117.htm 2005 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=17508699 2007

I see that you are very interested in this subject. I am editing this because a student sent me a paper on DU which included many falsehoods from Wikipedia. I am not saying that you are responsible for them, but I ask that you at least read to see whether what you say is correct before inserting it.

CKCortez (talk) 03:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on merging Mike Huckabee controversies into Mike Huckabee here [[12]] Jmegill (talk) 09:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above Request for Arbitration has now closed and the final decision is available at the above link. Both you and User:Xenophrenic are prohibited from editing pages related to the Winter Soldier Investigation. Should you violate this restriction, you may be blocked for the duration specified here.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Anthøny 20:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful when performing mass reverts, as you removed all my manual of style edits when you performed the revert. In this case, the work was minimal, but please be more careful in the future to preserve the beneficial changes. Cheers, CP 05:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Sgrenacar.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 02:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 02:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Arming America.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#TDC —Viriditas | Talk 00:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have violated your arbcom restriction and have been blocked 48 hours. You edited Talk:Phoenix Program‎, [13], which is a violation of the restriction as this is a related topic, as per Winter_Soldier_Investigation#Background. See arb enforcement page for more information. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

---

Request reason:

This block is unwarranted because there was no arbcom violation. Editing restrictions on articles or topics does not carry over to the talk pages of those articles, and there is no precedent to make this block based on that justification. User:Nrcprm2026, for example, was blocked from editing any article related to depleted uranium but it this did not include talk pages which he edited frequently. Secondly, the article in question, Phoenix Program‎, is NOT related to the specifics of the Arbcom case. Just because it happens to be mentioned on the WSI article does not mean the two are related, if that were the case, and article or talk page linked to WSI would also be covered in the ban, like Pacifica Radio, United States Army, Detroit etcetera, and that would be ridiculous. This interpretation was far too broad and the block is unjustified.

Decline reason:

The wording of the ArbCom ruling is that you are "prohibited from editing any page related in any way to the Winter Soldier Investigation, broadly interpreted." It says nothing about excluding talk pages from that restriction. Wait the 48 hours out, and then return. — Pastordavid (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Talking with blocking Admin. Pastordavid (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages are included in arbcom restrictions unless they are specifically exempted. As to whether the Phoenix Program is included in this restriction, the restriction says TDC is "subject to an editing restriction for one year. He is prohibited from editing any page related in any way to the Winter Soldier Investigation, broadly interpreted." and Phoenix was involved. As for the case of Nrcprm2026, I am not familiar with those specifics (did anyone report it?), also since he's indef blocked, it'd probably have been one of his socks. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have not cited any precident for a block for a talk page edit, and if you look at the talk page for Talk:Uranium trioxide and Talk:Depleted uranium you will see that the user was allowed to edit the talk page, and had the same editing restriction I did. Torturous Devastating Cudgel (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is hardly the same restriction, that one explicitly says he can edit the talk pages "The user specified is on probation and has edited this article inappropriately. The user is not prevented from discussing or proposing changes on this talk page." — Rlevse • Talk • 20:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my french, but thats just an absolute crock of shit. I will be taking this back to arbcom for clarification after my block is up. Torturous Devastating Cudgel (talk) 20:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "Any page, broadly interpreted" includes talk pages. If they had wanted to ban you just from articles but allowed you to edit on talk they could have said so. However, reduced to 24 hours for first offense and in light of the possible misunderstanding. But you will have to take this up with Arbcom if you think the ruling means articles only. `Thatcher 20:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for intervening, but this is the state of play: the ruling states "any page" that is "related in any way" and also that if in doubt this is to be "broadly interpreted". It is impossible to argue that an articles talk page is not a "page", that it is not "related" in some way to the article... and even more much less when the Committee's direction states itf there is doubt this should be "broadly" interpreted. The aim was - frankly - to exclude you editing on any page to do with the topic, not to provide loopholes on it, and that is how it's enforced. Regards, FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is noted, but my opinion that this is horseshit and that rules are not applied equitably. The idea that the Phoenix Program was in any way shape or form related to WSI is a fucking joke! What’s the source for this? Is it the WSI article? Was the information added bu the same joker who was part of the Arbcom? Where is the citation for the connection. Oh.. that’s right IT DOES NOT FUCKING EXIST!

Now, unless you are here to unblock me or tell me what I want to hear, leave me the hell alone. Torturous Devastating Cudgel (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You had recently scrubbed the John Gibson (Fox News Channel and radio show host) page of "criticism" because it violated the non-POV / BLP rules for Wikipedia.

The criticisms have been added back in. Furthermore, it's also filled with several opinions of blatantly liberal personalities and organizations (Olbermann, Media Matters, F.A.I.R.). There are multiple charges of racism agains Gibson.

I've tried to edit the page, even leaving in the hard facts of what Gibson said but removing the opinions and self-serving interpretations from illegitimate sources. The page keeps reverting back and I receive warnings that I could be banned for vandalism.

I'm not trying to make Gibson's page a glowing praise-fest or anything. I'm simply trying to maintain its neutrality and removing opinions. Please take another look at Gibson's page and see if you think I'm right. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.209.240.6 (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to post an unblock template if you feel the block is unjustified. I will not reduce the block duration. (The block notice may be found at:User talk:Hempbilly#Indefinitely blocked.) Vassyana (talk) 04:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

---

Request reason:

An indefinite block for using sockpuppets and not violating any rules on the use of sockpuppets is unreasonable. The dispute with Wikidemo on the Bernie Ward article in which he accuse me making BLP violations was based on his allegation alone, and there was never any second opinion on whether what I was doing was a BLP violation. All the material was sourced to a reliable and notable source. I have been blocked for 2 months now, and I whatever point that was being made, I get. I cannot think of any other instance where a user was indefinitely blocked for a single instance of sockpuupetry (which is not in itself against the rules), and considering that I was not prohibited from using them and my sockpuppet (arguably) was not violation any rules, an indefinite ban appears to be grossly excessive. Torturous Devastating Cudgel (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Using sockpuppets to continue abusive editing is very strictly against the policy. I would suggest reading through WP:SOCK, as you don't seem to be getting what it's about. Also considering your massive block log for similar offenses (edit warring, BLP concerns, etc.), I am far from willing to unblock you, especially since your unblock message only professes an intent to continue the disruption you were blocked for. (Admins, for reference, relevant checkuser is at this old revision. — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Your email request to have your block lifted or shortened is denied. I don't know why you think indefinite sockpuppetry blocks are unprecedented; on the contrary, they happen quite often in cases of clearly abusive sockpuppetry. Even though your case may not have ranked above the most abusive, your extensive block log, which contains over 25 separate blocks over a three-year period clearly demonstrates you have most certainly not learned your lesson, which was the other point you made. You've violated 3RR countless times, disrupted Wikipedia to make a point, violated restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee, and now you've gone and broken the socking policy for the expressly stated purpose of circumventing blocks and continuing the same violations you'd been blocked for countless times before. So no. There is extensive precedent for indefinite blocks of users who deliberately use multiple accounts to continue their disruption. You have most certainly not learned your lesson, despite one of the largest block logs I've ever seen. You are welcome to continue to contest the block by using the {{unblock}} template or by emailing the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-l AT lists DOT wikimedia DOT org , however be aware they have access to the same evidence I do, and repeated requests that do not introduce any new reasons to unblock you may lead to your page being protected and email disabled. Administrators reviewing any future unblock requests may email me for a copy of the email I received from this user. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been following the recent applications of policy against User:TDC and have noticed that policy has been interpreted and applied arbitrarily, sometimes to a degree appearing to approach the egregious, against him regarding his supposed "sockpuppeting" violation.

In the past few years I have been contributed to Wikipedia, I have observed TDC to be a voluminous contributor of valuable and substantiated information and corrections to hundreds, if not thousands, of Wikipedia articles.

In fact, it seems necessary to me by this point to investigate whether a vendetta is being pursued against him with the aim of suppressing the information TDC presents to articles that he presumably obtains simply through his patronization of non-liberal news sources.

I intend to use this area to take notes concerning irregularities in interpreting and applying policy I have observed regarding TDC's current confinement, a sentence which appears on simple inspection to be far excessive beyond any corresponding evidence of misconduct.

I would also like to openly invite that the supposed evidence that TDC's conduct calls for a punitive response be presented. 99.165.237.233 (talk) 03:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term "sockpuppet" and its derivatives is used, careless of meaning, against TDC. Strictly speaking, a sockpuppeteer uses a second or multiple accounts to fraudulently portray the presence of another user who agrees with the sockpuppeteer in some desired way. Without the existence of this false collaboration, no sockpuppeting can have occured. This meaning of the term "sockpuppet" predates the existence of Wikipedia and can be verified by an examination of its use as found in the archives of Usenet.

Despite the fact that no such evidence of false collaboration has ever been offered against TDC in his use of his other (less than or equal to three) user accounts, he has been repeatedly accused of sockpuppeting, and even the word "sockpuppeting" used in its most improper sense of merely possessing other accounts has been punitively misapplied in one outstandingly careless case, which I will deal with first, briefly.

So apparently eager was the admin User:Vassyana to act on User:Wikidemo's say-so claiming disruption by TDC on the Request for Checkuser page [14], that she misapplied the term "sockpuppet" and its derivatives (even when taking the term in the broadest possible sense) to TDC and his alternate account User:Hempbilly, and later replacing entire user pages of his accounts, in the course of the same punitive action, with the misapplication [see the user pages at the proceeding four links]. Namely, as shown through her choice of block notice, she called the 71-edit User:Hempbilly account the "sockmaster" account and the 8556-edit User:TDC account a "sock puppet" (the User:DJ Creamity account had 294 edits and the User:Happy Sapper account had 19 edits)).

This act contradicted expressed policy on the Sock Puppetry page: "An alternative account is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who already has an account. In such cases the main account is normally assumed to be the one with the longest history and most edits" A member of the Wikipedia community in good standing for years, TDC's account was thus portrayed as a mere sub-account of an user given an indefinite block on the basis of 71 edits, alienating his identity, damaging his reputation by misconveying whether the block was for alleged cumulative misconduct or some alleged egregious misdeed and subtly reinforcing the false impression that it was for an egregious act of sockpuppeting (taken in its narrow sense), and preventing those who might want to assist a long-standing user rehabilitate his status from knowing that he was a long-standing user. 99.165.237.233 (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to nitpick like this. The problem wasn't that TDC was running socks but that he was using those socks to flout the rules. Apart from that, his flagrant violations of the rules under his own user id were legendary; his humungous blocklist covers only the most extreme of his violations (and only those that were actually reported). His editing was always in the service of an openly extremist POV, and his actions on talk pages were at times nothing short of vicious. And when he was called on his violations of the rules, his responses (to admins as well as to his interlocutors) were heavy-handed and arrogant. The problem with your argument is that you're assuming that it matters which is the sockpuppet and which is the sockmaster -- for the purpose of enforcing the rules, it really doesn't matter. And in TDC's case I'm sorry to say that I have to side with the admins on this one, despite any potentially redeeming contributions the user may have made. In any case, I don't think this user page is the place to contest a block, and I'm not sure why it isn't protected anyway. csloat (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on: "always in the service of an openly extremist POV".

Just because you don't happen to share that POV doesn't mean you can call it "extremist" when justifying reasons to block someone.

Of the edits I've seen, TDC tended to work on articles about extremists whose views he obviously does not share. Just a quick look at his list shows articles shows Red Brigades, Animal Liberation Front, Winter Soldier Investigation, and Winter Soldier 2. However one feels about them, they're not in the mainstream, and his views on them were not extremist.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I wasn't clear -- his POV has nothing to do with him being blocked; the only reason I mentioned that is to say that his edits were always associated with that POV. That's not good for Wikipedia but that's not a reason for blocking either, except when, as in TDCs case, a user continually violates the rules while doing so. Anyway, perhaps "extremist" is too harsh, it's not something I care to debate - as I said I don't think it has anything to do with why he was blocked. csloat (talk) 23:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, a sockpuppeteer uses a second or multiple accounts to fraudulently portray the presence of another user who agrees with the sockpuppeteer in some desired way.

This is hilarious. "strictly" is not a synonym for "narrowly defined for self-serving purposes". Sockpuppetry is whatever WP:Sock says it is: "it is improper to use multiple accounts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, evade blocks, or otherwise violate community standards and policies" Jibal (talk) 10:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree, but I wouldn't yet say this is a conscious effort.

Non-liberal news sources do have a harder time here, and I think it's partly our fault. Liberals are more likely to reject conservative sources, while conservatives are more likely to let liberal sources remain. I don't know what to do about it, as I prefer we keep left-wing sources in the mix.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be patient as I take notes about evidence and other observations, and please don't prejudge my investigation as you and I probably haven't observed an identical set of incidents regarding TDC's treatment by various administrators and users. 99.165.237.233 (talk) 06:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. The evidence doesn't support this ludicrous claim. So many people who accuse WP of bias wear their own bias on their sleeves. The truth is that editors acting in good faith reject "sources" that are unreliable and inaccurate, without regard to their political alignment. If inaccurate sources tend to be associated more with one ideology than another, that's not WP's fault. Jibal (talk) 11:02, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear TDC, endulge my abrupt request. I am a student currently working on a research project regarding Wikipedia; specifically, how arguments about controversial issues are settled. I have seen several of your contributions, and I thought they were highly interesting. I believe your experience and opinions would add a lot to the project and they would give it life. It is absolutely important for the research to collect some data from live sources, to find something concrete. My work is about 'how' something is done, and superficial observations never suffice. Insight, understanding, genuine experience is needed. Your voice could provide me with those things.

Could you afford an online interview via e-mail or an online messenger? It would be really precious for me. If you are willing to help, it would be good if you could contact me via User Talk within April. Thanks.

Little Sheepherd (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out an article called Nurse Nayirah that could use your input. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.166.14.146 (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:LM6000.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:General Electric LM6000.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:General Electric LM6000.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 02:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Robeson GDR.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Baby Milk Factory.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:SH60B.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Salvidrim! 04:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Davos Switzerland G8 Summit.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Mosmof (talk) 03:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]