User talk:SAJordan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome! 2 John M. Ford 2.1 (digression on obsedantismssivity) 2.2 Repeated edits: why-nots, and whys 3 "Vandalism" 4 Other Klingon Topics, etc. 5 International English grammar 6 You voted to delete 7 Hollywood 8 RE: Arbitration for Iran-Iraq War 9 For a newbie you seem pretty active 10 your comments 11 Threats? 12 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iran-Iraq War 13 Leet edit 14 Cleaning :) 15 Arbitration Statements 16 Hill Valley 17 Leona-Louise Lewis 18 RFC? 19 Moby Dick 19.1 Cool Cat 20 Threats? 21 You need to stop, now. 22 Allow the storm in the teacup to blow over. Let it go. 23 Username issue 24 Re "sockpuppet caravan"? 25 YouTube RfC 26 c-t 27 looks much better 28 Name 29 Not Kuntan 30 Sincere Apology 31 abuse of admin powers user conduct RFC filed 32 RfC certification/participation of blocked users 33 RfC 34 Your RfA comment 35 Happy New Year, one and all! 36 See my message on the RfC

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, SAJordan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- JHunterJ 12:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John M. Ford

I reverted the link to Google Groups for the published obituary, based on WP:C#Linking to copyrighted works. It appears the obituary is copyrighted, and so was posted to Usenet inappropriately. -- JHunterJ 12:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. However, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thanks again. --Malyctenar 17:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I mean it: Please don't make small changes minutes apart, but try to save all your changes in a given day at once, in a single edit. It is making the page history much less usable. --Malyctenar 18:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I have just been advised that any use of the second-person singular pronoun "you" is "completely unnecessary and personal"; accordingly, I must request that others addressing me abide by the same standards pressed upon me.

Likewise, would the above complaint please also be directed to the user who made these edits only minutes apart?

• 12:54, 27 October 2006 Malyctenar (Talk | contribs) (sorry, somehow I hit a bad actionkey: please don't make small changes minutes apart)
• 12:46, 27 October 2006 Malyctenar (Talk | contribs) (→John M. Ford - please don)

Thank you... uh, I mean, Thanks!

Less frivolously, some of my return-visit edits are due to incoming new items to add (e.g. new bio data and external links), and others are due to editing separate sections of long files, which may mean several edits affect the overall file even though each section is edited once, and which in the case of references means that a separate section ("References") not being edited is still affected but not seen on the preview page until the entry's been saved... meaning errors inside the references must be left until the next day?

Also, I'm as subject as anyone else to "somehow hitting a bad actionkey" (including the Return key after clicking outside the text box, e.g. on the scroll bar), and not wanting to walk away from a known error in the entry.

All that said, I'll try to cut down.   But my hands may shake from withdrawal. -- SAJordan 08:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again, I really appreciate that. (But come on; being told that thing there, by one person in a specific context of one heated argument certainly does not constitute having "standards pressed upon" regarding "any use of the second-person singular pronoun you" in mutual addressing among Wikipedians, and even less creates justification "to request that" innocent third persons "abide by" them - I bet anything that general community, should such a nonsensical issue be brought to wider attention, would agree on this. However, as a matter of general courtesy, I'll always try to address anybody as zie wishes, even though it may cause substantial difficulties in y... my honoured colleague's case.) --Malyctenar 17:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[A certain degree of untagged <snark> was present in my comment, and seems to be duly reciprocated in yours. To quote Krenn from The Final Reflection, "In this is no need for apology." -- SAJordan 02:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)]

[edit] (digression on obsedantismssivity)

Of course, correcting a mistake one hasn't noticed until just after saving (or caused by saving prematurely - I seem more prone to this lately; is it possible that there were some changes made to the JS/CSS/etc.?) is fair game: this happens to everybody from time to time (even when using Preview as obsedantly as I do.) --Malyctenar 17:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

["Obsedantly"? Is this a portmanteau of "obsequiously" and "obediently"? Is it your own creation? If yes to #1, I'll add it to the neologisms. If yes to #2, I'll credit you. If no to #2, can you point me toward a source? -- SAJordan 02:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)]

[All right, I have found two, just two, prior uses of "obsedantly", on the Web and Usenet respectively, where it appears to be used in the sense of "obsessively", from the French "obsédant" (obsessive). Another word crosses between languages. Thank you for drawing my attention to it! -- SAJordan 03:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)]

[This is my third edit within two hours, but again due to new information: I've added a Langmaker Neologisms entry for obsedantly. You are credited as one of the only three users I could find — assuming you are not also "Jabba" or "Pavlik". If you are, I need to revise that entry. -- SAJordan 04:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)]

Urm, as should be clear from my user page, I am not a native speaker of English; it will show. (So I doubt if I count for the Langmaker's purposes. [BTW, saw your "okayseller" there but didn't want to register, so will use this opportunity, with apology for digressing even more: don't you think that a mention of the established term "steady-seller" should be made in the entry?) I must have been false friended (as was J. Pavlík, obviously, and it seems quite possible that even Jabba was) by the Czech "obsedantní" (after all, the fifth result is my weblog's subtitle) which is apparently taken via French; I suppose that the minority form "obsesivní" is a comparatively recent calque from English. --Malyctenar 12:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated edits: why-nots, and whys

However, most of my honoured colleague's edits fall into another pattern: simply adding several details consecutively, obviously within one editing session. It is a common habit (not only) among newcomers to Wikipedia, but its side effects are bad enough that it's worth notifying people about the difference between Ctrl+S in an offline text editor and Save page in a wiki. --Malyctenar 17:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[When I add a new detail after an edit, it is because I found the detail after that edit — having continued to scour the net during my online session. My browser bogs down if I hold too many windows open, otherwise I'd scour first, collecting windows, then do a mass add. Also, my browser/system sometimes freezes up, losing whatever I had not already saved — in which respect "saving page" here is exactly like saving text in an offline editor: insurance. -- SAJordan 02:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)]

Re editing separate section of long pages (which I think is a more exact, used and understandable term here), it is another reason why I think that (over)using sections is not that good an idea. This may not have been put into a general policy like the Template:Preview, but at least I personally, whenever I know that I would edit a heavily sectioned page in several different places, just don't click at "Edit" links at section headers, but the overall "Edit this page" tab and do all changes at once. Yes, it takes more scrolling, but it is more effective in all other respects. Also, it allows you (um, this was generic you) to preview the entire page including the References section. I guess there are arguments for consecutive editing just sections of some lists too long to fit into a browser's memory, or at least to find the proper place reasonably fast; however the Ford article isn't such a case.

But anyway, thanks once again for MHC's work on it. I have slightly different ideas about how it should look, but we can solve it there when I have more time. (For start, I think there must be a NPOV and sufficiently verifiable way to say why exactly people loved him so.) --Malyctenar 17:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[One of the comments Neil Gaiman made addressed Ford's generosity with ideas to others, including fellow writers such as Gaiman himself (i.e. helping improve stories). On Making Light, he responded to others' comments by producing extended riffs or even formal sonnets expressing their ideas — which has to have been a rush for the original commenters.   One comment I should track down was about his complimenting his readers' intelligence by doing the opposite of "dumbing down" his writing.   Perhaps it's a bit like the wonder we still feel at the work of Mozart (who also died too young): both men simply came out with so much beauty out of material no one else would have thought to use in that way, you simply wanted to see what they'd have done next. -- SAJordan 02:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)]

[edit] "Vandalism"

It's bad form to label the good faith edits of others as "vandalism".[1] The Wikipedia usage of the term is defined in Wikipedia:Vandalism. -Will Beback 04:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

When he deleted all my text (and garbled the remainder of the paragraph), as part of what looks very much like an Edit War, he surely wasn't suggesting good faith on my part with the comment:  "And back from the dead comes another hagiographer blog commenter from guess where? Making Light yet again. What a stunning surprise."   That's an allegation of bias.   He's said similarly hostile things to others on that Talk page, which suggests hostile motives for his deletions.   His referring to me as "dead" or "back from the dead" is also disturbing.   It may not mean a death threat, but what else it could mean is unclear to me.   (I hadn't participated on that page, or any debate with him, before these last few days, so it can't simply mean "You went away so long I thought you were gone forever, but look, here you're back again.")   The combination of all these things leaves me not only not believing in his good faith, but unable to suspend my disbelief. -- SAJordan 05:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Nonetheless, "vandalism" refers to content like "dfhdkfhkj" or "your momma wears army boots", not to disagreements on content that are dicsussed on talk pages. It may be that the other editor overreacted to your comment, as the article does have a contentious history. If so that would have been wrong of him, but even then it's still better to calm things down rather than to escalate them. Cheers, -Will Beback 06:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

... "vandalism" refers to content like "dfhdkfhkj" or "your momma wears army boots",...

One could go to page after page just blanking out segments of paragraphs and leaving the remainders senseless and incoherent, not adding anything — doing exactly what he did to just this one top paragraph — and by your guideline above, that wouldn't be "vandalism".   But it would be, according to this page, which states: "Please do not remove content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism."   Earlier I hadn't seen what your idea of "vandalism" is; I had seen Wikipedia's.

... not to disagreements on content that are dicsussed on talk pages.

Will, he did not discuss my content before deleting it, or afterward until I posted my complaint.   His only remark had been the one quoted above, which does not discuss content. -- SAJordan 07:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

As someone with a long history of trying (and often failing) to reduce the contentiousness surrounding this article and accompanying talk page and achieve consensus, I'd like to second Will's suggestion here. Everything you say in the talk page is probably accurate, except that your use of the term "vandal" and its derivatives is unfortunate at best. People remove content from articles all the time if they feel it is inaccurate, POV, extraneous or whatever. Sometimes it is indeed vandalism, but other times it is instead a mere disagreement between editors, in worst cases bearing the hallmarks of an edit war. Mark's edits on this article tend to fall into the latter category. The edits are sometimes haphazardly entered and I nearly always disagree with them, but they are not vandalism. In addition, I have found that trying to argue the case on its merits, applying logic and pointing out any flaws in the other person's editing, attitude, etc. on this article accomplishes very little. It merely perpetuates ill-will that can go on for months. You've come up with a couple of good edits here, and taken Will's suggestions on how to make statements that avoid original research and all that. Well done! But let's not include a sideshow of endless bickering as well. Regards, Karen | Talk | contribs 01:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's what he's done and is persisting in continued attacks. This guy complained immediately without saying anything. Sure I flubbed the link removal twice but that's a mistake. I'm not taking lectures from self-intesested POV editors. We've been down this road before. He just made the additions and left a proclamation as to why they should stay. He's done original research and a listserv isn't a valid source. Moreover, he's the latest to shill for a participant TNH in the story all along as were other editors including Karen here. Sure they'll deny it but all it takes is a visit to the blog in question to quell that claim. This is defamatory and I doth protest.Marky48 01:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

"His referring to me as "dead" or "back from the dead""

It's metaphorical for someone reviving the same old stuff yet again. Apparently you're a literalist as well as overly excitable.Marky48 01:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

"This guy complained immediately without saying anything."

"This guy" looked at the history to see how the deletion of his own text came about, and saw there a track record of hostile deletions (accompanied by personal accusations against the deleted texts' authors) extending back nearly 5 months.   So this was not a standalone incident but merely the latest in a series of such incidents.   First "back from the dead... hagiographer", then "shill", and now "freak", with a threat to "seek internal action", all directed against me — my goodness, Will and Karen, at what point will you see "incivility" in all this? -- SAJordan 06:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course Mark is being less than civil, but responding to his unpleasantness simply does not help. I notice that Will has already asked him to refrain from using the term "shill," and Mark responded that he was being defamed. As long as you continue to debate this issue, Mark will almost certainly continue to attack, accuse, and call you names, being unshakably certain that he is the injured party and consequently has the right to do so. (Note that even my plea for peace above resulted in yet another repetition of his accusations against me.) The only course of action that seems to help at all is to be scrupulously civil, and to disengage as soon as possible. Karen | Talk | contribs 06:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Karen is giving excellent advice. There doesn't seem to be a content dispute anymore; this is now just an argument over who called the other the worse name. -Will Beback 07:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

"accompanied by personal accusations against the deleted texts' authors."

All of which were and are true. Bias from friends of the article's focus as the Chief Disemvowler of the Internet. Hostile deletions? I find this same thing goes on all over Wikipedia. People lord over their edits and fight anyone who comes along with a change ouraged that anyone dare contest their judgment. It amazes me how quickly the response to an insult gets top billing and the original infraction is swept under the cyber rug, but this happens in the world often. If blogs and forums can be used as sources after all this fuss, then the battle of the last few months on this article was a bigger waste of time than it felt like. Apparently the rules of content bend under group advocacy pressure. Nothing new about that either.Marky48 17:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Mark has taken out your citation again. I've asked Will to state whether he believes the blog to be a primary source for what happened on the blog. Since Will has no particular fondness for TNH (and Mark knows it), his opinion may have a bit more weight than yours or mine. (TNH was rather strenuously unpleasant to Will a few months back, so he's unlikely to be biased in her favor.) If we're very, very lucky, we may avoid another protracted round of unpleasantness if we keep cool. Regards! Karen | Talk | contribs 19:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other Klingon Topics, etc.

Oh thanks for clarifying that. Still, it is a little unintuitive, though, right? Normally if I'm looking for the categories that an article is in, I look at the bottom of the page. If you look at Wikipedia:Categories#Guidelines, the first objective of categories is given as "Categories are mainly used to browse through similar articles. Make decisions about the structure of categories and subcategories that make it easy for users to browse through similar articles." If articles are in categories via redirects, there really wouldn't be any way to tell, right? I dunno if there's any wikipedia precedence for this kind of redirect categorization, but I'm not sure it's a good idea. --DDG 21:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

One way to resolve that would be to move the content of Klingon to Klingons, and make Klingon the redirect page.   Would it be worth that effort to clean up this problem? -- SAJordan 06:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure why the category needs to be on "Klingons" rather than "Klingon", but I'm cool with either. Whatever the solution ends up being, I just think the category tag should be on the same page as the article content. --DDG 18:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International English grammar

Actually, if you look carefully, you'll see I changed "Paramount owns the copyright" to "Paramount Pictures own the copyright". The former is straightforward. The latter made me think for a good 30 seconds, after which I opted for "own", which sounded better. I am, in my defense, a non-native speaker. I generally aim for American English, which means I got this one wrong.

The relevant policy is found at [Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English]], further elucidated at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling). The relevant guideline is "[a]rticles should use the same dialect throughout" — hence, if indeed (and I'm willing to take your word for it) "owns" is the correct American English form, and seeing as the article is written throughout in American English ("Klingon text can be left-justified, center-justified, or right-justified"), the correct thing to do would be to replace "own" with "owns", as per your suggestion.

Which, to make a long story somewhat longer, I did.

Anyway, thanks for pointing this out. Welcome to Wikipedia (I see you've been here for more than a month – be careful, Wikipedia is highly addictive). If you have further policy-related questions, I'd be glad to help. — Itai (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You voted to delete

Dont forget! Your vote will also apply to List of converts to Islam [2]. So be careful what you ask for "brother". --Matt57 20:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

That's right, you persuaded me they should all be deleted. Thank you! -- SAJordan 00:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hollywood

The page was moved after I made the change. However since it's misspelled it doesn't serve a useful purpose so I've now deleted it. -Will Beback 00:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Arbitration for Iran-Iraq War

Yes, something along those lines would be of help to establish an editor's character. -^demon^{[yell at me]} 19:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You make a pretty good point with that two line edit history, but for all I know Mark may have a valid concern with respect to that particular article. I plan to stay well clear of it. In any case, his incivility seems to be reaching a wider audience now. That's more likely to affect Mark's standing on WP and his success in these disputes than anything you or I could say. Karen | Talk | contribs 01:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I went back and specified. -^demon^{[yell at me]} 01:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the accusations of incivility are reaching the breaking point and really are just a sideshow for disguising group bias. This is akin to stalking and witchhunting not to mention colusion. Your group tactics are exposed on that page for all to see since you followed me there. My standing is to stand up for my edits. This so-called mediator has resigned. I suggest you do too. This is not about me, it's about guerrilla editing by tag teams with a bias. The bias is demonstrable and I have done so. Enjoy the temple of disemvoweling because it is of no interest to me as are any of you. Please stay away from me in the future.Marky48 19:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

"The bias is demonstrable and I have done so." You have certainly demonstrated bias on your own part; you merely presume it on everyone else's. As for "staying away from you in the future", do you mean I should not post further on this, my own talk page, where you have now posted four times? Because I have never posted on your talk page — and I would otherwise assume that constitutes "staying away from you". – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 10:19, 12 Nov 2006 (UTC).

Pushaw. It's nothing of the sort. The bias is by members of a particular blog community and for that the evidence is clear. You accused me of vandalism and I responded. If you continue to talk about others in a defamatory way they will respond, as I see others here have. Keep it up and a cease and desist will be requested. Stop butting in to other peoples affairs, because it has the appearance of stalking. Arbcom can follow it easily. Marky48 16:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone now posted here five times, despite demanding that I stay away from him (though I've never posted to his talk page)? Has anyone thrown around personal attacks like "freak" and "shill", but cried defamation over a link to that page, which just let others read and judge for themselves? Well, at least no-one here ever feigned victimhood, I'm happy to say. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 02:29, 15 Nov 2006 (UTC).

You need to remove your entry to the arbcom because I've withdrawn, since my edits have stood the test od time. I see you following people and butting in, then posting neverending arguments. Nice debating dodge. In case your feigned newbie status here is at the root of this talk pages are for communicating with users. Had you not charged me falsely with vandalism all of this could have been avoided. I suspect that's what you think anytime someone challenges your edits. So-called personal attacks are another nice diversion. Anyone can claim them. Cross out your post on the arbcom because I'm no longer a part of it.Marky48 03:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

...six times... (not counting typo cleanups etc.) – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 06:51, 15 Nov 2006 (UTC).

[edit] For a newbie you seem pretty active

Thank you. — SAJ

I was wondering why you want to be so involved with my case involving Moby Dick and Karl Meier. It is a ~2 year old dispute. --Cat out 03:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to be involved with it. I'm just curious. I don't understand how Moby's solitary Commons post in July (joining others voting "opposed" on your promotion to admin) constitutes his trolling you, while your blanking out his user page (twice) and then protecting it so he can't restore it doesn't constitute your harassing him; and then his complaining about it constitutes his harassing you again. That simply doesn't make sense to me. So I'm asking questions, hoping someone will explain it to me. What would you do if something puzzled you that much? – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 04:51, 13 Nov 2006 (UTC).

[edit] your comments

Thanks for making your comments here and on commons. --Moby

[edit] Threats?

I didn't block you. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 14:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iran-Iraq War

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iran-Iraq War. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iran-Iraq War/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iran-Iraq War/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Arbitration Committee Clerk FloNight 01:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leet edit

You were fast to delete. You should have added. Please be kind enough to nominate the page that was redirected and explain to that user why you don't think that information can be good enough for Wikipedia, or restore that linked page. I was just taking care of a merge which you never commented on. Thanks. No need to add to my talk page, just make the edits as you see fit. --Walter Görlitz 07:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

(Replied at User_talk:Walter_Görlitz#Leet_edit.) – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 08:00, 17 Nov 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Cleaning :)

Yeah, I just looked at it the other day and was like "Wow, I really don't like it anymore." But I couldn't think of anything better to put, so I just blanked except for my PD notice. If you have any good suggestions for how to redo it nicely, lemmie know. :) ^demon^{[omg plz]} 05:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration Statements

I know you meant well, but it would be better if you didn't alter statements on the Arbitation pages - even the discussion pages. This is really up to the users themselves to handle and for the arbitrators. When someone makes a statement, it should stand just the way they produced it. Changing it is kinda like changing a legal document. Thanks! Pete K 02:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hill Valley

Yes,'tis a puzzlement. Bob Gale mentions the high school in one of the commentaries, and some fan site or other mentions the school in connection with the film, and the fire in the gym. (The Whittier article also mentions the fire.) But I haven't found anything to reliably nail down the specifics. (What is the status of BTTF.com, anyway?) Ah, well. At least the article no longer makes a claim I now know to be incorrect! I just dug out an old Starlog with a Zemeckis interview for Part 2. I'm a page or two into it, and so far there's nothing in it worth citing. Regards and thanks! ---- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mavarin (talk • contribs) 23:09-23:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

D'oh! I never forget to sign! (What, never? Well, hardly ever!) Sorry! Karen | Talk | contribs 02:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem, Karen! Not to me, anyway. Without even looking at the history, I knew who had to have written that comment, because I knew whose talk page I'd posted to. I only put the author info up for the sake of others who might read this page. And I don't think it's that you forgot to sign, it's that you hit the wrong key, "-" instead of "~", spmethung anyonw mifgt dp. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 02:40, 3 Dec 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Leona-Louise Lewis

I have to admit, I'd never heard of The X-Factor...but that wouldn't have changed my involvement with the article. It seems to have been a mixture of some of the information available at The X Factor UK and Ireland series 3 plus some nonsense about being an arson and leg shaving if I remember correctly now. It made no mention of the subject being a finalist in the contest, or that the contest was any type of current event. If the editor had placed a {hangon} tag and explained themselves...there likely would be an article dedicated to Ms. Lewis now. Instead, they continued to make threats and ignore procedures. --Onorem 16:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Arson and leg-shaving? Then possibly it was someone impersonating the genuine person. There had been a Leona Lewis article, which (until it became a redirect) seemed straightforward enough; apparently that was written by fans of the show. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 17:03, 8 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Yeah. Some of the article may have contained genuine information, but my ignorance of the shows existance combined with some of the patent nonsense that was also present led me to incorrectly believe that nothing about the person was truly notable. The links that were provided were just to radio station websites that made no mention of the subject. Oh well...if she's successful, I'm sure the redirect will end up being an article on its own soon enough. Thanks for the heads up on the real person. --Onorem 17:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: On December 16, 2006, Leona Lewis won the competition, and her page is no longer a redirect but a full (and legitimate) article; Leona Louise Lewis redirects to it. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 21:17, 17 Dec 2006 (UTC).

[edit] RFC?

Given recent events, do you think that a Bastique RFC might be in order? Moreschi 10:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, definitely, but I'd want to know that his critics weren't blocked to keep them from participating, as for instance Moby Dick is blocked now. (He might well want to help certify the RfC.) Likewise, I've been blocked on Commons (for objecting to the railroading there), on the false charge of "making threats against Cool Cat and others", and even my repeated requests to be told "what threats?" were evaded or ignored. Blocking one's critics to stack the vote... gosh, why am I thinking of Florida 2000?

By the way, the Steward election Bastique's in runs only until December 15. If he becomes a Steward, I think he can then thumb his nose at any mere Wikipedia RfC. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 11:53, 9 Dec 2006 (UTC).

While I admit to a definite COI on Bastique's part, I'm going to try and look at this coldly. Moby violates his ArbCom ruling, he gets blocked. Moby brings up issues on Commons onto a Wikipedia RfC, that's trolling. IMV bringing up issues on other projects is wrong, considering most other projects interact differently to Wikipedia. I do not fully endorse the block, but I do believe rehashing matters on Commons is wrong. As I said in your defense, Jordan. riana_dzasta 12:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Ooh er, I'm not so sure Moby's actions amounted to actual harassment and violation of the ArbCom, Riana. User misconduct on other Wikimedia projects is surely relevant, and Moby is surely free to comment on Elaragirl's RFC, no? It's not a Cool Cat RFC, though it ought to be. Moreschi 12:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Riana, you've now seen my argument that Moby's posts did not violate his ArbCom ruling. As for bringing up issues on Commons onto Wikipedia = trolling, Cool Cat has done that without penalty, warning, or official rebuke of any sort. Is there a double standard at work? – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 13:23, 9 Dec 2006 (UTC).

{From Elaragirl's talkpage) That's interesting evidence; to be honest I looked at it rather superficially. I would, however, ask you (Jordan) not to initiate an RfC yourself, as your previous biases (perfectly understandable, obviously) may be called into question. riana_dzasta 12:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd happily see others lead the way, Riana, especially well-known and respected admins, since I'm still a relative newbie. I do favor the MeatballWiki "DefendEachOther" guideline – which is why I've spoken up for Moby. It would just be nice to see that principle put to work more effectively for the targets of abuse than for the abusers. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 13:23, 9 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Fair enough. Consider discussing this personally with Bastique first, though. I'm sure if you are both open to reason, one could avoid a messy shouting match. I am personally only interested in the matter of keeping affairs on different projects separate. Thanks, riana_dzasta 13:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I've posted to Bastique's talk page here and here. You can see his replies on this very page, here and below. I've also posted to Zscout370 here and Lar here (no reply). Tell me who's been open to reason, and who's refused to even specify what "threats" were purportedly made, but instead publicly declared that even that question would be ignored. How does "Assume Good Faith" survive such a declaration?

As for "keeping affairs on different projects separate", Cool Cat took his Wikipedia grievance to Commons and used his admin powers there to harass Moby Dick, then go back to Wikipedia and charge Moby with harassment for having complained about it. Now Cool Cat's cronies on Commons are getting involved in this dispute on Wikipedia... and you know, none of them, not even Cool Cat himself, are getting penalized for this. But Cool Cat's targets are, like Moby, like me. Doesn't that strike you, even a little bit, as a double standard? If not, why not?

For another example, look below; see how differently actions are judged, if Cool Cat edits Moby Dick's user page ("error of judgment", don't dare complain), vs. if MD edits CC's ("blockable offense"). Is that being open to reason? Fair? Impartial? Disinterested? Equitable? Any of those good things? – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 14:56, 9 Dec 2006 (UTC).

I note that you are spamming people to vote against my stewardship. This is not advisable. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 13:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Vaguely threatening as usual, I see. FYI, Moreschi wrote to me first, I replied with information. When discussing admin abuse, the fact that the admin in question is running for still higher office is relevant information – and vice versa, like mentioning that a presidential candidate had abused his gubernatorial powers. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 14:04, 9 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Internal spamming, or canvassing for votes, is not allowed. See Wikipedia:Spam. —Centrx→talk • 23:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

That's nice. Point to the spam. Or see Bastique's next comment. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 01:26, 11 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Apologies regarding the above comment. Perhaps I should not have taken Moreschi's single vote as evidence of spamming. However, Moreschi should not have taken my single action in blocking Moby Dick as a reason for an RFC. Moby Dick edited Cool Cat's user page with a sarcastic remark. That's a blockable offense. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 13:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Apology accepted. ... But then, as you say, "However,"...

When Cool Cat edited Moby Dick's user page seven times over four days, blanking the picture and even at one point protecting the page against Moby's restore, you did not then call that a "blockable offense"; rather, you excused it as an "error of judgment" (as you said also of his undeleting his contribs that had been deleted for policy violations); rather, you cautioned or threatened those who'd complained of his admin abuse. This demonstrates a double standard: quick dismissal of complaints about Cool Cat, harsh summary judgment against his critics. With such blatant partiality, why should others trust you to be fair or equitable in either enforcing or setting policy, either as an admin or as a Steward? – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 14:04, 9 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Needless to say, to wake up and find this hellstorm occuring for an action which was entirely justafiable was disconserting, to say the least. I will not unblock Moby Dick unless the ArbCom committee instructs me to. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 13:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you recuse yourself for partiality, take your block off and let neutral admins decide whether to block, preferably with a fair hearing first to seek consensus. As Cool Cat's sponsor and loyal defender, you give a bad impression by unilaterally using your admin powers against someone Cool Cat had harassed (on Commons) and then accused of harassment (on Wikipedia) for complaining about it. It comes off as cronyism, as bullying, as ganging up, as kicking someone who's down. And the more you persist, the more intransigent you become, the stronger that impression becomes. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 14:04, 9 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Me? I supported you. ec Ah, I see, dodgy threading. Apologies :) riana_dzasta 13:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I'm still waking up and waiting for my coffee. One shouldn't edit until one has his/her coffee. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 13:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moby Dick

[edit] Cool Cat

You've made three edits in two days that relate to Cool Cat in one way or another. This is in direct violation of your Arbcom ruling. I have blocked you for one week from editing. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 20:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The three edits in question were:

1. Moby remarking "makes for interesting reading!" below a link to his RfAr case (but note the consensus where this was discussed: Moby was legitimately responding to his own name being brought up); and
2. Moby's participation in RFC:Elaragirl – endorsing the summary of Elaragirl – Moby's "Well said, Elaragirl" remark, among 12 other endorsements... (you do not cite Moby's no-comment endorsement of Doug Bell's summary, or Moby's "ya, rfc wo merit" endorsement of Swatjester's summary); and
3. Moby's supportive post to the user talk page of Elaragirl, who was being accused by Cool Cat.

I don't see where the ArbCom forbade Moby to respond where someone else brings up his name, or to endorse summaries on RfC's, or to write to other people Cool Cat has attacked. These cannot reasonably be termed "harassment of Cool Cat" – but you have done so anyway, just as Cool Cat claimed "harassment" over the complaint that CC had repeatedly blanked and then protected Moby's user page, where clearly the harassment was in the other direction.

No neutral admin chose to declare the above-cited posts "harassment" in open discussion, or to block Moby. You declared them such elsewhere, in a post you wouldn't even sign your own name to. And you are not a neutral admin.

Bastique, you nominated Cool Cat for Commons admin [3], and have since then loyally defended him from repeated complaints of admin abuse as merely "errors of judgment" [4] [5]... while cautioning or even threatening to block those who bring up these complaints [same cites], so complaining of Cool Cat's admin abuse is clearly a much more severe offense to you than CC's admin abuse itself.

This shows you to be partial, not impartial. You should have recused yourself as an admin in every issue involving Cool Cat, due to your conflict of interest, not jumped in to exert your admin powers on his behalf – which constitutes admin abuse on your part.

I urge you to withdraw your block of Moby Dick, and to apologize to him for your most improper action, and not to repeat this unseemly partiality in your official actions.

Yours has not been the fair and impartial behavior one expects of a leading candidate for Steward. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 09:39, 9 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Bastique, I now see that you also altered Moby's endorsement to delete evidentiary links Moby was offering to Elaragirl's summary list – in effect, you destroyed evidence that the RfC participants might otherwise have seen. This could unfortunately suggest another possible motive for your blocking Moby: to keep Moby from restoring the links or drawing attention to their deletion. It was not your place to alter others' endorsements, or remove their links, on that RfC. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 10:37, 9 Dec 2006 (UTC).

1) I had the endorsement of other admins in this block because,

2) Moby Dick stalked Cool Cat. Three times. In complete contrast to his arbcom decision. I would have been justified by blocking him for the first infraction... Moby Dick has no call to draw attention to Cool Cat in any way. This behavior is stalking, and it is in opposition to his arbcom decision. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 13:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You said:

in a post you wouldn't even sign your own name to.

You are a troll because you pick people's mistakes and turn them into malicious innuendo. I made a mistake. When Cool Cat saw an edit on Commons on Moby Dick's userpage, he assumed he was being stalked again. He reverted the page blanking. I suggested to Cool Cat that this was not the case. Cool Cat reverted his mistake. It was an honest mistake and it was an error in judgement. And I told you it was an error in judgment.

But you had to engage the community at Commons, wasting our valuable time, creating something out of nothing. Only to troll Cool Cat. This is why you were blocked. Very well. If you want to offer something constructive to our community, by all means, request unblocking. But if your intent is to harangue the community about Cool Cat's behavior, then you are not welcome.

Finally, Moby Dick is free to request unblocking at his talk page, or by sending a request via email. If he does that, I'll consider undoing my block. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 19:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

As for the blocking on the Commons, I am not inclined to lift it. We do not block people often at the Commons, so I ask for others to endorse it, which they did after I applied the block. As to what Bastique said, from the first edits you done at the Commons, you were just trolling Cool Cat and that is a no-go on the Commons. You exhausted the patience of the Community, hence the block. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Where was the "Community" polled on the matter? Please link to the RfC or whatever page discussed the matter. Your announcement (after the fact) is endorsed by Bastique and Lar; do you claim that's the size of the Commons "Community"? The reason you gave there was explicitly "For making threats against Cool Cat and others" — but neither you nor Bastique nor Lar ever gave a straight answer to my asking "What threats?" – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 01:40, 11 Dec 2006 (UTC).

[edit] You need to stop, now.

Your incessant trolling of Cool Cat, myself, and this entire situation will get you blocked. I will not be the one to do it, however you are walking a very thin line. You persist in making non-credible accusations against me, leading people to believe things that are unfounded. You completely lack good faith. And you are causing more and more people to spend valuable time, embroiled in a destructive path on your fantasies that area completely without merit.

Moby Dick's single edit to Cool Cat's talk page constituted harrassment. I'm sorry if you disagree, but it was completely within the bounds of the arbcom ruling. I consulted other admins before I blocked him. He has not requested unblock.

You evidently have some kind of vendetta going against Cool Cat. And now you're directing it at me because I had the balls to tell you to stop trolling Cool Cat.

Stop trolling me. Now. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 23:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allow the storm in the teacup to blow over. Let it go.

This is probably the best course of action. Cool Cat has now been blocked for a week and subjected to considerable censure for violations of WP:POINT. If he comes back and continues to edit disruptively, I recommmend that you ignore it, edit some articles, and let me sweep up the mess. Recusal in controversy when you have become heavily involved is usually a good idea. Moreschi 22:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Username issue

You made very good points in both places that contribute an important element to the discussion. I actually think the block may have been in error, but I'm not going to unblock the user in question for two reasons: on principle, I don't want to revert another admin's actions (wheel warring concerns) without clear community consensus; and there's no point in unblocking if the user isn't back and requesting unblocking.--Kchase T 20:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Your comments on Starblindy's name, and the comments you left on my Talk page, are nonsense. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re "sockpuppet caravan"?

Shouldn't the collective noun fit the group characteristics, e.g. "sockpuppet drawer"? – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 23:20, 20 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Lol! Well, that's right but the caravan also fits as the user in question has been camping in both Ireland, Wales and England! He's been changing the driver's license everytime he changes the place. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Some people collect postcards and tourism brochures as souvenirs of their travels; this person collects driver's licenses. <shrug> De gusty tourist bus non disputandum est. You might possibly also enjoy the latter half of this Usenet post from ages past, another view of sockpuppets. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 15:59, 21 Dec 2006 (UTC).

SMH! That's what i call a good coincidence. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 09:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] YouTube RfC

I've filed an RfC over the YouTube link issue. Argyriou (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

RFCs should be filed at WP:RFC, and the category you want is at the bottom, "Wikipedia policies, guidelines and proposals". – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 18:27, 21 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Actually, it depends on the extent of the dispute. I see that Argyriou has already posted it at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies which is the proper action. Personally, i'd recommend we put a notice in parallel at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) to involve more users while keeping discussions at Wikipedia talk:External links. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is going to be large and WT:EL should be for talking about the guideline WP:EL, not specific implementations of the guidelines... especially since this whole YouTube issue involves 3 policies and 4 guidelines. (WP:NOT, WP:C, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:SPAM, WP:COI and WP:EL) ---J.S ^(T/C) 18:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see this split off onto a subpage of WT:EL or WP:RFC or someplace else. It's not clear to me what the best way to do this is, so I'll defer to the more experienced, so long as everyplace I've put a notice gets a redirect note. Argyriou (talk) 19:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] c-t

I hope for more in the metaphoric sense, because the one i have is a little borderline, since it's talking about media, the sort of media in which it also can appear literally. If you see any, pls add them. And, I am informed by those in the proper age group to know, that although it past generations it meant any really provocative behavior (with the implication, sufficiently provocative to induce an erection) it is now limited to someone deliberately interrupting sex. DGG 03:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] looks much better

looks much better, as ive now noted on the afd page. cheers. Jackk 07:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name

I've deleted the apparently closed debates at RfC:Name. If you get a chance to look over the last revision and disagree with anything, feel free to restore or drop me a line. Cheers, Deizio talk 03:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not Kuntan

This might be deleted soon. Daakshayani 10:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sincere Apology

Hello. I have come to you to apologize for my actions. I have realized that what I was doing was wrong and I wish to make up for it. No longer do I wish to cause trouble. I would like to put the past behind me. I want to contribute positively. If you find it in your heart to forgive me for my actions, then I will assure you that I will become a positive contributor to Wikipedia and never vandalize again. Will you forgive me? --Insineratehymn 02:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Joyfully replied at User_talk:Insineratehymn#Apology_accepted. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 06:39, 28 Dec 2006 (UTC).

[edit] abuse of admin powers user conduct RFC filed

Courtesy notice: [6]. Also please feel free to correct any formatting errors. Cindery 22:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC certification/participation of blocked users

Courtesy notice of discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dmcdevit#Nick_RfC Cindery 23:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

I've replied to your comments on my talk page. Shimeru 06:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your RfA comment

Not to be a complete pedant, but did you really mean pendanticism? I guess you could have been leaving it hanging out there on purpose... Jd2718 17:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly: another juicy dangled bait. Thanks! – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 17:55, 31 Dec 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Happy New Year, one and all!

– SAJordan ^talk_contribs 00:06, 1 Jan 2007 (UTC).

[edit] See my message on the RfC

|See Kundan After Sundown 05:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)