Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in December 2005, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.
Instead of reading the riot act for a minor infringement of the rules, why don't you keep an eye on vandals like that anon IP who vandalised the Cuba page instead. Jooler 23:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC) D'yer ken? Jooler23:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Personal attacks are not minor infringement of the rules; many editors consider Wikipedia:No personal attacks to be one of the most important guidelines on Wikipedia. If you take a look at my contributions, you'll see that I do take vandalism just as seriously. // Pathoschild 23:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Blah blah blah. Yeah right. An image is forming in my mind which deserves expression but is forbidden. Jooler23:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Your personal attack will be removed. Please don't revert to it again, as I will have to resort to admin intervention. // Pathoschild 23:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
You're welcome. // Pathoschild 14:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks
Thank you for blocking User:207.217.218.1 and bringing some common-sense in here. Although I doubt it'll make that much difference in itself (user normally edits at 24 hour intervals), I appreciate that first blocks are normally small and it's a good starting point.
BTW, is the "Administrator Intervention against vandalism" really *that* strict about
Vandalism having taken place within 24 hours of last warning, or
is it just that
Vandalism *itself* has to have taken place in the previous 24 hours?
If the former is the case, it creates some rather pointless hoops to jump through; namely, if user is vandalising at slightly more than 24 hour intervals, it make sense to wait a few hours before giving a final warning so that the next vandalism takes place within 24 hours of the warning. Pretty silly.
And what if a final warning has already been given more than 24 hours previously, and the user vandalises again?
The answer to that question depends on the administrator's judgement. If the administrator believes it to be a returning vandal, the block is likely to be much longer. The difficulty with blocking IPs, however, is that users often switch IPs (intentionally or not), IPs are often shared among hundreds or thousands of users, and registered users operating from that IP address are often auto-blocked due to glitchy software behaviour. We generally tend to be a little careful about blocking IPs for those reasons, though some administrators are a little more punitive towards IPs. The various minimum requirements are intended to ensure that only cases that really need administrator intervention are posted on that page. If there has been no recent vandalism, there's no need to bring it to an admin's attention. // Pathoschild 14:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
That's great, thank you. Yep, like I said, I understand the reasons for not extended-blocking, though in this case it was very clearly a single user address, and had been for months. Apparently, it also belongs to a company, and as such they can be expected to have more control over what their employees do (cf. school/uni machines); either that, or they've been "pwn3r0red!!!!" by a h4x0r (cough). I'd be interested to see what happened if the company *were* sent email. Possibly nothing that would be revealed publicly though, more's the pity... Anyway, thanks again. Fourohfour16:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
You're welcome. // Pathoschild 09:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
193.112.136.21
Why did you not block this user? Their page says that they can be blocked without warning, so I didn't add a new warning to avoid the imprsesion that warnings are pure bluff.
Looking at their talk page, they received another final warning only twenty five minutes after you let them off!
I don't recall dealing with that IP. The only vandal I ignored recently was IP 81.109.164.83 because no further vandalism ensued. In general, however, it's best to be conservative in blocking IP addresses because registered users operating from that IP may sometimes be automatically blocked as well. // Pathoschild 15:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
My mistake, I thought I had back buttoned to an old copy of AIV, but I hadn't, and there was a new entry. My point though is that, if someone puts on the template in question, and the subject vandalise without being blocked, they are going to assume that there is a good chance of getting away with it in future. There is a basic rule about threats that they should never be empty. My impression is that vandals with effectively static addresses can get away with about five vandalisms for each warning, and those with highly dynamic addresses tend to get test1 on each.
In this case, if there is no intention to actually block them, the template should be removed before it becomes discredited. I've noticed a lot of vandals that do one vandalism a day, which I think they do because it reduces the chances of being blocked, and, in any case, the block will probably have gone before they next try, making it ineffective. --David Woolley15:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Anonymous editing is a subject of much controversy for just that reason. Due to limitations of Wikipedia, blocking IP addresses can affect registered users; this is particularly true when blocking IP addresses shared by entire school networks, for example. To prevent this collateral damage to registered users, we're forced to allow some of the anonymous gaming you describe. Removing the templates are counter-productive, though; an IP address with several test4's is much more likely to get a test3 or test4 the next day that a test1. The reason I didn't block that IP is that the vandal stopped; blocking it at that point may have blocked several registered users without having any effect whatsoever on the vandal. // Pathoschild 16:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
It seems to be a vandal who jumped IPs (I blocked a similar vandal just before), so I kept the block very short. Even if that weren't the case, I prefer to keep IP blocks just short enough to stop vandalism without too much collateral damage to other users. It's up to each admin's preferences, though. Whichever you prefer in this case is fine by me. // Pathoschild 01:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Tookie Protection
It seems an anon user is ranting at both Talk:Stanley Williams and WP:RFP about what he sees as a major flaw in the current version of the article.
RE: Stanley "Tookie" Williams
The administrators have abandoned any pretense of adherence to wiki principles by locking this page against editing. The page in its current form contains a factually inaccurate statement for which no support is offered. "It is believed that" Williams controls Crips activities from his cell? Who believes this? A prison official hostile to Williams posted this claim on the Department of Corrections web site, offered no evidence for it, and it was removed the following day after the press contacted the Department. See the CNN article at [1] , which includes the following quote:
"The Los Angeles District Attorney's office is expected to respond to Williams' clemency request this week. But Los Angeles Police Department spokeswoman April Harding said there is no evidence of any illegal gang activity on Williams' part.
"None," she said. "His name doesn't come up.""
By failing to consult this readily available source and locking the page in its current form the Wikipedia administrators involved have shown their incompetence and/or bias. They should be removed from administrative status immediately. Moreover, locking this page amounts to admitting the complete failure of Wikipedia. Any administrator who removes this message or places it in an obscure location is only proving my point.
I've moved his accusations into the text, responded, and unprotected. I don't appreciate being called incompetent and biased out of hand, however. I'm ready to protect the article again if there's another request for it. // Pathoschild 04:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
207.217.218.1 non-block
Hi,
Regarding the removal of this vandal from the "Intervention" page ([2]),
can you please explain what constitutes "recent" activity? The request was made within 2 1/2 hours of the most recent vandalism, which is certainly within the 24 hour limit.
I'm not clear what the problem was in this case, and would appreciate an explanation and where the request should have been posted instead. Thanks.
Glancing through that IP address' contributions, it seems that it typically goes on a vandalism spree that lasts under an hour. Blocking it two and a half hours after it ended the last spree would not affect the vandal in any way, while potentially autoblocking any legitimate user that operates from that address. Ideally, a block serves not to punish vandalism but to stop it; in this case, I judged that a block would not have any effect on the vandalism that is launched from it. // Pathoschild 21:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
The evidence was extremely strong that this was a single-user static IP. It has also only ever been used for vandalism.
I'm well aware that the Wikipedia philosophy opposes IP blocking wherever possible. However, the fact that it happens at all indicates that it is occasionally necessary in the "real world", and that the risk/result tradeoff has been made by someone. I believed that an extended (not indefinite) block on this specific IP would prevent future vandalism, and that the risk of harming innocent users was as low as could ever be reasonably expected.
I'm disappointed that when my efforts to have something done about this tedious and clear-cut vandalism have been rejected, I was not given any better suggestions. I've no personal interest in either page; I simply wanted to keep Wikipedia in order. However, it's getting silly now, and it's clear that I have been presented with only two options:
Keep the vandal amused by cleaning up the grafitti and posting a toothless warning in their talk page.
Leave the vandalism in place.
Neither of these seem constructive to me, but I've chosen the latter. I hope that someone else considers it a more constructive use of their time to watch these pages and pick up litter whenever "Simon says". Fourohfour12:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Even if the IP edits seem to consist entirely of vandalism, there may be several registered users operating from that IP address that may be autoblocked. If vandal-fighters get a morale boost from extended edit blocks, though, I'll make sure to use longer blocks on known vandal IPs and leave a note if there is collateral damage. // Pathoschild 04:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Regarding my sockpuppet ban of Fones, I've lifted it and apologized to the user. It seems that I misjudged; thanks for bringing that to my attention. // Pathoschild 08:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Jarashi. Wikipedia permanently autoblocked you because you're operating from an ISP with an unsecure (open) proxy which I recently banned. Open proxies are prohibited from editing because they are used to launch attacks on Wikipedia that are very difficult to counter. However, there doesn't seem to be all that much vandalism coming from that IP, so I've unblocked it. If the IP address is used to launch any coordinated attacks in the future, though, it might get permanently blocked by another administrator. If possible, you should contact your ISP and notify them that their proxy is insecure. Sorry for the inconvenience. // Pathoschild 21:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Please could you say why you have removed my 'delete please' notice from the article on Gregory Lauder-Frost. It has been undert constant attack botht he article and on the tak page byt at least two individuals and an edit war is in progress. I feel very upset because I wrote the overwhelming bulk of the original article and feel it has been deliberately and politically abused. I therefore feel that the best arrnagement for all concerned (particularly the subject) is for it to be removed. I see you reside in Montreal. have a friend who lives in Montreal. He is a professor at the MacGill university. Robert I17:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I removed the tag because it was incorrectly used; if you would like to know about the article deletion process, please read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If at all possible, I encourage you to attempt the dispute resolution process first, particularly informal mediation.
Who's your friend? Maybe I know him. // Pathoschild 17:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Stanley Williams
I have a small request regarding the Stanley Williams article; could you possibly place the current events tag on, for say, the next 24 hrs? I would have done so myself, however, the page is locked. Thanks --Jay (Reply)23:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I've added the current events tag as requested. // Pathoschild 00:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Unprotected. Sorry about that, I didn't know it was FA; I protected it by user request on IRC. // Pathoschild 22:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
AOL proxy block
It looks like you are on vandal duty tonight. Merovingian has blocked me from editing -- based on the AOL rotating proxy number. There is no user control over an AOL assigned number. I left him the note below. I would appreciate a prompt release please. Thank you.
Please note that you have blocked an AOL proxy address -- which randomly rotates among users. AOL users cannot control which number they are assigned, and blocking the number for any length of time is ineffective in fighting vandalism. Please see my user page User:WBardwin/AOL Block Collection for a history of adminstrative discussion and action regarding these blocks. They seem to hit me often. Please release your block. Information below. Thank you. WBardwin 06:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Your IP address is 207.200.116.202. Please include this address, along with your username, in any queries you make. Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Merovingian.
The reason given is: Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Kkkboi". The reason given for Kkkboi's block is: "vandal/troll".
I apologize for the delay; I just recently woke up. The article has been protected, and I'm going through the history and indefinitely blocking sockpuppets. // Pathoschild 02:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
THE HOLY ASIAN STATIO RADIONS WILL BE ACTIVE AGAIN!!!! —the preceding unsigned comment is by213.244.195.219 (talk • contribs) 02:26, December 17, 2005
Just letting you know that I unblocked this IP address after fifteen minutes; blocks on AOL shared IPs should be kept short, and this was blocking a legitimate user from editing. Thanks! DemiT/C07:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Oops. Thanks for fixing the block time. >_> // Pathoschild 07:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Please stop restoring the "code data" section to airline articles. The airline Wikiproject has decided to remove them from the body of the article in favor of the infobox. Dbinder20:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Wow. I was only trying to remove a single external link, I have no idea how all that happened. Sorry about that. // Pathoschild 23:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
On a related note, would you mind telling me why you replaced my user page with text from my talk page? // Pathoschild 23:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I didn't; I just added my previous comment to this page. I'm not really sure how that happened. Is something weird going on with the server? That could also explain why your simple edit caused a whole slew of problems on the Alitalia page. Dbinder19:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I have no idea. Maybe Wikipedia doesn't like me this week. @.@ // Pathoschild 19:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! ^_^ // Pathoschild 14:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy templates
Great work on the speedy templates, with fixing the "technical limitation", doing the optional parameter for {{db-bio}} (so we don't get template creep...), adding the CSD numbers to the end... Very cool! Do you plan on doing this across the board for all the templates in :Category:Speedy deletion templates, or just the most common ones? (I don't want to step on your toes trying to duplicate your work if you plan to do them all anyways. :) ). Jamie(talk/contribs)22:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Yep, doing them all. Just going at it cautiously, making sure there are no unexpected glitches and so forth. ;) // Pathoschild 22:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have waited longer for you answer... I just did most of them, and did some testing. Please double-check that I didn't miss any corner cases, especially in {{db-repost}} (which is complicated because of the log-link containing "=" signs) and the parameterized templates ({{db-move}}, {{db-histmerge}} and {{isd}}). I also tweaked them all so that the list in :Category:Speedy deletion templates in order by their CSD code. I also fixed {{db-copyvio}}, in which the maint text was broken. Jamie(talk/contribs)05:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
After propagating your changes to all the templates, a problem came up with articles not getting categorised into CAT:CSD. This was noticed by both User:Mark (who tried to fix it) and User:Bobet who brought it to my attention. Here's what I learned: The various CSD templates use the hidden parameter to override the default categorization, so they don't wind up in CAT:CSD. Problem is, pages that use them also don't wind up in CAT:CSD either! :( We overlooked the need to put <includeonly>[[w:Category:Candidates for speedy deletion|Category:Candidates for speedy deletion]]</includeonly> into each template, so that the speedied articles categorize properly. I've gone through and fixed all the templates, and null-edited all the main-namespace pages that use them (to propagate category usage). We should probably both have been more careful in testing.... Jamie(talk/contribs)11:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I had forseen that problem and had intended on fixing it beforing moving on to the rest of the templates. Unfortunately, I ran out of time before I had to move to a temporary new home with limited access to the Internet. Now that I'm back (if temporarily limited by dialup), I'll do my best to sort out such problems before finishing the rest of the templates. Sorry for the mess. // Pathoschild 04:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Regarding the vote, why am I not a voter? I have been on Wikipedia for a few month, with over 100 edits. I mean, no problem if I'm not eligible, just wondering, because then it'd settle this vote. JG of Borg20:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I apologize; I have no idea what list I was looking at, but I counted 54 edits over less than a month. I'll correct the consensus status and note your voter status in the text. // Pathoschild 20:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
For the preliminaries such as deciding whether to go ahead with a vote, the democratic 50%+1 seems sufficient. However, for the rough consensus vote itself 75% is the smallest number that seems fair. Failing consensus, only a significant majority is acceptable. // Pathoschild 04:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
The edit war is in full swing. When the antics of U2BA destroyed the possibility of informal mediation, I think the formal mediation went as well. I don't have an objection, as I said before inclusion was my goal, not exclusion of U2BA. The other issue about the SSPX was one I let go, in order to permit inclusion. I have bent over backwards. Now a lot of things continue to happen. Dominick(TALK)20:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Woohookitty has protected the page. Unfortunately, I think the page as it is now is probably dissatisfying for all the editors involved. I'll begin the formal mediation process as soon (and if) the other active editors agree, so you can get back on track towards consensus. // Pathoschild 21:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks; it's been rather chaotic there since the ill-advised rough consensus vote a few hours ago. I've contacted the editors about formal mediation, we'll see what happens. // Pathoschild 20:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Yep. Looks like a pretty nasty edit war. When you go to the first page of the history and the first 40 edits are today, that screams EDIT WAR. Hopefully it can be worked out. --Woohookitty(cat scratches)20:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I think formal mediation would help. I hope my arrival over there didn't polarize anyone, and I really hope that this can be resolved. Thank you for trying the informal mediation, it's too bad the vote failed, but it'll get worked out. JG of Borg22:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
This relates to the Traditionalist Catholic talk page. Note that personal attacks are very much against both the spirit and the policies of Wikipedia; see WP:NPA. The comments have been immediately archived. If you would like to discuss another user's comments, please do so with civility. Thank you. // Pathoschild 14:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Blatant personal attacks was in response to the same. Whatever I did write did not merit the kind of responses I got, which have included personal attacks against me. I have no objection to replies that address what I have written, but I object to asides and personal attacks without justification. Have you also told them? I don't see anything like that on their talk pages. Are you impartial? WikiSceptic14:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I await your response, especially on the talk page. I have always avoided fighting, because most often, quarrels are senseless. That is why I had even written on the talk page, asking the contributors to knockoff their silly, infantile edit war. And when I got no response, it was I who called in page protection. The foregoing is merely to demonstrate good faith. However, you must not expect me to take nonsense and not reply to it. I do not own Wikipedia, but if other contributors have rights, I too must be entitled to the same considerations. You were very prompt in removing my reply to Dominick (without removing Kaliz and Dominick's preceding personal attacks on me), but you are not prompt in replying to me. That gives me doubts as to your impartiality. If you cannot be impartial, I would suggest that you step out of this, and call in some other admin to take over. WikiSceptic15:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I think the biggest loser in this is you Pathos. You have been very impartial, especially in dealing with people like this. Please, I hope you can continue seeing this through the admin process. Thanks for WP:RPA action. I did a few myself. Dominick(TALK)16:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Dominick's comments may have seemed unfair and, arguably, may have assumed bad faith. Your response to them was very condescending, professing to having "not bothered" reading Dominick's message in full or with kaliz's "snivelling, mostly indecipherable rant". You then accused them of violating church law in their "slander" towards you. Dominick apologized, but you ridiculed his apology and told him to "Try again". It seemed that your words would inevitably cause a flame war, as editors responded back and forth with increasingly hostile attacks.
The problem is that whereas your comments seemed to be blatant personal attacks, which are dealt with by immediate archival, the removal of more subtle attacks (see Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages, Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks) is far more controversial. Due to this, the approval of all the active editors is necessary before I can do so. I apologize if I seemed to unfairly target you; I will attempt to address the issue on the article's talk page. If you have any further objection despite my explanation above, you're welcome to respond and I will do my best to explain or correct the situation. If you would like to call my neutrality into question, you have the right to do so. However, if Used2BAnonymous consents (the other editors have already done so), the matter will be presented to the Mediation Committee of which I am not part. // Pathoschild 17:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Concerning the dispute
Some more of Dominick's activities involving his removing totally relevant links:
Removed a link to the page "Religious Life" from the entry "Nuns."
Removed link to Epiphany customs from the entry "Epiphany."
Removed another link to the page called "Religious Life" from the entry "Religious Order."
Removed link to page on the Feast of St. Anthony from the entry "Anthony of Padua."
Removed link to page on the Feast of St. Brigid from the entry "Brigid of Ireland."
Removed link to page called "Votive Offerings" from the entry "Ex-voto."
Removed link to a screen capture of EWTN's priests calling the Novus Ordo a "complete fabrication" from the entry "Novus Ordo Missae."
Removed a link to Jewish-Christian relations section from the entry "Jewish-Christian Reconciliation."
Removed link to pages on the Days of the Dead from an entry "Day of the Dead."
You're welcome. // Pathoschild 07:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Dominick just broke the three revert rule here: [3] He seemingly thinks that for 1,960 years the Church had no position on Jewish-Catholic relations; it was all a matter of debate. I could show him encyclicals, catechisms, and dozens of books on the topic -- all with imprimaturs -- but why bother? Everything I do, every link I add, every edit I make has him somewhere in the shadows, ready to revert and to accuse me of something (linkspam, POV, "that's just YOUR opinion," "you don't speak for ALL traditionalists," etc.) when I am simply stating/linking to the position held by the Church for centuries and centuries -- a position which can only be described as THE traditionalist position. Can this guy be stopped? Used2BAnonymous13:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
You might try seeking advice from a member of the w:Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates, which exists to help you with dispute resolution. The AMA can also provide you access to good mediators if required. Unfortunately, I have too little free time at the moment to adequately provide user-conduct mediation. I would suggest only going into one mediation at a time, though; you might point out any issues you experience with other editors to the formal mediator the Traditionalist Catholic dispute, who will take this into account if applicable. // Pathoschild 14:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually I did not break it. She had tried to say she is the spokeman for all traditionalists, again. Sorry she can't leave you alone on this. Dominick(TALK)16:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Dominick, you just removed yet another link to the site from the entry "Apologetics." Quit stalking and vandalizing. And I have never said I was the "spokesman" for anything. Used2BAnonymous16:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Please remember to assume good faith. Both of you are, I assume, acting to enforce what you believe to be accurate. As such, I suggest you discuss your points of view—with mediation if necessary. Accusing one another with various terms is counterproductive to solving your dispute. // Pathoschild 16:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't see how removing, for ex., a link to a page on customs of the Epiphany from the entry on the Epiphany, or removing a link to pages on the Days of the Dead from an entry called "Day of the Dead," etc., can possibly be considered "good faith." It's sheer animus. He might not like traditional Catholicism, but, then, he doesn't have to. I don't like conservative Catholicism but am not removing links to EWTN or Catholic Answers, etc. I want him to cease and desist; I'm tired of having to babysit all my efforts in this way, and am tired of being accused of being all kinds of bad things all over Wikipedia. But I will stop using your Talk Page in this regard; I imagine you're as sick of it as I am. Well, you couldn't possibly be, but you know what I mean... Used2BAnonymous16:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Pathoschild, sorry to be back here again. I didn't want to do it, but this is getting crazy and I am hoping you can put in a good word for me at the mediation page [4] if it is possible for you to do so as an Admin (and in good conscience, of course). Dominick wrote there
Sure I think this can be handled informally. It would be better for U2BA. I will not enter in a debate here, Gator. I will say the site in question is an extremist view traditional website, that is owned by the linker. I explained that wikipedia is not a site traffic enhancer. She got mad, she wants mediation. If she has good faith I think a mediator can explain it. So far another admin could not work with her.
He's mad. Here's the list above -- but with links this time, so you can see if the links to the "extremist view traditional website" (I thought he was supposed to be a trad, huh?) is "linkspam":
Removed a link to the page "Religious Life" [http://www.fisheaters.com/religiouslife.html] from the entry "Nuns."
Removed a link to a page on Twelfthnight [http://www.fisheaters.com/epiphanyeve.html] from an entry called "Twelfth Night".
Removed link to Epiphany customs [http://www.fisheaters.com/customschristmas8.html] from the entry "Epiphany."
Removed another link to the page called "Religious Life" from the entry "Religious Order."
Removed link to site's index page [http://www.fisheaters.com] from the entry "Catholicism"
Removed link to the site's index page from the entry "Apologetics"
Removed link to page on the Feast of St. Anthony [http://www.fisheaters.com/customstimeafterpentecoststa.html] from the entry "Anthony of Padua."
Removed link to page on the Feast of St. Brigid [http://www.fisheaters.com/customstimeafterepiphany2a.html] from the entry "Brigid of Ireland."
Removed link to page called "Votive Offerings" [http://www.fisheaters.com/votiveofferings.html] from the entry "Ex-voto."
Removed link to page on the Day of the Dead [http://www.fisheaters.com/customstimeafterpentecost12ac.html] from an entry "Day of the Dead."
Removed a link to a page on Catholic funerals [http://www.fisheaters.com/funerals.html] from an entry called "Requiem."
Removed link to a screen capture of EWTN's priests calling the Novus Ordo a "complete fabrication" [http://www.fisheaters.com/ewtnedit.html] from the entry "Novus Ordo Missae."
Removed a link to Jewish-Christian relations section [http://www.fisheaters.com/jcintro.html] from the entry "Jewish-Christian Reconciliation."
Removed link to page summarizing Catholic doctrines about Mary [http://www.fisheaters.com/mary.html] from a page called "Immaculate Conception"
He's really pissing me off and wasting my time. (And, BTW, I don't think I've had any discussions with this guy outside the Traditionalist Catholic Talk Page, a very brief, one-time exchange at the Christian-Jewish Reconciliation Talk Page, and in edit summaries, if they can be characterized as "discussions" at all, so I'm not sure where he's coming up with this "I told her this and she got all mad" routine.) Used2BAnonymous19:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
P.S. The mediator told me to take it to an admin, so I posted on Willmcw's page so you wouldn't have to deal with that part of it... Used2BAnonymous19:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Administrators enforce policy and community consensus. Unfortunately, neither has a clear stand here, which may explain the reluctance to intervene. I've read over the discussion at the AMA requests page, and I agree with Gator that the best course of action would be a user-conduct request for comment. This process asks the community to review your case and comment; this can be used to determine community consensus which administrators can base their actions on. If you would like assistance making a user-conduct request for comment, I suggest you request such on the AMA requests page in the same section. // Pathoschild 21:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I'll watch the proceedings, though informal mediation at Traditionalist Catholic is too little involvement with the dispute to comment. // Pathoschild 01:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Its turned to dueling RFC pages now. I guess I should have known this would happen. I made the outcome I want clear, no more fisheaters.com spam, quit reverting, and constructive work on consensus. I wanted to thank you for the mediation work on traditional Catholicism I am sure we will get the article working again soon. Dominick(TALK)13:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry she's trying to drag you into this - more like this RFC stuff [[5]] - this user has no respect for basic civility, or the rules of Wikipedia. JG of Borg22:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, it's real civil to call me a liar, to call EWTN liars, to call everything I do "spamming" or to write links to my site off as "monographs" (do you know what a monograph is?), etc. I've broken no rules, so leave me alone. Used2BAnonymous22:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't think anything short of arbitration would resolve your dispute. In this phase of dispute resolution, both parties briefly present their arguments with supporting evidence and receive comments by other users. The Arbitration Committee then makes a binding decision to resolve the dispute. If you're willing, I'll see if I can get someone knowledgeable of the process to help you through it. // Pathoschild 06:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Pathoschild, I could kiss you a thousand times. Thank you for for smoothing out the blocking issue, and, especially, for hearing me!
As to arbitration: well, it sounds nice in theory, but I worry the actual good it'd do and how I'd probably be the one to get smacked down. At the risk of sounding, er, slightly paranoid, my style apparently makes me a magnet for All Bad Things and there is not much I can do about it. It seems as if Dominick can do and say anything, repeatedly, and nothing happens, but I get admonished (or blocked!) for sarcasm and things I didn't even do.
While I was blocked (which incident is forgiven): in the "external links" section at the entry "Rosary," he replaced [http://www.fisheaters.com/rosary.html this link] with this one, calling the former a "monograph site" (by which he means, apparently, that there is one person who oversees thing -- even though I have SIX people and he has been informed of this. If there's anything in the rules about monographs, I'd like to see what the heck Dominick is talking about). Malachias111 (my "meatpuppet") had my back, but man, oh, man!
I just want for him to leave me ALONE, to quit libelling me and my life's work, and to stop taking down perfectly relevant, helpful, and informative links just because he hates traditional Catholicism. Dominick is a "POV Warrior" with a a neo-conservative Catholic POV who engages in harrassment and a soft form of "vandalism" (though I don't think his purpose is to imperil the integrity of the encyclopedia, he is removing perfectly good content for no good reason -- and lying about that content in the process). If he wants to go through and put the line "a traditional Catholic website" after any link to my site, then fine. But removing the links, replacing them (esp. with lesser quality links), lying about them (he says they're a "blog," "POV," "monograph," 'linkspam," etc.), slandering me and the site in his edit summary notes, etc. -- I can't just let him do that.
If you can give me decent odds that I will get a fair "hearing," if the abritrators will readmy RfCandthe associated discussion page, click on the links, and look into what I have been saying, then I would very much like to move forward; but, if the odds say it's going to be a matter of their looking at style over substance (e.g., seeing my admitted sarcasm after months of weirdness and not looking into the reasons for it), then , I dunno 'cause I can't take another "Oh, great, he wins again!" type situation.
I will try to be more civil as it is apparently defined, but if it weren't for sarcasm, I don't know how I'd survive this stuff. If you knew what I'd been tempted to say, you'd think I were Mother Theresa LOL
In any case, I thank you for your attention. It's good to know I am not being totally ignored in all this and that someone out there is actually hearing me. No, it's beyond "good"; it is a RELIEF as this has been really upsetting and time-consuming for me. I appreciate your time and know it can't be any fun for you either; I make my own self sick repeating my defense over and over LOL. Wish I didn't have to.
I saw earlier, though, that there are things going on in your "real life" that were, at least, to take you away from administrating until after Christmas. I hope that, whatever those events may be, they are happy ones. Assuming the odds are decent and this goes forward at all, if bringing all this up to an arbitration committee is too time-consuming or distracting, it can wait 'til after Christmas when you have more time. Sounds as though you have stuff going on... Used2BAnonymous20:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Since I am being tangentially invoked
I am sorry this has not brought out the best in my forensic style, and cost me a lot of good will in people I admire. At the "dueling" RfC page, I think I am being proven out in my contention that linkspamming is an issue. The PoV twist is another concern that I think is a matter of judgment. Yes, my temper has flared. I made an RfC to try mediation one more time, after all we are adults. I expected a response, not an allegation of stalking. If I were indeed stalking, I would have been responding to this problem directly after she responded to you. I would have also known she was blocked.
My original intention here was to ask you about the original issue, Traditional Catholicism. Now I see there was an unfortunate incident that in part is blamed on stress caused by my actions in this matter. Look, I feel that I am absolutely in the right in talking about the page, where I have cleaned up links to fisheaters/kensmen in disambiguation pages as the only external link, and now it has been independently shown that the majority of her traffic comes from Wikipedia.
I appreciate your professionalism here, as an unpaid volunteer. Please if she really wants ArbCom to deal with this, that’s great if it achieves the original stated outcome I asked on the RfC. I made this outcome clear on the RfC, stop linking to fisheaters to wikipedia, stop shutting out any PoV that she does not agree with, and start acting nice. Dominick(TALK)02:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
You're both welcome. I cannot guarantee the results of arbitration either way, nor even give probable odds. However, the arbiters will do their best to judge the matter impartially. If you're both willing to go with arbitration, I'll find an experienced advocate who'll explain the process to you and help you through it. // Pathoschild 03:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Only Dominick can remove material and then accuse me of "shutting out any PoV" I do "not agree with" (I don't think I've ever removed any of his links). Anyway, thanks, Pathoschild. I am willing to move forward. Anything to make this stop. Thank you again for your time; I do appreciate it. Used2BAnonymous09:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I imagine she is going to put out some sort of complaint. I said what I found a problem with this user's conduct. It is a simple issue that has not been resolved since every process we undertake that deals with criticism of her actions turns into an accusation of her being treated unfairly. It isn't that she is breaking rules by using Wikipedia as a vehicle for website traffic and directing a "Wiki war" here, it is that I am wronging her in preventing her from doing just this. I think an arbitration will simply be twisted into another issue that will fail. If this is going to work, it would need to be binding. Dominick(TALK)10:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
P.S. One other thing this wounded victim thing is disgusting. She can use a Jewish holday greeting as sarcasim, and then turn over the ban by playing the poor little stressed by Dominick game, all the while she is cursing and acting outside the bounds of decorum here. I have never used curse words in a posting, or frankly, in my experience acting as a Catholic apologist. Dominick(TALK)10:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Please don't present any arguments on this page; I will have no say in the outcome of the dispute, and the Committee will not be reading this page. Decisions by the Arbitration Committee are indeed considered binding, and will be enforced by the administrators if necessary. // Pathoschild 11:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I was venting. Sorry to toss comments on your page. I made those same arguments on the RfC/Court-Martial pages. I understand all those things about your role, and I perfectly understand you not wanting to get in the middle of this stupid debate. Dominick(TALK)11:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
You've recently blocked Used2BAnonymous with the reason "Anti-Semitic personal attack". She's understandably stressed due to her dispute with Dominick and upset at being accused of antisemitism. You cite this edit in particular; although she speaks provocatively, I don't see any part that would be considered antisemitic. I'd appreciate any clarification you can provide so that I can respond to her messages. Thanks. // Pathoschild 15:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Upon reflection, that was inaccurate, but I still stand by the block- I exchanged several emails with Jgofborg (talk • contribs), wherein he expressed his stress at the current situtaion- I'll freely admit that I don't know who is in the right here, but Used2BAnonymous isn't going about resolving this dispute in the right way. I still think it was a personal attack, and I've seen nothing but incivility from this user. I apologize for that, but I still think the block was justified (it caught a lot of innocent AOL users, though). In any case, I think that this dispute is entirely out of my range of abilities, and much rather not get involved. Thank.--Sean|Black18:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks alot for the positive response, particularly for apologizing to the user. The dispute has been growing for months, and tempers seem to have flared at the RfC. // Pathoschild 19:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Concerning the prolonged dispute between Used2BAnonymous and Dominick, it would seem that their RfC has been irrevocably damaged. I've consulted with a few other mediators on IRC, and I think their case would be best dealt with by the Arbitration Committee. If they accept to do so, would you mind helping them with their request? I feel that I'm too inexperienced to deal with a dispute this fierce. // Pathoschild 07:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
If you know how to file a request for arbitration, I'd like you to help them through the process; for example, explaining what's expected of them, what explanation they need to give, et cetera. If you're no more comfortable with this than I am, do you know anyone more experienced who could do this? Either way, much appreciated. // Pathoschild 14:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I am, unfortunately, not the man for that kind of job right now. There are many experienced users who MAY be willing to help. Android79 might be able to help your or them, as would Jdavidb to name a couple. Sorry :(Gator(talk)15:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. ^^ // Pathoschild 01:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Apology
I wanted to apologize to you in case you took offense with my actions. I felt behavior was a big problem, and an RfC would help. I think things went too far, and I am sure you may think of me as wrong minded about wiki work. I am ready to continue working constructivly, and I think I learned something. Thats at least one positive. Thank you, and Merry Christmas. Dominick(TALK)13:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm very new as an admin (in fact, Raul654 accidentally promoted me a day early), so I wanted to check to make sure I handled that user and talk page correctly. Thanks for putting the template on--I just wrote out a note because I didn't know which one to use. -- SCZenz06:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Nope, that's perfectly acceptable, and has happened before. Frankly, I'm not too fond of the fact that blocked users can edit their talk pages, but then that would be too harsh. --Merovingian07:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Cool, thanks—I was pretty sure I saw a policy somewhere earlier today that said page protection was appropriate in such a case. Letting them talk on their own page is necessary in general, I think, at least with IP's that may not be used solely by the offending individual. -- SCZenz07:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Until I saw the edit summary on Merovingian's talk page, I assumed you were an experienced admin. Thanks alot for the efficient handling. ;) // Pathoschild 07:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I just paid attention to how the job was done for the last week, that's all. Thanks for the compliment. -- SCZenz07:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Hiya P! You might not have noticed but the St. John Lateran is located at the Italian version of its name, thanks to a four person vote in April, even though English speakers worldwide (except in the US) don't use the Italian version of the name. I've proposed a vote to move the page back to its original location. It is at Talk:Basilica di San Giovanni in Laterano. Please drop in and vote. FearÉIREANN\(caint)05:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I think you posted this on the wrong talk page. ;) // Pathoschild 05:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
No. I just was looking at articles on Roman Catholic-related themes. I thought the debate might be of particular interest to those who contributed to there. No problem if it isn't. Slán. FearÉIREANN\(caint)05:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Nope, I'm not particularly interesting in Roman Catholic matters. The reason I have several contributions to a Roman Catholic page is that I'm acting as informal mediator there. // Pathoschild 05:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Concerning the Wikiproject we discussed yesterday, see the WikiProject on Article Verification. With a few more participants we can get it out of the draft stage. Interested? // Pathoschild 22:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I am, but I tend to participate in these things slowly. I'll look it over in the next few days. Thanks for the note! DemiT/C16:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
A WikiProject is a collection of pages devoted to the management of a specific family of information within Wikipedia. It is not a place to write encyclopedia articles, but a resource to help coordinate and organize article writing. The attached talk pages are a convenient forum for those interested in a particular project. Projects can also have associated Wikiportals.
Hi, Pathos, — You posted on my user page, not on my talk page. Dominick drew my attention and I had to search for what he was talking about. I could find it only by checking your User contribs.
Re. WikiProject, please go ahead. I have never handled one and don't know how to, and I think I will be busy over the next few days.
Sorry about posting that on your user page. Oops >_>;. A WikiProject isn't much different from the way it currently is; I'll set up the WikiProject for you. There are a few minor changes that I'd suggest you make, such as setting goals and specific tasks (see Wikipedia:WikiProject), but overall nothing that needs immediate attention. // Pathoschild 18:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Feel free; just move it to the name you want. I'll see the move on my watchlist and update its shortcut and its entry on the WikiProjects list. // Pathoschild 03:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
It's my pleasure to notify you that, consensus being reached, you're now an administrator. You may wish to read the reading list and how-to guide at your convenience, but are in no way required to do so. Most sysop actions are reversible, the exceptions being history merges and deleting pages (but it's a good idea to be careful with all of them, especially in your first week or two). Of course, you're still welcome to help in the most important way - creating and editing articles. Again, congrats on becoming an admin. -- Pakaran06:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I was expecting a much longer wait before getting the cliché mop; thanks alot for the promotion. I'll do my best to live up to the expectations of my supporters and the IP vandal who opposed me. ^_^ // Pathoschild 07:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Congratulations! I changed the tally on your RfA page to (24/0/0) because IPs are not allowed to vote. Use your new "powers" well! FireFox08:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. ^_^ (I do intend on giving better support thanks, but since I dislike copy-and-paste messages it'll take me a while to get down to your page.) On a related note, my tally should be 23/0/0 since Izehar voted twice. ;) // Pathoschild08:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
It wasn't really my place to do it, but I edited your archive page for the John Seigenthaler Sr page Talk page archives. You had omitted a link to the second archive and instead listed those subject headings following a link to the third archive. I think I corrected that, as well as adding a link to the third archive with the correct subject headings. It was just personal vanity that motivated me in this -- I had a couple of comments on that second page and am still freaked that I had the nerve to get involved in this. I don't think I quite got the style right. Could You Please Check My Work? Thank you. Marcopolo03:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
You're very welcome to contribute. See my subsequent edit; I added HTML comments to seperate the lists in edit mode, and removed an apparently duplicate list with a different date. // Pathoschild 04:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi. This message is concerning your removal of infoboxes from 72.145.120.7's talk page. I agree with the removal of both, particularly {{IPtalkblanking}}. However, I'm replacing all such instances I come across with the WikiProject on User Warnings' standardised {{s/wnote}}, which I think is of immense help to admin. Since you just removed some infoboxes from that talk page, I thought I'd ask if you had any objections to my placing a new one already. // Pathoschild 09:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I have no problem with it being replaced. It might be best used on those userpages where the warnings are being removed and in the case of many IP's, they may not open again to edit Wikipedia due to the fact that they are random, proxy, or variable, so it may never get seen by the vandal later on. In the one I unblocked and removed that template, they had only vandalized for a short period in one day and had yet to return.--MONGO10:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Your edit summary usage has much improved; I'd much prefer to see edit summaries on talk pages as well, but I wouldn't oppose for that. A (brief) look through your talk page comments show a huge improvement in terms of objectivity. Although it's far too soon to tell accurately, keep this up and I see no reason to oppose your next RfA. ;) // Pathoschild 20:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
You may remember the war on styles that was waged some time ago and the eventual compromise reached which meant that styles (Holiness, Majesty, Royal Highness, etc) are no longer used at the start in royalty articles. A series of templates were created to enable users to warn other users who attempt to reinsert styles into articles that that is no longer WP policy. However a user who is trying to get a whole series of templates deleted has nominated them on the WP:TFD for deletion. I am thoroughly fed up having to defend necessary templates from the minority of deletion police on WP who seem to act as a group: one nominates, then the rest all vote to agree with them. All help to defend the necessary templates in the styles series gratefully received. Thanks. FearÉIREANN\(caint)19:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
PS: you may want to keep an eye on the test templates page. One user seems to be unilaterally deleting them and posting others for deletion. FearÉIREANN\(caint)19:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
\(caint) 05:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
\(caint) 05:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
