User talk:Seicer/Archive 10

Mediation does work

New Energy Times citation of the great work conducted through mediation at Cold Fusion. seicer | talk | contribs 13:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Seicer, as I posted at the CF talk page, I don't think we should be celebrating that article. I was as disturbed as anyone by SA's incivility, but that doesn't excuse PC. As one who has tried to mediate these disputes, how do you think we should handle PC's conflict of interest? I question whether he can edit in good faith toward the goals of this encyclopedia given his no-longer-hidden agenda. Gnixon (talk) 14:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Who is PC? SA is about the only acro I use :P seicer | talk | contribs 22:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I know who you are talking about now. I didn't realize that he penned the short blub, but I can now see that it is a strong conflict of interest. And now I realize the connection between PC and New Energy Times -- although that doesn't mean it needs to be entirely discredited as a source. Much like SA is on one end of the spectrum, PC is as well. seicer | talk | contribs 22:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess that's a good comparison. The more middle-ground folks attending to the article, the better, IMHO. Gnixon (talk) 00:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Incorrectly filed RfC, reverted your edit

In this edit, you deleted another editor's talkspace comment with the summary "Filed under RFC; removing SA's top-line comment since it is now voided". I have reverted this edit, as it is factually incorrect. At the current time the pseudoscience question does not appear on the RFCsci_list, and has not been there since before you authored the incorrect edit summary. I am not familiar with the procedures of creating an RfC, but I do believe that a properly filed one would appear on this list. I would advise you to exercise caution in the future in reverting another editor's comments on a talk page, particularly if there is a chance that you would be deleting a valid warning with a false edit summary. --Noren (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

A bot should automatically stamp the RFC page with the Cold Fusion topic, right? I'm not 100% sure on how to submit it for RFC, but I thought that I was doing the right way. You could use a little more good faith Noren, and not accuse me of reverting edits with a blanket statement of merely deleting with an invalid purpose. seicer | talk | contribs 22:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

As I mention above, I am uncertain how the process is supposed to work, but the lack of a link on the RfC page indicates to me that it has not been done properly in this case. I don't know how to fix it.

I do not see that I 'accused' you of anything here, and I made no mention of any purpose you may have had. I did not make a blanket statement- I pointed out a specific action that you took that was not correct, and described it accurately and objectively. Do you disagree that your edit summary "Filed under RFC; removing SA's top-line comment since it is now voided" was incorrect? SA's comment, "Note: This is not a properly filed Request for comment. Until it is filed as such, the opinions below should be considered in isolation." was not voided, as this was (and is) still not a properly filed RfC. In what way do you parse my comment above such that I was not assuming good faith? --Noren (talk) 02:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I snapped at you. I've been under a lot of stress lately. Yes, I disagree that my edit summary was incorrect but I had assumed that a bot would have fleshed out the RFC page after a tag was applied on the Cold Fusion talk page. I was wrong about the process and will review it further for the next time. Thanks, seicer | talk | contribs 02:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing disruptive editing

Hi Seicer, I'm one of the regular editors on the Alcoholics_Anonymous article and we have a disruptive editor problem for over a year now. He uses several accounts to make incoherent and POV pushing edits (he seems motivated by a grudge against the AA organization) and refuses to discuss rationally his edits. His main account seems to be User_talk:207.194.108.93 and he has been warned (by yourself also) and banned several times, will go quiet for a while then returns to bomb the page with already previously discussed and removed material. Just wondered what we can do?

Thanks Mr Miles (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Protected for two weeks until the disputes are settled. I'm not happy with the mangle of IP addresses, either, but there really needs to be a consensus regarding this. seicer | talk | contribs 02:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the two week protection. The use of multiple IP addresses by this user is a problem, exampled below by his statement that 'Melville Sitter opened a page' suggesting a different user, in fact, MisterAlbert and Melville Sitter are the same user, as is Fred Woofy and the IP Addresses 207.194.108.93 and 207.232.97.13. It is difficult to gauge consensus because this user will pretend to be more than one person and because the he will stay for hours making and remaking amends without discussion. When he/she does post on the discussion board, his comments are frequently quite incomprehensible.

The material he is attempting to reintroduce was edited out by very careful consensus (we created a Test Page) of several regular editors, see discussion here [1].

Problems with this user have been experienced by other editors, for example AussieBoy writing on Disease theory of alcoholism, left this note on my talk page recently. An excellent editor on the AA article Bikinibomb left because of this users constant vandalising of his edits, see archived talk: [2].

I didn't bring this to your attention to make a personal attack on a fellow editor with whom I disagree. It's difficult to know whether to agree with this guy or not as his edits are mostly incoherent and always contain many mistakes (sense, spelling, grammar, punctuation etc). I will also point out one of his accounts' talk pages, littered with warnings, bans etc like his other accounts' talk pages User talk:207.232.97.13 (he may erase the history if he reads this).

I wondered what Wiki policy was in light of these problems. Thanks Mr Miles (talk) 22:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Seicer , if you haven't noticed those of us who want to add more inforamtion, all of it referrenced , have been cited as disruptive. The purpose of the Wiki is to enhance information, which I myself and others have done only to have it deleted. The studies section in Alcholics Anonymous is definitely POV, Miles had eliminated all the studies negative of AA until Melville Sitter opened a page to contain them. It appears that if the information being added is not Pro AA it comes up for deletion and the editior is cited as disruptive. In fact if you have a chance to read the referenced material you will see there are errors of ommission that paint a somewhat distorted picture of AA history. Myself and other editors have filled in the blanks.

Yours truly, I have added additional information on the Alcholics Anonymous Page for discussiion. P.S. Mr. Miles by his own admission is an ongoing member of this organization. --MisterAlbert (talk) 03:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

USEDfan is back

Wikipedia:Requests for Checkuser#Shake 3000. Can you just confirm this so we can be over it already? He is being disruptive again. --Pwnage8 (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I was preparing for a block later this evening, but I've escalated it to now due to your findings. Good work. seicer | talk | contribs 22:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I wanted to thank you for your looking into this. Thanks again, and have a great day. Cheers, Landon1980 (talk) 22:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to inform you that a checkuser confirmed shake3000 a sock of User:USEDfan Landon1980 (talk) 01:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how, but User:USEDfan is already back as User:King Kookie. It is obvious it is him, I don't get it why is his ability to create new accounts not disabled? Landon1980 (talk) 03:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

What exactly are we going to do about the swarm of USEDfan's sock puppets? I always thought indef blocks track users by their IPs and prevent them from registering. Does he keep making accounts with new IP addresses or something? — ^FatalError 06:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Shake 3000

Hmm, maybe I am looking at the wrong talk page you are referring to. Would you mind directing me in the right direction please. ;) Tiptoety ^talk 03:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a super secret page. :) Sorry I didn't make it more clear in the passage. seicer | talk | contribs 03:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

/me slaps himself. I could have probably found that if I really tried :P Thanks! Tiptoety ^talk 03:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hiya, I've been looking at the shenanigans on the Quackwatch article, and trying to identify ways to break the vicious cycle of edit-warring over there. I agree with your protection, but I am concerned that the article spent several days protected, and then couldn't even go unprotected for a day without requiring new protection. I'm looking into some creative solutions which might be allowed via the Homeopathy case, such as a 0RR (no revert) restriction on one or more editors (or maybe on the entire article!). Do you have any opinion on this? Or if not, would it be okay with you if I tried some creative restrictions, and then lifted the protection if I felt that a more orderly type of editing could be hoped for? If the article descended into anarchy again, I could always restore protection, but I think I might be able to make some successful course corrections here. Thanks, and let me know, Elonka 00:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's a thought, how about you let the editors who are trying to edit with WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV in mind, actually edit. These are the editors who keep getting reverted by Levine, II, Jossi and Lugwids with the excuse of "whitewashing" (amongst other less than amusing accusations) while ignoring all the conversations and many thousands of edits that have occured on the talk page. The fact is QG made some edits, Levine reverted them, SA (and myself and others) backed up QG, while II, Lugwids and Jossi backed up Levine. In the meantime QG has justified all his original edits many times (and ignored) on the talkpage. So who is the actual original reverter? And why is it that those who continue with the reverting back to the old edits are not slapped with the restrictions that Elonka enjoys metting out? Shot info (talk) 01:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

And with an attitude that prevails in that sense, with no respect towards community opinion -- or for that matter, opinions that differ from that of your own -- it is no wonder that Quackwatch is protected as often as it is. With that said, I'll propose at AN tonight stricter sanctions for gross abuse of policies -- including edit warring and incivil disruptions, that fall within a reasoned guideline that has been adopted at other, similar articles. That's not terribly unreasonable, and would at least allow the page to be unprotected for longer durations. seicer | talk | contribs 01:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You will find that most of us have this attitude due to frustration at the lack of admin oversight...or interest...SA being blocked for "edit warring" notwithstanding the actual evidence (ie/ who started the edit warring with their fingers in their ears going "lah, lah, lah, I'm ignoring the talkpage"). Most of us have been asking for the enforcement of the Homeopathy Community restrictions for some time....and ignored. Ignore people for long enough and you end up where we are. Shot info (talk) 01:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand the frustrations. The same behavior was prevalent at Cold Fusion -- along with the frustration, but the fingers could be pointed at both sides. Neither wanted to compromise; neither wanted to engage in meaningful dialogue on the talk pages without essentially discrediting the other in heated exchanges; neither held any belief that anything would be resolved. I'm not saying that SA and the pro-science crew are entirely at fault, and the blame can be shifted to both sides here, as core policies were violated, but edit warring over this and disregarding other opinions is not the way to go about doing it.

SA is a different apple in the barrel, it seems. He has numerous blocks for edit warring -- mainly because he feels that he needs to push the pro-science agenda to the fullest extent. A great editor, but sometimes a little over-zealous who can come off as a hot-head or someone who doesn't compromise. It came to the point that he had severe sanctions lobbed against him, and any tiny infraction can lead to a stiff penalty. I do not wish this to happen to other editors -- on both sides, and I would like to take the opportunity to work with you guys on this issue.

But I don't know if I have the trust of all of the parties involved. SA and I have had disagreements in the past -- because I was a mediator for Cold Fusion. The appearance was that I was "anti-science" because the outcome of the mediation was a version that he fundamentally disagreed with. That's not the case -- as it was one of compromise. And I feel that is what needs to happen at Quackwatch, and something that can be achieved. I wouldn't mind taking up the case at MedCom if you want to file one. seicer | talk | contribs 02:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

On the matter of SA, the last few blocks really where uncalled for, and his last block was not overturned, "because he has all these blocks" without admins been more informed about the inequaties in the last batch of blocks. I can see that SA just doesn't care anymore. Most "science" editors don't anymore which is why the push is on my the POV pushers in QW and other locations. From other RfMs I have seem "Compromise" equals "balance" which equals giving prominence to non-notable subjects. You can see this in QW where some editors carp on about "it's referenced" while ignoring the fact that it is undue weight and just not notable. Having it referenced doesn't override the fact we are writing an encyclodia. Yet admins swallow this line, and believe removing the undue weight = an edit war. Come on people, the information shouldn't been put in their to start with... removing it is not an edit war. Shot info (talk) 02:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking that some strict conditions for editing the article, along with close supervision from uninvolved admins (such as Seicer and myself) might help break the cycle. I had success with this tactic at another disputed article, Muhammad al-Durrah. I imposed these Conditions for editing on June 10, and the article stabilized within a few days. No page protection has been required since then, and neither were any blocks required, just a few temporary bans (which you can see at our Admin log). I'd very much like to try the same technique at Quackwatch. So, Seicer, are you game? If so, I'm willing to write something up for the talkpage, then we can lift protection and see how it goes? --Elonka 16:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd be more than obliged. seicer | talk | contribs 17:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I created an administration section, at Talk:Quackwatch#Conditions for editing. I recommend lifting protection, and then we'll see how things go.  :) If anyone violates a condition, then I usually start with a reminder to their talkpage about the conditions, possibly a second one if I think they're just having trouble breaking habits, and then I upgrade from there to a page ban, like one week avoiding the article and/or talkpage. If they violate the ban, then block. But in my experience, once it gets to the point of a ban, editors get the point, and I have never (so far) needed to use a block to enforce a ban. Let me know if you have any questions, Elonka 18:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend lifting page protection on the article. I understand the desire to get consensus for the conditions, but as I understand it, one of the tactics being used at the article by some editors, is continual edit-warring in order to force protection on their preferred version. So if the article is currently the way they like it, they're not going to want protection to be lifted. So, I'd say lift protection, and then we'll deal with things from there. In my experience, the period that requires the most supervision is the first 24-72 hours of the conditions, as people test the boundaries. So it'd be good to have this period on a weekend, when we have a bit more free time to monitor the article. If you'd like to keep protection on though, that's still your call. I'm just offering a suggestion.  :) --Elonka 15:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Gufw (software)

Hi, I'm astur from asturian wikipedia. You are the third person that I contact. (sorry about my english level) First, a bot advised me, about the text that I had put in the article, it was a copy. Yes, I know it. I know the rules, the problem is that i dont know english very well, and the only thing I wanted was to edit an article about a software, and complete it step by step or with the help of someone. After the advice, I cut some sentences, for not to violate the copyright (with the hopeless that someday someone will complete the article, with better level of english than me..). Now, (less than 20 hours) the user User:NawlinWiki has deleted the article completely. He says: "This was done because the article seemed to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia". It's crazy! There a lot of articles about software in Wikipedia. The software is free software, and it's the first GUI (Graphic user Interface) to manage iptables for Ubuntu. The article is not about a person or ¿band????, the only name that appeared is the name of the author, like in other articles. What about Deluge (software), or Kstars...(GNU General Public License) And I wanted to complete the article later and show you that the article is valid. I would to talk with User:NawlinWiki, but his talk page is blocked. Can you help me? --Astur (talk) 13:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank you

		Thank you!
		Seicer, it is with deep awareness of the responsibility conferred by your trust that I am honored to report that in part to your support, my request for adminship passed (87/14/6). I deeply value the trust you and the Wikipedia community have in me, and I will embark on a new segment of my Wikipedia career by putting my new tools to work to benefit the entire community. My best to you, Happyme22 (talk) 03:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

"Sorry, try again." Ok.

Yes 4 votes in an AFD does not create policy nor consensus but in the comments I cited (which I guess you did not read) several very well respected users and administrators distinctly say that policy does not allow non-admins to close AFD's as no consensus. For my comments about how it takes an extremely twisted reading of DPR#NAC to come to the conclusion that non-admins should close anything more than keep decisions see, my statement here. -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 05:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:Your eye is needed

The Urban exploration article is now on my watch list. I do think more needs to be said about various risks and costs. But I think the red-link user is off on some personal crusade, for reasons known only to himself, along with apparently being unwilling to actually contribute any text. I bet everyone has done some "urban exploring" at one time or another. I used to sneak into abandoned ballparks from time to time. Not very dangerous, and theoretically subject to arrest (even though they left the gate open), but when you're young you think you can do anything, and nothing ever happened. I'll keep a watch on this article and see if I can help. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. There used to be a lot of activity at the article but it has died down in the past year. Hopefully we can get more eyes to take a look at it. I'd do a lot more, in terms of sourcing, but I don't have all that much time to dig through AccessNews right now. seicer | talk | contribs 13:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

After that initial flurry, it seems to have died down again after the combatants kind of came to an accord. Do you think the issue is settled sufficiently? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Administrator's noticeboard

For your reference, some of your recent protections are being discussed at the noticeboard. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, at least I was informed of this thread. seicer | talk | contribs 16:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Editing protected article while dispute is ongoing

I don't think you should have moved that template down while keeping the article protected. Can we please change this? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to the POV template? I was in belief that you were only interested in a perceived bias under the Popularity section, which deals with the various socio/economic issues regarding urban exploration, and not on the article as a whole. There was some confusion about this on the talk pages, and I moved it in hope that there can be a little easier understanding on the underlying issue. If I am in error, let me know and I'll move it back up. seicer | talk | contribs 16:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you are. The POV issue is with the article, not the section. My view is that there needs to be a new section to discuss the legal issues (could be called "legal aspects" or "legal issues" or something, that seems to be a popular heading in other articles). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the first time I heard about the new section -- I thought you were wanting to lump this somehow into the lead or in one of the existing subsections. That said, I'm wholly in favor of this if you want to put up a draft on the talk page. seicer | talk | contribs 16:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, you and Brotherj jumped to that conclusion without any evidence on my part. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Seicer, it does appear that you were fairly involved with editing the Urban exploration article, so using tools there is probably not a good idea. See WP:UNINVOLVED. The protection itself may have been good, it's just that you probably shouldn't have been the one to place it. In the future, feel free to contact me or some other uninvolved admin about it? --Elonka 18:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem, and that is what I planned to do after today's incident given my involvement since the article's infancy (or close to it); it was one of the first articles I improved upon after coming to WP, and one that holds a substantial interest to me. I was going to post something to that effect, but I've been in and out of meetings all day. Everyone makes mistakes. In the future, I would like to have this come to my talk page instead of two identical threads started elsewhere (one of which I was not informed of) to quiet down the drama -- especially since one of the entrants has been involved with me in the past. But I would like resolve at the article, and outside opinions seem to be far and few between. I may step this up to DR since at this point, we are only spinning our wheels in the mud. seicer | talk | contribs 18:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

Hey, just to give you a heads up. I posted a 3RR warning on PLW's talk page and figured this would be left at that. He has then reverted it a couple times and then turned it into some kind of vague threat from me. Here's the diff's: [3], [4], [5]. Personally I would not care less as long as he had taken the semi friendly warning on board and left it at that. Yet, he seems to be taking all this very personally and is trying to make me look like the bad guy? I even had recommended take a quick break to cool down. I'm going to back away from his page for a bit, but do you recommend anything more then that? Brothejr (talk) 22:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Location of person

I know the exact location of the person who made that "suicide threat". Sending info to you via email. Also telling you how I know. Rgoodermote^{Not an admin}  06:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't get to follow up on it as I had hoped as I had to leave town a bit early (i.e. 3 AM) for a hasty photo shoot in another state. I did do a follow up call today and it was much the same, and I'm pretty sure that this is going to lead to a non-action given the history of the case. Thanks for the information and I'll keep it in mind on future cases! seicer | talk | contribs 00:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree it probably will result in a non-action. By the way, that tool is not completely accurate. It is extremely close though. Happy editing. Rgoodermote^{Not an admin}  01:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

In other news...

The large smiling graphic you have on your userpages - what is it? The description on the image page doesn't seem to explain it. I've seen it in many places on the internet.TheKhakinator (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Graphic created by User:east718. seicer | talk | contribs 15:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that a smiley that frequents an ever-so-popular image board that I dare not speak the name of? HeroThar. (talk) 08:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Seicer ~

My name is Mark LePine, General Manager of Rampid Interactive. I'm assuming you're the administrator who deleted all of the wikipages I created a few months ago. I guess I should start by apologizing for not implementing the proper formatting. I'm not trying to blatantly advertise any of the above, I'm just trying to get them on the wikimap. I'm probably not even formatting this correctly, but I didn't even realize there was an entire language associated with posting. I was just typing like it was a word document. I figured out that you need to sign everything with tildas... that's a start!

So what do I need to do with our pages to ensure that they stay?

Is there an easier way to talk with someone about this than through a wikipage? Like a phone or instant messenger?

Thanks for helping us learn the process!

~ Mark

--Rampid (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

User:USEDfan

Have you seen this? Landon1980 (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick. Thank you, Landon1980 (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The Crossthets ANi

I think Crossthets may be an alt account. A "noob" as he claims to be wouldn't ignore that the map isn't provocative, and wouldn't ignore what admins like FutPer say. What do you think? Beam 02:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Restoring Dollis Hill Synagogue

Hello! In May, you had deleted an article about the Dollis Hill Synagogue due to copyright violations in the text. I wanted to alert you that I have rewritten the article and restored it to Wikipedia. The new article makes no textual reference to the source that was the core of the deletion -- it is merely cited as an external link. The new article has three different referenced sources and should not pose any CSD or AfD problems. I wanted to let you know this, in the event you were wondering why deleted material was suddenly back online. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 02:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

USEDfan??

Another one? Special:Contributions/Mister_Muffin. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Alleged topic ban

When you get confirmation from someone you can believe that I have never been topic banned, don't apologize. The history of this article indicates that whenever a false accusation is proven false, no apology is ever given. Kossack4Truth (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If your reading comprehension is up to par, I did not state you were currently under a topic ban. I asked the question if you were. seicer | talk | contribs 16:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: 3RRN board

[6] - I believe that was uncalled for, mate. You went over my head and dismissed my decision when I plainly made the point about it being not a 3RR violation. By "Stale" I mean the diffs are plainly out of date. Please inform me if you're going to change a decision that I have made on the 3RRN board next time. Thank you. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 15:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You mentioned stale yet there is no clear violation of 3RR. Edit warring? Perhaps. But given who was reporting it, it should be dismissed as nothing more than piss in the wind. Hence why there was no violation. I didn't dismiss your earlier decision, but revised it to be more specific and correct. seicer | talk | contribs 16:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing can be "correct" in an apparently subjective argument so... Please see my guide for admins on the 3RRN board here just in case you're new to the 3RRN board. Thank you. (And remember to tell your fellow admins if you change any of their decisions. It's polite etiquette and it prevents wheel warring. Cheers.) Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 17:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No, not new but I just don't take care of a lot of cases. I'd call it stale _and_ a non-3RR violation, as stated, but I won't overwrite what's already been noted. Thanks, seicer | talk | contribs 17:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it strange how reverts within the past 48 hours are described as "stale," but conduct from a month ago produces a topic ban? Kossack4Truth (talk) 20:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Totally different thing Kossack, not the place to talk about it anyway. Feel free to bring it up at my talk page so you don't disturb Seicer.

Seicer: I wanted to apologise for earlier for getting defensive about that 3RRN report result. I just felt like I'd done an okay job on it. I'm sorry if you found my behaviour to be slightly aggressive. Sorry again. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 22:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment to K4T on this and the section above.

You tried to evade the proposed topic ban (of several month) by "retiring" your account for 20 days. The topic ban still stands and you just freshened it up today. Also you shouldn't talk about other editors to "defend" yourself since it is about you, and pointing the finger to others behavior doesn't change anything since the ANI is (again to make it clear) about you so deal with it. --Floridianed (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

USEDfan....

And another...Special:Contributions/Mr_Munchking. By the way, is it best to report these to you rather than suspected socks, as they aren't causing immediate disruption, or would you rather not be bothered by this? Nouse4aname (talk) 08:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind. I'll eventually step this up to ANI since the socks return on an almost daily basis, and every page can't be protected. seicer | talk | contribs 11:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Alcoholics Anonymous Edit Wars

I have added a some factual information to the article that has been well researched on the opening page of the History of Alcoholics Anonymous. When you locked the page down this information was left intact. The editing war continues with Mr. Miles who constantly deletes my contributions. The purpose of the Wiki is to provide factual information. Not to sell a program. I am tired of being set up as the bad guy . My editing skills have greatly improved and My research is well based and founded. You can check the references. --MisterAlbert (talk) 22:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC) Sorry My I forgot the bracket the Topic. --MisterAlbert (talk) 22:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

We could definitely use your help again on the AA article Seicer. As you suggested myself and the other editors Kipoc and Scarpy have attempted to find consensus on the talk pages which we did easily. However the individual MisterAlbert, using that account and under cover of his other accounts Melville Sitter, Fred Woofy, 207.194.108.93 and 207.232.97.13 continues to ignore our agreement. This individual makes personal attacks on myself and Scarpy and continues to edit disruptively (bombarding the article with low quality edits and refusing to explain them on the talk page), see Talk:Alcoholics_Anonymous. Again, can you help. Thanks. Mr Miles (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter, Issue 5

Apologies for the late delivery; here is the June edition of the newsletter.

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Want to change your method of delivery? – It's all here. —Rschen7754bot (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Badagnani

I have opened an ANI discussion about this editor at WP:ANI#Wikistalking. Please feel free to look at this post and comment as you feel is necessary. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 00:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

sockpuppetry case

I think The big U another sockpuppet of USEDFan.--SilverOrion (talk) 06:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

okay confession time, usedfan is silverorion —Preceding unsigned comment added by The big U (talk • contribs)

FYI [7]. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

RfB Thank You spam

Thank you for participating in my RfB! I am very grateful for the confidence of the community shown at my RfB, which passed by a count of 154/7/2 (95.65%). I have read every word of the RfB and taken it all to heart. I truly appreciate everyone's input: supports, opposes, neutrals, and comments. Of course, I plan to conduct my cratship in service of the community. If you have any advice, questions, concerns, or need help, please let me know. Again, Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 08:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

gah

ive had enough of u deleting every post i make and blocking me for no reason, u even revert real good edits, im no longer going to put up with this so i am leaving this site and u have lost the previlage of having me as an editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by USEDfan2 (talk • contribs)

Big loss. seicer | talk | contribs 14:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Splat5572

how does Splat5572 and Artisol2345 seem to be sockpuppets. And also you forgot about Splat5572 is too close to another establish user Splatt. I thguoht the rule is to not make user name too close to an establish users. Anyways I've notice Splatt5572's contributions lately did not conform with WP:MOS.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 21:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Kossack4Truth

seems to be using ANI as a battleground. (See: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Demands_for_LotLE_topic_ban) Shortly afterwards, on Wikidemo's talk page, he accuses Wikidemo of making a personal attack, demanding it be reverted, when in reality, he was the one who made one. Can you take a look and do the necessaries? Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC

Abuse of the Three Revert Rule

Seicer I would like to bring this to your attention: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alcoholics+Anonymous&diff=197618867&oldid=197618528

an Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous had to be created to perserve the studies or they would have been lost to the wiki. One editor put it up for deletion, but a review determined it was a keeper.

I am not an experienced Wikipedian. It has taken me time to learn. What I have experienced while adding information is possibly a misuse of the three revert rule. Where Mr Miles deletes entire sections of the study page, then cries foul when the other editor reverts it back and gets that editor banned. I believe I read somewhere this type of Abuse being called Wiki gaming , where the rules of the Wiki are abused.

If you look at my talk page , Miles has run rough shod all over it. I would like to correct the situation, but I don't know how. Can you please suggest how I do this.

Now I would like to show another example of what I believe is misuse of the three revert rule by Mr Miles and his threatining to get an editor banned:

Please look at the history: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stanton_Peele&action=history where the editor is threatened with a ban.

Then look at the revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stanton_Peele&diff=224464242&oldid=224255854 and then check the referenced link http://www.peele.net/aab/keller.html Rutgers Center of Alcohol Studies The statement This last award, however, is often attributed to Cold War hysteria, and is no longer recognized by most alcohol governing bodies. cannot be found any where in the the reference attached to it. It simply reads like POV to smear Peele's achievements.

In the process of Mr Miles reverting the page other awards won by Stanton Peele have been deleted. POV wording such as " attempts to debunk." are left in . I believe this violates wiki protocol?

This is more like Wiki gaming , where an editor who understands the wiki gets to run rough shod over a less experienced editor, for the sole purpose of keeping them from posting.

The latest problems have occured over the The Belladonna Cure .

Thank You. --Fred Woofy (talk) 05:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Thank you again --207.232.97.13 (talk) 06:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Signatures

Hello. I'm new (well, my account is new, but I've done some IP edits every now and then). I wanted to tell you that I've used your signature as the base of my own - I hope that's alright? pushthebutton | go on... | push it! 14:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure :) I change my sigs every so often, so its no worry. seicer | talk | contribs 14:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Kelly has edit-warred essentially to the point, if not past 3RR. Nothing's been done and there's no sign of any improvement, so I've decided to call it quits. Anyway, I truely appreciated your input at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#odd_archiving, so thank you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous sockpuppets

I have reason to believe that 71.120.42.206 and 24.1.205.187 are sockpuppets. One of them left a comment on my talk page, but was later blocked due to other edits. Then the other user started to continue the exact discussion.--SilverOrion (talk) 04:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Ulster Defence Regiment

Thank you for protecting this page.The Thunderer 14:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not an endorsement of your version or his. seicer | talk | contribs 01:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I realise that, but it gives us all time to think and consider our actions. The Thunderer 18:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Per your question

ping That clear enough? (Do you really want that smiley that large and obnoxious) // FrankB 22:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Water fluoridation opposition

Hi, I think that your recent protection of the article is unnecessary. Tremello reverted himself after we convinced him to discuss things reasonably. The page needs work and it would be better if it was unprotected. Cheers. II | (t - c) 00:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I like where the discussion is going, and I'll unprotect it in the morning (when I am back on). Thanks for your work, seicer | talk | contribs 02:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done Unprotected for editing; page move protected still. seicer | talk | contribs 05:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

All good. Thanks for taking a moment to mention it. Also, your 'welcome note' above... ew, but now my GF is wondering how that unlucky 5 percent get it goin, and her out loud musings... be glad Wikipedia isn't an audio forum... ThuranX (talk) 05:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I forgot all about the thread and saw your note there, and wanted to catch up with you on it. I thought about having a rotating picture gallery, including one of the penis just for humor, but a rotating note may be more... um, safe for work. seicer | talk | contribs 06:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

UE Pictures

I noticed that a user has gone in and replaced the older tunnel picture a second tunnel picture he took himself. I'm tempted to remove at least one of them due to the fact we only need one picture of a tunnel and also this seems like he is trying to advertise his own photography. What do you think? Brothejr (talk) 10:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Take that back one pic is of a bunker and other is of a tunnel, but this still smacks of advertising to me. Brothejr (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see it as that. I have uploaded over 90 photographs to WP from my various web-sites, and although I no longer do that due to conflicts of interest and for other reasons, I don't see harm in having more photographs. If it becomes too cluttered, we can always add a gallery to the bottom. seicer | talk | contribs 02:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. I figured I'd pose the question here before making an unnecessary big fuss! Brothejr (talk) 10:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Oooooooh, seduction.....!!!

PMDrive1061 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Was it good for you, too? Seriously, I honestly do not know why I waste my time trying to help this site when it so clearly eats its own. Thanks for the laugh. Off to do something constructive that does not involve the internet nor this site.  :)

Russia

Why did you change Russia -> Russia Flag at RFM? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.122.90.169 (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm changing it to Russia. I mistook the flag icon as a case about Russia and its flag. seicer | talk | contribs 16:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! =) 91.122.90.169 (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Why did you semi-protect Russia article? Actually there is just a lot of friends, not one user. And furthermore semi-protection should not be used in content disputes. 89.110.2.64 (talk) 08:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Er, no, all of the IPs are traced to the same location and ISP, you didn't say this the other 3 times when you were reported[8][9][10] (and it looks like you got the idea to say that they are not you but your friends from someone else who suggested this the last time you were reported), and various times that you have commented has been from the different IPs. Either way, WP:MEATpuppetry is not allowed and all the WP:MEATpuppets "shall be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining".

Before i were alone. This location is the second largest city in Russia, and this ISP is a major one in that city. This IP range covers about quarter million people. And in this way, Miyokan got at least one meatpuppet Krawndawg Furthermore Miyokan using forum shopping to gather assistance. He reported me falsely about 3RR like 4 times, until finally succeeded. Constantly asking other users to help in edit war [11] He using simple edit warring with couple other users to pass his POV in, and this tactics works pretty well for those guys. You can take a look at Miyokans ban list. Furthermore by this blocks of the article you encourage him to stay away from normal dispute resolution Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Russia and continue brute force reverting. He did not yet joined RFM, and seems like not going to after your block, despite there is 2 invitations on article talk page and his own. This user is pretty sly, constantly using demagogic tricks and simple lie in discussions and comments. I would appreciate if you take a look at least at the talk page of the article carefully and get your own opinion about that. And, of course, i think it would be good if you remove block from the article and so froce him to join mediation. Furthermore, as i told you before, semiprotection can not be used in dispute resolution. By the way, Miyokan did not try even one of the ways of normal dispute resolution process, only did forum shopping and edit warring. And now trying to avoid mediation with your help. Please, consider this situation more carefully. 89.110.2.64 (talk) 13:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry we've hijacked Seicer's page but I must respond. Firstly, look up what a meatpuppet is, if you check their contributions User:Krawndawg is not my meatpuppet but a user who happens to agree with me, as are User:Natl1 and User:Kuban kazak, while all your IPs are only editing the same thing and you have commented from the various IPs, so they are clearly you and not your "friends", an idea that you did not mention all the other times you were reported and got the idea to say they are not you but your friends from someone else who suggested it at your last blocking. No, I did not report you falsely 4 times, every time I reported you it was when you broke the 3RR rule and every time you were reported you were blocked, please provide evidence of when I "falsely reported you like 4 times", you won't be able to show anything. "Constantly asking users to help in edit war" - firstly, that "example" is asking a user to comment on the issue, not to "help", and the reason I asked him was because he was also involved in the dispute. With regards to "POV", it is you who has declared that you want to make a WP:POINT that Russia has a bad health care system ("The article is biased, and gives wrong impression. Sounds like "russia got such a great free universal health care system, and all problems is just came from nowhere"). He is blaming it on propiska (freedom of movement which affects access to health care if not correctly followed), which has nothing to do with quality of health care services and doesn't affect 99% of Russians.

As for "brute force reverting", that is a term I used to describe your behavior, and that is a laugh because neither I nor any of the other users have broken the 3RR rule while you keep breaking the 3RR and block evading via sockpuppeting, most recently making 5 reverts after your 3 day block, and also making an incredible 11 reverts in 24 hours before that. Brute edit warring and repeating the same defeated argument ad nauseam, as other users noted, to get what you want when so many are opposed will not get you anywhere. The onus is on the user who adds the information to keep it in ("If your ideas are not immediately accepted, think of a reasonable change that might integrate your ideas with others and make an edit, or discuss those ideas.") and you still have no WP:CONSENSUS for your change, which was immediately met with opposition from several editors. Instead of seeking WP:CONSENSUS, you keep reverting and breaking the 3RR rule and sockpuppeting non-stop.

I will participate in mediation if I have a guarantee from anon that he won't continue to revert in his edit with no consensus, which he continued to do even after he filed the mediation request, otherwise there is no point because it is clear he has no self control and any amount of rational argument will not convince him that he is wrong.--Miyokan (talk) 03:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I can mediate the case, and monitor the page afterwards for a duration to ensure that there are no wholesale reverts without discussion or consensus. seicer | talk | contribs 03:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Seicer, are you going to block this user, he broke the 3RR rule again, and it was just after coming off a 3 day block for the same thing and block evasion, and has received multiple warnings and blocks for breaking the 3RR rule and block evasion in the past week. Certainly a much longer block is warranted, he is just flagrantly breaking the rules.--Miyokan (talk) 09:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Unblock / "Your frivolous comments is hurting my sides"

I'd like to offer the opinion that your decline of the unblock on User talk:209.86.226.18 was sub-optimal.

• 22:23, 6 August 2008 - Comment at ANI
• 22:32, 6 August 2008 - Decline unblock

Imagine how you would feel if you were that user, eh? "Bullied" would probably be my first response, as you've left them in a position where they cannot respond to your dig.

After you've made a less-than-polite comment about an editor, you've effectivly given up the right to use adminstrator privledge against them nine minutes later. There are lots of adminstrators, and in the event that the request is untenable, someone else will come and {{decline}}.

brenneman 03:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand, and after reviewing it, I shouldn't have blocked but that point was moot after I came back to review such action. I don't strike comments or do unblocks on my part, unless it is requested in speed. I do offer the chance for others to review my actions or comments, however, and to act accordingly -- and I did state that I was open for an unblock if the OP would make at least some allusion as to what the legal comment was in regards to.

Hopefully nothing, but it is always better to play it safe than to actually be slapped with a 'suit for sllowing minors or whatever to display potentially sensitive information, especially when existing policy is quite hazy. Perhaps this needs to be addressed in the future, because I've seen the issue of underage editors crop up from time to time. seicer | talk | contribs 03:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I was all set to refactor my above comment, it came across a little bit to strong... Thank you for the response. - brenneman 04:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it's no problem at all. I did request for clarification at ANI, so hopefully we can receive a response. There was a case about two years ago where I was a little over-zealous on an under-age teenager -- who, while was great contributor -- had a profile that was too MySpace-y and a little too revealing. I wiped the page of most of its revealing comments, and was both applauded and admonished for it. That was then, and the policy is still hazy in that regards. seicer | talk | contribs 04:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Why I don't participate in Administrators Open to Recall

Originally posted in reply to your thread at user talk:Elonka.

And this is a good reason why I refused to sign up to be included on the list of administrators open to recall. Any editor with a grudge can find others who may hold similar grudges and slam dunk an administrator back to RfA. Take for instance a case where an administrator is mediating in a hotly contested article between two distinct factions. One side opposes the direction the case is going (one side always opposes more than the other), and in the heat of the moment, says that they want to recall the mediator -- also an administrator -- because of abuse of administrative tools or possible future abuse (e.g. "threatening to use the buttons").

In this case, which has happened to me as an example, the mediator gets tag teamed. Mass e-mails go out on the backend, posts are made on various web-sites, phone calls are made, and a campaign is started against you to bring any possible charge that may hold. All they need is one administrator who agrees, and the mediator could be sanctioned. At worse, if they can get enough to stack up against the mediator, and the mediator is on the list, then they could be recalled. seicer | talk | contribs 03:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmmm. Mass e-mails go out on the backend, posts are made on various web-sites, phone calls are made, and a campaign is started against you to bring any possible charge that may hold. All they need is one administrator who agrees. Do folk go to such trouble? Without ever having been an Admin I feel I've been there, experienced that. If only I could categorise myself as "not open to blocking"! Sarah777 (talk) 03:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've had calls made to my employer and to my (former) residence. Quite disturbing really. seicer | talk | contribs 03:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Old Block

Hey, you blocked me for edit warring at Political positions of John McCain a few months ago. I just wanted to say you did the right thing; I totally deserved it. You probably catch a lot of shit as an admin, blocking, protecting, etc. Anyway, no hard feelings. AzureFury (talk) 03:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the comments, I really do appreciate it. I hope that with the short block that you have come out a stronger editor, more versed with policy and who has a better handle on dispute resolution. If you need assistance or clarification, please do not hesitate to ask me. Cheers, seicer | talk | contribs 03:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Alcoholics Anonymous =

Miles is in yet another edit war. An edit war , where he refuses to take it to the discussion pages before he deletes. For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alcoholics_Anonymous&diff=230722499&oldid=230721659

--Fred Woofy (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Water fluoridation opposition

As the move-protecting admin on Water fluoridation opposition, can you please review Talk:Water fluoridation opposition#Page move. I'm trying to clean the backlog at WP:RM (a common hobby of mine) and I believe consensus to support the move has been reached. Thank you for your time. JPG-GR (talk) 01:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I did comment in favor of the page move. seicer | talk | contribs 15:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

ANI

Seicer, not to speak for Sandy, but I think she was mostly concerned about his name being posted in a link on Wikipedia, even indirectly. Although he has passed, it is still revealing personal information and very delicate. We have previous problems with Jeff's sister accidentally revealing too much personal information, and this was just a follow-up. Please take this into consideration. Also, please find my talk page or email address if you would like to discuss the ins and outs of this together. I was involved with Jeff's sister when she first came here and I originally asked for the oversite the first time. If you want to blame someone for getting this ball rolling in this direction, please blame me. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I overreacted to the incident and I don't fault you, but I do fault the escalation that occurred in such a short time frame. David was right to be upset -- the finger-pointing and the accusations of gross bad faith was uncalled for on all parties (not referring to you), and that was what I was most upset about. David only took what information was publicly available, and he should not be held at fault for this -- and I hope that a less was learned as a result, because I could not find anything inflammatory about the entry that David posted. It read as much as an apology note than anything to me and it was pretty fitting. There are a lot of ill words at the moment, and I'm glad that the thread was removed. seicer | talk | contribs 19:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Thank you also for removing the comments above. The matter escalated too quickly for me to realize what was happening at first. Everyone is upset, everyone is tense, and it was like a powder keg. My email box and talk page are always open in the future to you if you need someone to talk to, or you just want someone to listen. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your help and support, Seicer. I'm going to take a break; I'm too pissed off to contribute productively. I appreciate that you were able to see the situation clearly. I was very saddened by Jeff's death. --David Shankbone 19:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Historical powers may no longer need protection

Hi Seicer. Oferpoint (talk · contribs) and Offerpoint (talk · contribs) have been indef blocked as socks by Avraham (what a surprise), so your full protection on Historical powers may no longer be necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 05:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Captain_Obvious_and_his_crime-fighting_dog

Hi Seicer. You blocked Captain_Obvious_and_his_crime-fighting_dog (talk · contribs) for a week. Now, it's very clear he broke 3RR, by about 6 or 7 reverts. However, the article (Battle of Tskhinvali is a nightmare at the moment, plagued by nationalist editors and new accounts who know The Truth. Given the situation (Captain was reverting a POV-warrior - now blocked - who continually put wrong information into the article through misciting sources), I think his heart was in the right place, and would wonder if you would consider reducing the block to the standard 24 hours for 3RR breaches. Thanks. Neıl ☄ 08:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no "customary" block length for 3RR breaches. There is, however, longer blocks alloted for repeat violations, compounded with personal attacks. Especially when there was a prior ANI case about this just last week. I plan on looking over the article today at work and seeing just what the fuck is going on over there because it is a mess. seicer | talk | contribs 11:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It really is a mess, and every bit of help is appreciated. Neıl ☄ 12:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)