User talk:Eleemosynary/Archive: Difference between revisions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

see the new arrival at Hurricane Katrina...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That link comes from a blog. Blogs are unacceptable sources by policy. Please do not accuse me of vandalism: after 2600 or so edits, most of which have been reverting vandalism I think I'm well aware of what it is. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but no need to come onto my talk page with such a tone. You need to review WP:CIVIL and WP:DICK. The blanking is not unilateral, in fact, you're the only editor so far supporting an unacceptably linked source. Get your facts straight please. If you are going to come onto my talk page again, do it in a civil tone. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm warning you one last time. Do not come onto my talk page again in an uncivil tone. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please try and keep a cool head, despite comments people may make against you. Personal attacks and disruptive comments will only escalate a situation; please keep calm and action can be taken against the other parties if necessary. Your involvement in attacking back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors, and lead to general bad feeling. Please try and be civil. Thanks! (CJ) ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly calm here. But you, Cpl. Hairtrigger, have grown quite irate. Try counting to 10, if you can make it that far. Eleemosynary 09:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree with Swatjester, I invite you to calmly discuss and follow the dispute resolution process. Hostility, a mocking tone, and insults do nothing to resolve your dispute. If you have any questions or comments, feel free to contact me on my talk page. Thanks for your interest in our project. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 09:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem at all. I just read "Swatjester's" little incident report, in which he has selectively edited our correspondence to place him in the best possible light, so that he may pose as a victim. Such disingenuousness from this pest is not surprising. I really have no interest in pursuing it further, as it falls into the realm of "feeding the trolls." Thanks for your advice, though. Eleemosynary 09:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

This is considered vandalism as per WP:VANDAL and WP:TALK. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 10:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't warned. Much to your chagrin, I guess. LOL! Eleemosynary 10:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the {{subst:Civil1}} is a warning. Also, though I can't speak for Pathoschild, their post appears to be in the vein of a warning as well. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 10:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, Pathoschild's helpful comment was not an official warning. And you're sinking more and more into the quagmire of disingenuousness. Eleemosynary 11:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an official warning. Stop blanking your talk page. — Mar. 26, '06 [11:03] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Haven't blanked the page. Just some comments on it. Care to send me the rule that forbids me from doing that? Eleemosynary 11:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your sardonic tone is not helping your case. Ashibaka tock 12:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn. Still waitin' for that rule. Eleemosynary 12:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TPG, the section that says "Also avoid putting others' comments in the wrong context." Your removal of your comments puts Pathos's and my comments in the wrong context. There's a second section that goes more in depth but I forgot the link off top of my head. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 15:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Completely open to interpretation. The warnings are still there after the blanking. The backstory is superfluous. Eleemosynary 16:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This user has been blocked, and this page protected, pending a review from the Foundation office regarding threats he or she has made to publicize (to Wikitruth) information which should not be made public and which was in the process of being handled via designated processes. Do not unblock without consulting Danny Wool or Brad Patrick. If this user wishes to discuss this matter, he or she may contact myself, Danny, or BradPatrick at their designated email addresses. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The matter has been resolved and the user unblocked. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that didn't take long.

The above allegation from "Kelly Martin" is a lie, another failed attempt in a long line of bullying tactics from a user who continues to cheapen Wikipedia's brand by his well-documented actions. Eleemosynary 01:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Dragonfly. To respond...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eleemosynary 06:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir or Madam:

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

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

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

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

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

You are continuing to lie and bully.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wishful thinking on his part, I suppose.

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

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy by making legal threats at [17], also, personal attacks, edit-warring over content removed by the foundation office. This is for one week and has been posted on the admin noticeboard for review. Legal threats can result in immediate indefinite blocking, as can undoing WP:OFFICE actions. I believe you are aware of this following an earlier block. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. Guy 21:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The spectacle of a user fond of making death threats crying foul over personal attacks and legal threats is amusing, to say the least. Here's Billy Blythe's previous death threat.[18] The one he made to me is still on the servers of the Wikimedia foundation, and no doubt Danny Wool can pull it up if an admin or bureaucrat would like to see it.

I would also direct anyone interested to this case to Billy Blythe's comments here[19]. They are quite telling.

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

Thus, I confronted him on his page in no uncertain terms.[20] And I stand by every single word.

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

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

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

Billy Blythe's goading and continued threats (please see his latest threat) [21] are quite telling. Here are two threats of violence to other users that Billy Blythe has issued in the last 24 hours: [22] [23] Eleemosynary 21:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And here's some more personal attacks and sputtering invective from him: [24][25]

I've just seen Billy Blythe has been blocked for incivility[26].Eleemosynary 01:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And just a scant few hours after his block was removed... another death threat! [27]

And some more goading on his User Page. Honestly, this is going to make things so much easier. [28] Eleemosynary 20:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Some facts in evidence:

1. Billy Blythe is engaging in the same edit warring (complete with threats) to the same editor on the same article talk pages that he did under his previous user name[29][30].

2. Billy Blythe is once again using Guy as a "go-to" sympathetic admin [31], just as he did when he was posting as Brian_G._Crawford[32]. Though, as of this [33], it appears that ruse is no longer operative.

3. Just as Brian_G._Crawford had a habit of making death threats for which he was later banned, [34], so now is Billy Blythe employing death threats [35] hours after his temporary blocks are removed.

4. Here [36] is a post from Brian_G._Crawford in which, after threatening a user's life, he then goes on to scream about the futility of calling the police. (He also states, in this post, that he has another username, and fully intends to use it after his permanent block).

5. Here [37] is a post from Billy Blythe in which, after threatening a user's life, he then goes on to scream about the futility of calling the police.

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

Wow, it's a great thing we have you to thank for solving this case Columbo. The account was reaching the end of its usefulness, and I was being increasingly obvious. The references to Dartmouth should have been a major clue. BTW, I don't "scream" in any of the above posts, you stupid douche.

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

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

---

Request reason:

For responding forcefully to a user who placed a death threat on my page (and who has a history of making death threats), I have been blocked. Please see my Talk Page for further info and comments. Thanks!

Decline reason:

I've looked over the diffs in question and your statement above. I agree that a user used intemperate language with you, but your response should not have been to make legal threats. There also appears to be ample evidence of edit warring. This is bad for everybody - users, readers, admins, Wikipedia itself. We don't like. You also have a history of doing these types of things. Your actions warrent a permanent block, so 1 week in order to cool off and reconsider your approach to editing seems more than fair. The user you are arguing with will be dealt with separately and it is not appropriate to campaign for the punishment of someone else via the unblock template. Please use the time constructively to review your editing style and we will look forward to your return. Thank you. ➨ ЯEDVERS 12:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Thanks, Redvers. But I'd disagree with the statement that I have history of doing "these types of things." I've never informed another user of an intention to notify law enforcement before, (but then again, I've never received a death threat before). I've certainly been involved in a few spirited edit wars, however.

I see the user in question has been dealt with. One hopes he will learn from this. Thanks again for the review and the comments. Eleemosynary 02:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are, without a doubt, one of the biggest pussies on Wikipedia, even including Jeff Raymond. What is your fucking problem? Were you a chronic tattler in school? Did the bigger kids beat the shit out of you routinely? I know I'm aching to beat the shit out of you right now, but of course I can't indulge that wish, since I'm a pacifist. Why don't you just shut the fuck up and wait until your block is over or just make another account? It's not as if you're writing anything even close to important. Just how long have you had sand in your vagina? You whine, and whine, and whine like a sixteen year old girl on her period. You need someone to tell you what the admins won't: 1) You're incredibly annoying. 2) Your username is stupid. 3) You're more trouble than you're worth, and you've caused more trouble than my accounts I created just for vandalism. You should be publicly spanked like the bitch you are. You're probably another dumb teenager with no friends who came across Wikipedia and found in it a medium to force others to listen to his pearls of wisdom, which are no doubt being produced by all the SAND IN YOUR VAGINA! DIE! DIE! DIE! YOU GO TO HELL AND YOU DIE! Macarthur Park Streaker 11:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]