![]() Talk page |
![]() Admin |
![]() Logs |
![]() Awards |
![]() Books |
Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, get in touch on my talk page. WjB scribe 13:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
← Congratulations. I think you'll do a great job. Just remember that the learning curve is steep and unforgiving, especially these days, so always err on the side of asking for help or a sanity check and you'll be fine. MastCell Talk 16:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Congrats. This is long overdue. :) Durova Charge! 17:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
(undent) Thanks again to everyone. I wont let this go to my head, but if it does slap me with a trout or two :)-- Cailil talk 21:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry, I washed it first. Jehochman Talk 18:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
You mentioned that you are not afraid to AFD articles. Does this qualify? Romanesti (winery)
Chergles ( talk) 22:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations on your RFA. Visit WP:AIV occasionally and use your sysop powers in this needed area. Chergles ( talk) 14:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations on your successful RFA. Keep up the good work. Cheers, Mathsci ( talk) 15:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm taking out a comment since you already read it and it might be interpreted the wrong way by others. Usually, housekeeping is done by the user, not the person writing it, but why not an exception here. Good luck on being an admin! Chergles ( talk) 15:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I saw this http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=6377.php and thought whether or not the company is Wikipedia material. The article is here CombiMatrix.
Is this article worth keeping or deleting, in your opinion? Obscure company, not much written about it, but in the huge world of the internet, there are some stories about it in investment websites. Not really sure if it's worth the effort to improve this sort of article. Chergles ( talk) 15:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Got rid of a really nasty edit summary by a serial vandal. NawlinWiki ( talk) 00:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I have made a small change on your userpage ,so that the category is sorted properly instead of "U" for "User:" . Hope you wont mind. -- Tinu Cherian - 07:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
What's your opinion on Wikipedia rules? Are they optional? Or do you follow them? I don't know the answer. If I did, I'd do something, not just ask you.
One rule (official WP policy, not a guideline) is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:UN#Sharing_accounts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:UN#Company.2Fgroup_names states: Accounts that represent an entire group or company are not permitted; see Sharing accounts below.
Shouldn't you issue a warning and then make your first block? From what I read, you should not prevent account creation so the individual user can comply with policy and start his own account. By doing this, you would be doing your first block. Enough people have spent enough time in your RFA, don't waste our time and effort by failing to use the tools.
The offending user is: User:Ca204valry. Proof of policy violation: See user talk page: We are the IT Team at SIBM. We maintain sibm.edu and the SIBM section on wikipedia.
They also are treading on thin ice by editing their own article. Chergles ( talk) 22:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I have carefully reviewed the matter and am putting warnings.
Please block this 3RR violator for the shortest possible time period (recommend 8 hours). This user was properly warned about 3RR and reported to the 3RR board. Nobody did anything. I am not involved in the article in question nor is the reporter of the violation (for the most part).
The user who has violated policy and needs blocking is User:Wikisurfer61 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikisurfer61 . I, personally, don't like blocking but it must to done fairly and not selectively. Selective blocking is really persecution and unfairness. So if someone has violated policy, they must be treated like everyone else.
You have the tools. Please use them. Chergles ( talk) 22:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Please help. You didn't want to block someone so here's the reverse. I have looked at this person. They seem reasonable. They were blocked for 3RR but they are sorry and also claim a long record of good edits. Please unblock and reduce the punishment to time already served.
If you don't want to block, then please fulfil this UNblock request. The user is User:Wolfkeeper You have the tools, please use them. Chergles ( talk) 22:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I want you to use the tools, that's why I asked. I want you to find a good reason to block or unblock a user, partly for experience and partly to put that RFA to good use. What I am perplexed is why you won't use your tools "on request". Other admins do this thousands of times a day. Regular editors complain (hopefully with valid complaints) and the admin either does something or concludes that nothing should be done. Are you saying that you refuse to take requests and only use the tools when you see a case that needs it? If that is the case, we need many more admins because each would just use the tools for the small part of WP that they inhabit and would not accept any requests from others.
What if other admin did the same thing as you (not take requests) in the Anacapa matter? If so, Anacapa would remain as 99% or more of admins do not edit the same articles as Anacapa. Chergles ( talk) 18:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
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) 15:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't ever officially passed (unfortunately). It probably should've been though...this time I'll follow it more closely, particularly given that I'm looking for article probation to pass this time around. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 15:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I saw you asking about where you could best help, now that you have admin tools. My own suggestion (which you are free to ignore <grin>), is to check Category:Administrative backlog. For example, there are several move requests at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Backlog which could benefit from administrator attention. Up to you though, to find your own niche. :) There are also suggestions at the bottom of Wikipedia:New admin school/Dealing with disputes, such as to review the backlog at Category:NPOV disputes and see if any "disputed" tags can be removed from articles where the discussions have died down. And if not, the presence of a completely uninvolved administrator can often be really useful in getting things resolved. -- El on ka 16:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I have another way to use your tools. I have formed the "2000 Primary Group". Initially it was to re-write a really bad section. 2 other editors agreed that it was a poorly written section and I re-wrote it. Because of the other editors neutral and fair judgment, we formed this informal group. Now we want to make the first edit of our group. We plan to consult each other first to see if there is a consensus. If our idea is too radical, the others in the group will caution us and the one with the idea won't pursue it as an edit (or do it with the black mark that the discussion group rejected it). In other words, we'll edit as individuals but we will seek a consensus/pre-approval first that our idea is a good idea.
We have decided that the "cultural and political image" is biased. Who is to choose what image/opinion to use? Only the postive (POV)? Only the negative (smear)? We plan to be very fair and make the suggestion to 2 articles, one of each major US politician from the 2 major parties. That way, we would not be picking on one party.
We plan to be polite and have good suggestions. Will you protect us as long as we follow our goals of good behavior? Others may call us socks in an effort to hurt us. The other two are: User talk:Floridianed and User talk:SMP0328. Wouldn't you agree that we are not each other's socks. That will diffuse at least that potential attack. Chergles ( talk)
Yes, I would be interested in a mentor. What I am afraid of is not a negative RFCU but one from a checkuser who doesn't like our pre-edit discussions (maybe disagrees with them) and then say "likely". Then I would have been called Anacapa and SMP0328 and then probably banned forever. If I then request unblock from the unblock board, they would say "trolling, request denied, checkuser can't be wrong." If you are willing to stick up and say "Chergles is a reasonable person based on the edits" then I feel more comfortable. Of course, my edits would be entirely reasonable. Also, if you know any possible mentors, let me know. Chergles ( talk) 23:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm looking for folks to help convert Respect Threads to wiki formatting on Project Fanboy: WikiFans. Respect Threads, showcase scans of feats performed by comic book characters and have gained an audience on several comic book message boards. A few other wiki editors and myself are trying to convert them from the unprofessional look of a bunch of posts on a message board to the formatting common with WikiMedia wiki's. To view an example of what we're doing, here is a link to Respect Silver Surfer.
I was wondering if you might have time to contribute your comic book knowledge and/or scans of comic book characters performing feats, and help us out with our Respect Articles project? Millennium Cowboy ( talk) 02:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Could you watchlist Dan Crow (computer scientist) and Blurb.com? I've been dealing with a banned editor "JP" (who was allowed to vanish and had her WP:CSN banning thread blanked). More eyes may help. Jehochman Talk 08:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
You were right, even in your criticism of me. Unfortunately, Lisa and I have a long standing history of this. On the Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms her edit warring led to the complete disolution of the page. On the Shituf page her warring led me to just let her have the whole page, except for a single sentence I fought tooth and nail for to keep the entire article from contradicting itself. And here again her edit is the last one standing. Even worse, she FOLLOWS me from page to page, and opened an RfC on me demanding that I be barred from making ANY edits ANYWHERE on Jewish subjects (we're both Jewish).
I honestly don't know what to do other than changing my name or obediently trying to find some obscure subject she isn't interested in -- but I'm starting to think I'm the primary subject, and not the articles. My apologies for going along even up to 3 edits, and my apologies for not learning how to deal with this kind of thing. It's quite unnerving. And it's been going on since December of 2007. Do you have any suggestions? Should I change my name and try to hide? Thanks. Really, I'm open for suggestions. Tim ( talk) 21:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd be happy to. How do you go into the history of a page that doesn't exist any more? The first page completely disappeared. Is it still out there somewhere? Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms. Tim ( talk) 22:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I just dug into the history of the link I gave you and it was still there -- just renamed. I'll go into the history, but it may be a day or two before I can get everything together. I haven't been keeping links to all of these and will have to step through an eight month old thread one edit at a time to follow it. But I'll give it priority. Shituf was the other page. I'll go through those too. Not sure I can find that RfC on me. Can you see if it's still around? The wording is a little eye opening. Tim ( talk) 22:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
No, it was me. I'm kind of unimaginative with my teclontz handle... even for my yahoo and aol screen names. I'll try to find that. L'Aquatique might know where that is. It was a month or two ago. Tim ( talk) 22:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I may be using the wrong term. Is mediation a different thing? It had to do with the Shituf page. I know that much. Tim ( talk) 23:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Now my terminology - "Anywhere in relation to Jewish concepts and Christianity" - may look different, however, to request such a topic ban would in effect mean preventing editors from working in any topics in relation to Jewish concepts and Christianity - no normal topic ban could be formulated otherwise. I'm not commenting on the ins and outs of this BTW, but I need evidence of what Teclontz refers to in his above posts-- Cailil talk 19:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)I want Tim and Carlaude to be prevented from making edits to articles on Jewish concepts which insert Christian concepts into them, particularly when Judaism differs with Christianity on such concepts. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Question: I'm going through all the old edits and categorizing edit wars, personal cracks, wikithreats, bad faith editing, etc. It's slow going, though. This has been going on since the beginning of December and there are dozens of instances I'm categorizing. It could take weeks to get through them all. How long do I have to get everything together? There's just so much of it. Or should I post it somewhere as I keep documenting? Thanks. Tim ( talk) 16:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Quick question: I'm still compiling the Documentation Page. How much time do I have on this? I don't know how long the process lasts, and I want to be complete, and fair. Tim ( talk) 18:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I hav written a form for decisions that I want you to render regarding that locked template. You do not need to inspect history and talk space to fill it out, because two versions are on the administrator's noticeboard. BrewJay ( talk) 02:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Is now giving assurance she won't edit war again... -- Step hen 02:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
My pleasure, thanks for the note! Cirt ( talk) 11:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I am okay but in transit and with infrequent and undependable access to internet. I will check the article when I can, but assume that any act you take that is consistent with the notes I have added will be okay by me. It seems - based on a cursory look - that the main participants in the debate are Lisa and Tim. Lisa too often seems to be willing to edit-war, but she is clear about her point of view and it seems like she generally represents the Orthodox Jewish POV accurately. Tim on the other hand often makes big claims that he says are "obvious" and i have real concerns that he just does not "get" NPOV and NOR. I think it is key not to elide a Jewish 9or any religious) POV with the "Biblical" view - the Bible is a primary source and mainstream Judaisn has its interpretation of it, different Christian movements have their views, and critical scholars debate other views. I think it is essential that these distinctions be made clearly in the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed that you made quite a heafty edit to the "Fourth Wall" article a few days ago. The only reason I bring it up is I was quite proud of my first contribution and noticed it was gone when I went to show my buddy. Any particular reason why you cut so much out of the article? -- Macmooreno ( talk) 00:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Calil, I've let several people know about this. Three of them disappeared off of Wikipedia after run ins with Lisa; JerryofAiken, Egfrank, and Bikinibomb. A fourth, Kim Brunning, tried resolution with Lisa months ago, but I've not encountered her since. In each case I've asked them to say something (even to tell me I'm flat wrong) if it is relevant to the long term hijacking of pages going on, with edit wars, AfDs, Mediation Cabals, and threats to have me "banned" as a means of trying to cow me away from trying to have articles not contradict each other. I've had a couple of emails from different people bounce back, and tried to contact them here. This is a huge problem. We've BEEN losing editors and I'm close to leaving myself. Tim ( talk) 19:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I forgot -- I've also contacted Carlaude because he is the other party in the Mediation Cabal. And I've tried to communicate with L'Aquatique on her talk page because she's also been a witness to this. Tim ( talk) 19:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Calil -- a lot of people are here and they were obviously contacted by different people. As for my own contacts, Lisa's already followed me around and shown diffs on there with my contacts. You told her to stop just now, remember? Also, here's another scare tactic diff on my talk page from some weeks ago: [5]. I'm no wikilawyer, but this bullying has driven off other editors and is attempting to drive Alastair and myself off as well. Besides, other than Carlaude, everyone I contacted had been driven off already and were unlikely to show up. Tim ( talk) 19:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I am around. How do I properly join the arbitration, simply by adding information to the Evidence page, or are there other steps? -- Yamara ✉ 23:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
slrubenstein at yahoo dot com Slrubenstein | Talk 06:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Notifying you because you were an early significant contributor to Portal:Feminism:
Portal:Feminism has had a lot of changes and work recently and is currently up for portal peer review. Comments would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Feminism/archive1. Thank you, Cirt ( talk) 04:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Calil -- if it helps, I'll let you and the other admins know my whereabouts so that they can enforce whatever they need on any screen name I use. Honestly, it won't be an imposition if I just get away from the editor I don't get along with. But I'll need to let you guys know in some way that is offline. Tim ( talk) 17:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. If this works, we'll each be a lot more productive than we've been this past year. :-) Tim ( talk) 18:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
LOL -- thanks for making us shut up! -- this will go away when I disappear. Tim ( talk) 19:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks -- I've already let L'Aquatique know, and can let you know also. Tim ( talk) 10:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Protonk ( talk) 05:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Sent with Auto Wiki Browser to all 40K project members.
![]() Talk page |
![]() Admin |
![]() Logs |
![]() Awards |
![]() Books |
Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, get in touch on my talk page. WjB scribe 13:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
← Congratulations. I think you'll do a great job. Just remember that the learning curve is steep and unforgiving, especially these days, so always err on the side of asking for help or a sanity check and you'll be fine. MastCell Talk 16:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Congrats. This is long overdue. :) Durova Charge! 17:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
(undent) Thanks again to everyone. I wont let this go to my head, but if it does slap me with a trout or two :)-- Cailil talk 21:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry, I washed it first. Jehochman Talk 18:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
You mentioned that you are not afraid to AFD articles. Does this qualify? Romanesti (winery)
Chergles ( talk) 22:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations on your RFA. Visit WP:AIV occasionally and use your sysop powers in this needed area. Chergles ( talk) 14:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations on your successful RFA. Keep up the good work. Cheers, Mathsci ( talk) 15:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm taking out a comment since you already read it and it might be interpreted the wrong way by others. Usually, housekeeping is done by the user, not the person writing it, but why not an exception here. Good luck on being an admin! Chergles ( talk) 15:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I saw this http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=6377.php and thought whether or not the company is Wikipedia material. The article is here CombiMatrix.
Is this article worth keeping or deleting, in your opinion? Obscure company, not much written about it, but in the huge world of the internet, there are some stories about it in investment websites. Not really sure if it's worth the effort to improve this sort of article. Chergles ( talk) 15:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Got rid of a really nasty edit summary by a serial vandal. NawlinWiki ( talk) 00:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I have made a small change on your userpage ,so that the category is sorted properly instead of "U" for "User:" . Hope you wont mind. -- Tinu Cherian - 07:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
What's your opinion on Wikipedia rules? Are they optional? Or do you follow them? I don't know the answer. If I did, I'd do something, not just ask you.
One rule (official WP policy, not a guideline) is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:UN#Sharing_accounts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:UN#Company.2Fgroup_names states: Accounts that represent an entire group or company are not permitted; see Sharing accounts below.
Shouldn't you issue a warning and then make your first block? From what I read, you should not prevent account creation so the individual user can comply with policy and start his own account. By doing this, you would be doing your first block. Enough people have spent enough time in your RFA, don't waste our time and effort by failing to use the tools.
The offending user is: User:Ca204valry. Proof of policy violation: See user talk page: We are the IT Team at SIBM. We maintain sibm.edu and the SIBM section on wikipedia.
They also are treading on thin ice by editing their own article. Chergles ( talk) 22:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I have carefully reviewed the matter and am putting warnings.
Please block this 3RR violator for the shortest possible time period (recommend 8 hours). This user was properly warned about 3RR and reported to the 3RR board. Nobody did anything. I am not involved in the article in question nor is the reporter of the violation (for the most part).
The user who has violated policy and needs blocking is User:Wikisurfer61 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikisurfer61 . I, personally, don't like blocking but it must to done fairly and not selectively. Selective blocking is really persecution and unfairness. So if someone has violated policy, they must be treated like everyone else.
You have the tools. Please use them. Chergles ( talk) 22:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Please help. You didn't want to block someone so here's the reverse. I have looked at this person. They seem reasonable. They were blocked for 3RR but they are sorry and also claim a long record of good edits. Please unblock and reduce the punishment to time already served.
If you don't want to block, then please fulfil this UNblock request. The user is User:Wolfkeeper You have the tools, please use them. Chergles ( talk) 22:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I want you to use the tools, that's why I asked. I want you to find a good reason to block or unblock a user, partly for experience and partly to put that RFA to good use. What I am perplexed is why you won't use your tools "on request". Other admins do this thousands of times a day. Regular editors complain (hopefully with valid complaints) and the admin either does something or concludes that nothing should be done. Are you saying that you refuse to take requests and only use the tools when you see a case that needs it? If that is the case, we need many more admins because each would just use the tools for the small part of WP that they inhabit and would not accept any requests from others.
What if other admin did the same thing as you (not take requests) in the Anacapa matter? If so, Anacapa would remain as 99% or more of admins do not edit the same articles as Anacapa. Chergles ( talk) 18:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
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) 15:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't ever officially passed (unfortunately). It probably should've been though...this time I'll follow it more closely, particularly given that I'm looking for article probation to pass this time around. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 15:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I saw you asking about where you could best help, now that you have admin tools. My own suggestion (which you are free to ignore <grin>), is to check Category:Administrative backlog. For example, there are several move requests at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Backlog which could benefit from administrator attention. Up to you though, to find your own niche. :) There are also suggestions at the bottom of Wikipedia:New admin school/Dealing with disputes, such as to review the backlog at Category:NPOV disputes and see if any "disputed" tags can be removed from articles where the discussions have died down. And if not, the presence of a completely uninvolved administrator can often be really useful in getting things resolved. -- El on ka 16:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I have another way to use your tools. I have formed the "2000 Primary Group". Initially it was to re-write a really bad section. 2 other editors agreed that it was a poorly written section and I re-wrote it. Because of the other editors neutral and fair judgment, we formed this informal group. Now we want to make the first edit of our group. We plan to consult each other first to see if there is a consensus. If our idea is too radical, the others in the group will caution us and the one with the idea won't pursue it as an edit (or do it with the black mark that the discussion group rejected it). In other words, we'll edit as individuals but we will seek a consensus/pre-approval first that our idea is a good idea.
We have decided that the "cultural and political image" is biased. Who is to choose what image/opinion to use? Only the postive (POV)? Only the negative (smear)? We plan to be very fair and make the suggestion to 2 articles, one of each major US politician from the 2 major parties. That way, we would not be picking on one party.
We plan to be polite and have good suggestions. Will you protect us as long as we follow our goals of good behavior? Others may call us socks in an effort to hurt us. The other two are: User talk:Floridianed and User talk:SMP0328. Wouldn't you agree that we are not each other's socks. That will diffuse at least that potential attack. Chergles ( talk)
Yes, I would be interested in a mentor. What I am afraid of is not a negative RFCU but one from a checkuser who doesn't like our pre-edit discussions (maybe disagrees with them) and then say "likely". Then I would have been called Anacapa and SMP0328 and then probably banned forever. If I then request unblock from the unblock board, they would say "trolling, request denied, checkuser can't be wrong." If you are willing to stick up and say "Chergles is a reasonable person based on the edits" then I feel more comfortable. Of course, my edits would be entirely reasonable. Also, if you know any possible mentors, let me know. Chergles ( talk) 23:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm looking for folks to help convert Respect Threads to wiki formatting on Project Fanboy: WikiFans. Respect Threads, showcase scans of feats performed by comic book characters and have gained an audience on several comic book message boards. A few other wiki editors and myself are trying to convert them from the unprofessional look of a bunch of posts on a message board to the formatting common with WikiMedia wiki's. To view an example of what we're doing, here is a link to Respect Silver Surfer.
I was wondering if you might have time to contribute your comic book knowledge and/or scans of comic book characters performing feats, and help us out with our Respect Articles project? Millennium Cowboy ( talk) 02:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Could you watchlist Dan Crow (computer scientist) and Blurb.com? I've been dealing with a banned editor "JP" (who was allowed to vanish and had her WP:CSN banning thread blanked). More eyes may help. Jehochman Talk 08:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
You were right, even in your criticism of me. Unfortunately, Lisa and I have a long standing history of this. On the Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms her edit warring led to the complete disolution of the page. On the Shituf page her warring led me to just let her have the whole page, except for a single sentence I fought tooth and nail for to keep the entire article from contradicting itself. And here again her edit is the last one standing. Even worse, she FOLLOWS me from page to page, and opened an RfC on me demanding that I be barred from making ANY edits ANYWHERE on Jewish subjects (we're both Jewish).
I honestly don't know what to do other than changing my name or obediently trying to find some obscure subject she isn't interested in -- but I'm starting to think I'm the primary subject, and not the articles. My apologies for going along even up to 3 edits, and my apologies for not learning how to deal with this kind of thing. It's quite unnerving. And it's been going on since December of 2007. Do you have any suggestions? Should I change my name and try to hide? Thanks. Really, I'm open for suggestions. Tim ( talk) 21:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd be happy to. How do you go into the history of a page that doesn't exist any more? The first page completely disappeared. Is it still out there somewhere? Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms. Tim ( talk) 22:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I just dug into the history of the link I gave you and it was still there -- just renamed. I'll go into the history, but it may be a day or two before I can get everything together. I haven't been keeping links to all of these and will have to step through an eight month old thread one edit at a time to follow it. But I'll give it priority. Shituf was the other page. I'll go through those too. Not sure I can find that RfC on me. Can you see if it's still around? The wording is a little eye opening. Tim ( talk) 22:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
No, it was me. I'm kind of unimaginative with my teclontz handle... even for my yahoo and aol screen names. I'll try to find that. L'Aquatique might know where that is. It was a month or two ago. Tim ( talk) 22:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I may be using the wrong term. Is mediation a different thing? It had to do with the Shituf page. I know that much. Tim ( talk) 23:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Now my terminology - "Anywhere in relation to Jewish concepts and Christianity" - may look different, however, to request such a topic ban would in effect mean preventing editors from working in any topics in relation to Jewish concepts and Christianity - no normal topic ban could be formulated otherwise. I'm not commenting on the ins and outs of this BTW, but I need evidence of what Teclontz refers to in his above posts-- Cailil talk 19:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)I want Tim and Carlaude to be prevented from making edits to articles on Jewish concepts which insert Christian concepts into them, particularly when Judaism differs with Christianity on such concepts. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Question: I'm going through all the old edits and categorizing edit wars, personal cracks, wikithreats, bad faith editing, etc. It's slow going, though. This has been going on since the beginning of December and there are dozens of instances I'm categorizing. It could take weeks to get through them all. How long do I have to get everything together? There's just so much of it. Or should I post it somewhere as I keep documenting? Thanks. Tim ( talk) 16:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Quick question: I'm still compiling the Documentation Page. How much time do I have on this? I don't know how long the process lasts, and I want to be complete, and fair. Tim ( talk) 18:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I hav written a form for decisions that I want you to render regarding that locked template. You do not need to inspect history and talk space to fill it out, because two versions are on the administrator's noticeboard. BrewJay ( talk) 02:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Is now giving assurance she won't edit war again... -- Step hen 02:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
My pleasure, thanks for the note! Cirt ( talk) 11:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I am okay but in transit and with infrequent and undependable access to internet. I will check the article when I can, but assume that any act you take that is consistent with the notes I have added will be okay by me. It seems - based on a cursory look - that the main participants in the debate are Lisa and Tim. Lisa too often seems to be willing to edit-war, but she is clear about her point of view and it seems like she generally represents the Orthodox Jewish POV accurately. Tim on the other hand often makes big claims that he says are "obvious" and i have real concerns that he just does not "get" NPOV and NOR. I think it is key not to elide a Jewish 9or any religious) POV with the "Biblical" view - the Bible is a primary source and mainstream Judaisn has its interpretation of it, different Christian movements have their views, and critical scholars debate other views. I think it is essential that these distinctions be made clearly in the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed that you made quite a heafty edit to the "Fourth Wall" article a few days ago. The only reason I bring it up is I was quite proud of my first contribution and noticed it was gone when I went to show my buddy. Any particular reason why you cut so much out of the article? -- Macmooreno ( talk) 00:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Calil, I've let several people know about this. Three of them disappeared off of Wikipedia after run ins with Lisa; JerryofAiken, Egfrank, and Bikinibomb. A fourth, Kim Brunning, tried resolution with Lisa months ago, but I've not encountered her since. In each case I've asked them to say something (even to tell me I'm flat wrong) if it is relevant to the long term hijacking of pages going on, with edit wars, AfDs, Mediation Cabals, and threats to have me "banned" as a means of trying to cow me away from trying to have articles not contradict each other. I've had a couple of emails from different people bounce back, and tried to contact them here. This is a huge problem. We've BEEN losing editors and I'm close to leaving myself. Tim ( talk) 19:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I forgot -- I've also contacted Carlaude because he is the other party in the Mediation Cabal. And I've tried to communicate with L'Aquatique on her talk page because she's also been a witness to this. Tim ( talk) 19:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Calil -- a lot of people are here and they were obviously contacted by different people. As for my own contacts, Lisa's already followed me around and shown diffs on there with my contacts. You told her to stop just now, remember? Also, here's another scare tactic diff on my talk page from some weeks ago: [5]. I'm no wikilawyer, but this bullying has driven off other editors and is attempting to drive Alastair and myself off as well. Besides, other than Carlaude, everyone I contacted had been driven off already and were unlikely to show up. Tim ( talk) 19:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I am around. How do I properly join the arbitration, simply by adding information to the Evidence page, or are there other steps? -- Yamara ✉ 23:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
slrubenstein at yahoo dot com Slrubenstein | Talk 06:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Notifying you because you were an early significant contributor to Portal:Feminism:
Portal:Feminism has had a lot of changes and work recently and is currently up for portal peer review. Comments would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Feminism/archive1. Thank you, Cirt ( talk) 04:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Calil -- if it helps, I'll let you and the other admins know my whereabouts so that they can enforce whatever they need on any screen name I use. Honestly, it won't be an imposition if I just get away from the editor I don't get along with. But I'll need to let you guys know in some way that is offline. Tim ( talk) 17:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. If this works, we'll each be a lot more productive than we've been this past year. :-) Tim ( talk) 18:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
LOL -- thanks for making us shut up! -- this will go away when I disappear. Tim ( talk) 19:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks -- I've already let L'Aquatique know, and can let you know also. Tim ( talk) 10:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Protonk ( talk) 05:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Sent with Auto Wiki Browser to all 40K project members.