![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Due to your use of the name "Eschoir" I have proposed a finding of fact, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Free_Republic/Proposed_decision#Eschoir, and a remedy, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Free_Republic/Proposed_decision#Eschoir_2. This is not based on an analysis of your editing, but on use of a provocative name. You may participate in the case and contest the finding and remedy if you wish. Fred Bauder 20:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to participate but I am inexperienced in the ways of Wiki defense. Eschoir 21:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Eschoir 22:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for modifying your Proposal of Fact. I have no problem with your current formulation.
Is it the screen name you have a problem with? Would a different screen name be your preferred remedy? Eschoir 02:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Come September, I will have used this screen name for ten years. I felt it would be disingenuous not to use it. Eschoir 02:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Please do not post again on User talk:DeanHinnen. There is no reason to further inflame the situation. Thank you. Newyorkbrad 20:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Eschoir! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule alexa\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 22:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I removed your edits to my section. Feel free to add or edit your own personal section of evidence as you see fit (including referencing mine). I removed it because 1) its contrary to wiki policy to edit others evidence sections, 2) I personally don't want to discuss the details of the his case in mine section as its not relevant (only the question of identity is relevant). Dman727 17:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Eschoir 17:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The indefinite community ban of User:BryanFromPalatine for tendentious editing, personal attacks, block evasion and disruption is endorsed. The ban also applies to User:DeanHinnen and all other proxies or sockpuppets of BryanFromPalatine. User:Fairness And Accuracy For All is banned from Wikipedia for one year. The articles Free Republic and Democratic Underground are placed on article probation. It is expected that these articles will be improved to conform with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and that information contained in them will be supported by verifiable information from reliable sources. Either article may be reviewed on the motion of any arbitrator, or upon acceptance by the Arbitration Committee of a motion made by any user, and users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 00:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I think your recent edits to the FR article are really good. -- BenBurch 16:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
![]()
WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter
| ||
|
![]()
This has been a tumultuous month for the project yet again. We need your input on how the project should work and what it's role should be. And we need to start getting Featured Articles, folks! :)
This is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (Issue 013 – May 2007). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing!
| |
Complete To Do List
Make visible or invisible by clicking Show or Hide, respectively.
As the project is currently just starting, our more experienced editors are working on the project infrastructure, classifying articles, and listing/assessing red links. Your assistance is welcome. If you would prefer to just edit - and why wouldn't you? - we have a choice selection of red links to turn blue and articles to clean! Now let's get busy.
If you complete one of these tasks, please remove it from the list and add your achievement to the project log. |
BetacommandBot 23:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello Eschoir, I just wanted to remind you to mind the 3RR, which you technically violated on the Free Republic article ( [3], [4], [5], [6]) If you persist in reverting before consensus has been formed through discussion, you may be blocked, or banned from the article, as Free Republic is on probation. Please keep a cool head, and thanks for understanding, Prodego talk 02:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a
consensus among editors.
FreedomAintFree
02:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Prodego: Thanks for the advice. I disagree. The 3rr prohibits the reversion of a single editor's work. "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor" The Freepers are guilty of violation of the 3R by proxy. So far, Fredomaintfree (a Bryan sockpuppet) has reverted me [#1], I reverted him, he reverted me[#2], I reverted him, and then proxy RWR (second editor) reverted me[#3], I reverted him, then third editor reverted me[#4], I replied with new content.
No attempt by the freepers has been made to discuss changes. "When in doubt, do not revert; instead, engage in dispute resolution or ask for administrative assistance."
Check your facts. Thank you for your watchfulness. Eschoir 02:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
All contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the
userpage of another user may be considered
vandalism. Specifically, your edit to
User talk:FreedomAintFree may be offensive or unwelcome. In case you are the user, please log in under that account and proceed to make the changes. Please use
the sandbox for any tests you may want to do, particularly to userpages. Take a look at our
introduction page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you.
Wow. Unsigned! Welcome back Bryan! Eschoir 02:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I read the 3R rule differently, insofar as the word "editor" is singular. I appreciate your input. Eschoir 03:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Please follow up on the case I filed. Thanks. 64.145.158.163 21:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Greetings! Please take a look at those articles. Left-wingers and Nambla members are blatantly trying to censor them. Peer-reviewed, scientific studies have found a clear link between homosexuality and pedophilia. See this discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homosexuality#Homosexuality_and_Pedophilia MoritzB 23:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be involved in a rather heated edit war at Son of God with another user. Not to take sides in any way, but when you use words like "vandalism" in your edit summary inappropriately, it is bad form. Vandalism has a very narrow definition at Wikipedia, and the edits you are contesting are definiately NOT vandalism. They may have other problems, and I take no stand on whether you or the other editor(s) involved are in the right or in the wrong. I am only here to note that 1) edit wars are not healthy 2) content disputes should be hammered out on talk pages rather than by repeated reversions (or near reversions) of the same material and 3) just because you disagree with another editor's opinion, that does not make their work vandalism. -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 05:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
There must be some meaningful way to distinguish the Koine usage of eucharistia in the NT from The Eucharistia (rite). I imagine Latin writers would just quote the Greek, but is there a way to express the difference the defininte article makes in English, but in Greek? Otherwise November 22 becomes American Eucharist.
It has become interesting to me that the thanksgiving aspect of Thannksgiving withered so early in comparison with the dominance of the rememberance aspect. Eschoir 22:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
It might seem more dominant if "thanksgiving" had been italicized in the article, rather than "remembrance." Eschoir 06:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
If you have a problem with something in the article, take it to the talk page and don't address it by leaving inaccurate and insulting edit summaries. Lima fixed your damage already, but "Eucharist" is how it's rendered in the source. (A Protestant source with a decidedly anti-Catholic slant in its commentary, by the way.) It is, in any event, highly nonstandard to transliterate χ with a k.
Unless you reply soon to the issue I raised about your table, I'll be cutting it. It's inaccurate as it stands. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your courteous reply. I find it hopelessly confusing as to goals. However, if you can get language to stick in the first paragraph stating that this article is not a critical or scholarly examination of the history or origins of the liturgy or liturgies, but merely about what is normally understood by "the Eucharist" in snapshot form across the denominations, I wiill fold my tent and steal silently away. That is a useless article, and one not deserving of my time. Eschoir 13:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Don't presume to lecture me on any subject, particularly this one, and in such a puerile manner. You don't have the slightest clue about how to evaluate sources. Not all are equally neutral, not all are equally useful, and not all receive equal consideration. TCC (talk) (contribs) 10:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm really conducting this Socratic inquiry for your own good. Eschoir 23:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Socratic inquiry was something less tahn you described when I went to Law School.
Assuming this is true: biased sources cannot be presented as if they are neutral, or on equal footing with those that are; views contrary to the overall consensus of scholarship should be represented as such; and those that are thoroughly discredited or obsolete don't represent "significant views" in any meaningful sense, you are not (or rather your words are not) the ones in which to evaluate the sources and dole out the consideration of article content except pperhaps in Talk. Isn't our official role neutrality, with the caveat that we can print sourced views that say what we would like to say in contravention of the puerile nonsense that that other jerkball editor just posted? Isn't that what distinguishes Wiki from a partisan bulletin board, like Free Republic?
I actually disagree with your formulation as accurately describing wiki. Biased sources can be and routiinely are presented as if they are neutral, or on equal footing with those that are, many times because the editor is similarly biassed (true believers are in this category) and doesn't see it, and must be countered by views from published secondary and tertiary sourcesthat recognize the bias, reference it, and explain it; views contrary to the overall consensus of scholarship must be represented as such by published sources (themselves open to criticism of bias), and not original content; and you and I haven't the authority to edit content that is thoroughly discredited or obsolete except to add content from publlished secondary or tertiary sources which points out the shortcomings of the disfavored views. Therefore, you, or you and an ally, are not authorized to judge what comprises "significant views" in any meaningful sense.
We ahve to lay out the facts, sort out the published views, and hope the reader will reach the conclusions we prefer, but we can't publilsh our own conclusions, even those based on our excellent understanding of primary sources. That's a chat room.
Bias, even majoritarian, consensus bias (the most dangerous kind) will eventually be smoked out if it is not allowed to censor criticism for being insignnificant. Eschoir 03:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Samuel Johnson wrote, "Anyone who writes, except for money, is a blockhead." Eschoir 03:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
You are simply lying when you say I'm trying to suppress contrary views. What I want to remove is the allocation of undue weight to them. Content certainly doesn't have undue weight when it is deleted. Eschoir 00:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
With regard to this question you have shown that you do not understand what is meant by "reliable sources" and have further demonstrated an unwillingness to be educated. For example, you continue to insist, despite repeated explanations to which you have not bothered to reply in any substantive way, that obsolete sources are as reliable now as they were at the time they were written. I seaarched WP:RS for the term 'obsolete' and found no iterations. I searched wiki for Encyclopedia Britannica and found an aarticle devooted to the excellence of its content, even back to the 11th edition. I searched Eucharist and see your collective citations of a 1915 encyclopedia. Eschoir 01:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The article actally says "The 1911 Encyclopædia can continue to be a resource for readers well into the 21st century with some care and discretion in using it." These errors cause me to question your reading comprehension. Eschoir 06:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Many encyclopedias even issue annual supplements to correct information that has become obsolete over the prior year.
That "more recent research" contradicts your old source is exactly the problem
Name three research-connected contradictions - as opposed to connclusions based on alterenate interpretations of preexistinig primaary sources. Eschoir 06:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
otherwise there would be little to object to its use.
That's what I am saying. Eschoir 06:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
You could have short-circuited all of this by instead citing a modern secondary source for the POV you want to push.
Like Crossan, or the Jesus Seminar? Eschoir 06:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Where there are "alternative scholarly explanations" we of course should mention them -- but not as if they were the primary scholarly explanation.
How do you propose to measure the "primary scholarly explanation?" Eschoir 06:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Which is what I've been saying all along. (Crossan is a secondary source only to the extent he describes the evidence. He is a primary source for his own analysis and synthesis.
Thats just silly. He's a wiki secondary source until he starts editing here. Eschoir 06:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
The salient point is the breadth of scholarly acceptance of his theories, not how loudly he shouts them out. If he, or a very small coterie surrounding him, is the sole exponent of a theory, it's not worth a mention;
Not even a mention? Prof Thihede getsa mention. And you made up the breadth argument. The word used is 'significant' views. Eschoir 06:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
no more than we ought to mention -- to bring back my earlier example -- Prof. Thiede's theory on the date for the earliest Gospel ms. Although he shouted very loudly about it indeed, and although I would very much like for it to be true, it has not found acceptance among even a significant minority of paleographers.)
There is no "1915 encyclopedia" being cited.
Do some research on the international standard bible encyclopedia Eschoir 06:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
The only source around that age actually in use is the old Catholic Encyclopedia, actually completed in 1914, and it is indeed a source that must be used with caution. However, I think you will discover that Catholic theology has not changed all that much in many particulars over the past century, Vatican II notwithstanding. Certainly their Eucharistic theology hasn't changed. Even so, you will note it is not the only source mentioned for the statement it is cited to support.
So its OK to cite old Catholic theology but not other old theology because research has changed it. Hmmm Eschoir 06:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I note the date on the citation of the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia is 1915 -- but the source itself gives a copyright date of 1939.
Right, and Luke gives an authorship of "Luke" - doesn'nt make it so. Eschoir 06:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
The same standard applies there regardless. It's usable when not contradicted by more recent scholarship. I know of no scholarship that contradicts the statements sourced from it, that the Eucharist occurred at the end of the agape, and that at the agape other food and drink were enjoyed.
Didache 10 has no bread or wine mentioned, beginning middle or end. But what of it?
Surely we don't have to be stupid about evaluating sources. If the consensus of more recent scholarship contradicts an old source, then it's obsolete.
But how do you measure consensus except subjectively, like an online poll? Eschoir 06:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
If not, then not. That 19th century physics textbook, so faulty on the subject of heat transfer, would be perfectly reliable as a source for Newton's laws of motion, which are still used now as they were then. The only amplification we'd need from more recent scholarship is that they're valid only under non-relativistic conditions. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
There's no point in going on here. This has descended to the level of idiocy. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Eschoir for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.
Sorry, but on long reflection I find I must do this. I hope indeed that my suspicion is unfounded. The link given above should surely read Wikipedia: Suspected sock puppets/Fairness And Accuracy For All. Lima 16:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Eschoir 21:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Let's just cut this off so no one wastes any more time. Eschoir contributed to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Free_Republic, and I'm sure that he was closely scrutinized at that time as a possible sockpuppet of FaAfA. So we can all assume that he's not FaAfA, unless some very strong and compelling evidence can be supplied to tie him to FaAfA. This case lacks such evidence, so I'm closing it. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Fairness_And_Accuracy_For_All" Eschoir 05:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
C.Logan wanted support in an argument where the sources are fairly clear, in dealing with a troll who is insisting on his own way regardless of what any source says. It's my expertise in secondary sources he was interested in. As it happens, those already cited are more than sufficient; the troll is simply refusing to acknowledge them. If you haven't bothered to check out the problem and therefore have nothing meaningful to contribute but a personal slam, please keep out of it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, please go away if you have nothing useful to say. The problem is not a lack of citations, which have been supplied in plenty. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't an unsupported claim, it wwas a poorly supported claim of some signicance. A footnote sourcing Mme Blavatsky would be self rebuttinig. Eschoir 06:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Eschoir, I would be glad to help you with your question. However, situations like the hypothetical one you asked about do not happen in a vacuum, and I need more information before I would be willing to offer my opinion. On what article are you (or whomever) wanting to insert the sentence "the Last Supper as referenced in Mark and Matthew is set as a Passover meal"? And at what point in the article? Again, I am happy to help out, just need a little more background. Pastordavid ( talk) 18:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
As a token of my willingness to cooperate, I bring this article to your kind attention. Lima ( talk) 09:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
In regards to your question: the question you are asking is one that the texts that we have cannot answer. To answer it would be pure speculation. The New Testament was written 99% in Greek, which does have definite articles. We do not have any aramic primary sources about the life of Jesus, and thus we have no idea what they would say. Pastordavid ( talk) 11:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Eschoir, they are in fact accurate. I actually went on Amazon.com to search within the book. Harris quotes the passage and then I searched the translation of the Bacchae for it as well... thanks for defending them. 68.58.71.152 ( talk) 07:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Your user name is on the “Inactive, or have just popped out for a cup of tea...” list on the Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles page. You can move it back to the “Participants” list if you feel this is not the case. :) -- WikiProject The Beatles 15:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Eucharist (Origins), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Eucharist. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 02:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Help me on purgatory and I'll help you on eucharist. Shoot, I might help you on eucharist anyway. Seriously, what can be done? Leadwind 05:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Could you please give me a hand on talk:Tower of Babel? Leadwind ( talk) 02:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for offering your comment over at Purgatory. As you probably have noticed, things are pretty complex over there, and the article is kinda messy from having been a battleground for so long.
I was wondering if I could impose upon you, if you're feeling a tad braver, to give me some feedback on a rewrite I did. I tried, in so far as possible, to just go through and clean things up, doing some organizing, and trying hard to avoid unexplained jargon. I think it's simple and easy-to-understand, whereas the current version is likely to be very hard for a lay audience to understand on a first reading, ue to its widespread use of unexplained jargon. I filed an Earlier RFC, but it's sorta gotten buried beneath all the debating.
Do you think the proposed rewrite would be an improvement over the current version?
I _think_ every single sentence is the rewrite is verifiable, and furthermore, even though I haven't added the all cites in yet, I _think_ I know where to find a cite to justify every single sentence. I'd be willing to try to push this toward GA/FA if we can generate a consensus about the direction this thing should go and that the rewrite is a step in the right direction.
So far, all the experienced editors that have responded to my RFC thought the rewrite was, indeed, a step in the right direction, but some of the established editors on the page feel strongly the rewrite is unacceptable, so I don't want to make controversial changes without a firmer consensus.
Do you think the rewrite would be an improvement? -- Alecmconroy ( talk) 20:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you
vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be
blocked from editing.
The edit that concerns us is
here. Eschoir, your off-Wiki history with Free Republic is well-known and raises
WP:COI concerns. Making edits like this one only serves to hand ammunition to the people expressing such concerns. Since the article is already under probation, a ban from the article would be in order. Please stop immediately.
68.29.195.234 (
talk)
14:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Another anonymous threat! Bryan, is that you? Eschoir ( talk) 23:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Calling me "Bryan," or otherwise stating or implying that I am a sockpuppet, is a personal attack because it falsely accuses me of committing a bannable offense. This is a violation of WP:CIV, WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Please stop immediately. The next violation will be reported to WP:ANI, and I will seek a 24-Hour block and permanent ban from the article. If you want to make an accusation, WP:RFCU is the place to do it. 70.9.56.94 ( talk) 20:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Since you've expressed an interest in this case, I thought you might like to know that Shibumi2 has been unblocked by the Checkuser Admin who ran the RFCU on him in the first place. See for yourself, Eschoir. I hope we can all get along and write a good article. 70.9.56.94 ( talk) 20:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Holy damn, you are a name from way back! Saw your post on Talk:Mike Huckabee complaining about FR. You were a relic of FR legend when I used to post there at the first of the millennium.
Hasn't it been ten years since your war with Jim? And you are still obsessed with FR. How pitiful. I have got to show your posts to a few of my friends on another website, who haven't let go of things after being banned just last year.
Haven't you heard? FR is dead. It's a joke. It is a shadow of its former self. It is filled with anti-science anti-logic wackos who are obsessed with "them damn Messicans" and abortion and to hell with smaller government.
You are sledgehammering roadkill.
signed by a former Freeper —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.69.175 ( talk) 00:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I have reported your disruptive editing pattern at Free Republic to ArbCom Enforcement. You have been warned repeatedly. 68.31.123.238 ( talk) 20:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Could you please present your evidence for thinking that Samurai Commuter is BryanFromPalatine at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement? Thanks, Picaroon (t) 01:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll try to collect my thoughts - do I just drop them in whole at the administrator's noticeboard? Eschoir ( talk) 02:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Please obtain consensus on the Free Republic Talk page before making substantive edits, since the article is on Arbcom probation. Also, a member of the Arbitration Committee named Newyorkbrad asked you two days ago to explain your troubling editing pattern on that article. I suggest that if you have the time to edit the article, you should invest the time to explain your editing pattern to a member of the Arbitration Cmmittee who has asked for an explanation. Thanks. Samurai Commuter ( talk) 15:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution. The article is
Free Republic. Your next revert will be reported as a
WP:3RR violation and you will be blocked.
Samurai Commuter (
talk)
16:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Eschoir ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Actually I don't appeal the block. We post at the pleasure of the admins. This article needs more administrative supervision, not less. I just want to make the point regarding your comments, that my Free Republic v FreeRepublic edit is not bizarre, and has been talked about weeks ago. There has to be a way to distinguish the LLC from the website - they are not necessarily congruent. The LLC is the spaced version.
The removal of unverifiable material sourced to anonymous blogs should be deleted even if the article were not on probation.
Decline reason:
I happen to agree with you on this matter and I hope this clarity you have about the situation will continue this time tommorow. I hope that you can resolve the problems with the article without the need for edit wars. — Trusilver 08:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
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.
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider regarding your editing pattern at Free Republic to the evidence sub-page. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page. Samurai Commuter ( talk) 04:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Full court press edit warring, my friend. Eschoir ( talk) 05:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Alright, a Hail Mary pass, then. Eschoir ( talk) 05:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Whatever you mean with that last post, I don't think I'm getting it. Please copy it to the Evidence page. Lawrence § t/ e 00:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
A
proposed deletion template has been added to the article
Life Imprisonment without Parole (LWOP), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the
proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the
speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to
Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if
consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{
db-author}}
to the top of
Life Imprisonment without Parole (LWOP).
Dchall1 (
talk)
05:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated Life Imprisonment without Parole (LWOP), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life Imprisonment without Parole (LWOP). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Dchall1 ( talk) 16:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Does it matter that BFP called himself Mongo at [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/518536/posts?page=110#110 free repuublic]
Eschoir, I'm finally going to open an RfC on Lima. I'm logging issues on my talk page. Would you be able to pitch in? Leadwind ( talk) 15:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
In light of continued disputes, remedy 4 adopted in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic is amended by adding:
For the Arbitration committee, Thatcher 16:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I've adjusted the layout of your comment on AN/AE as it was hard to follow which part was being quoted. Can you check I didnt alter the meaning of your post. [7] -- John Vandenberg ( talk) 04:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Please don't threaten me with 3RR. I'm only on my second revert; Lima's edits are his own. You, however, have violated 3RR: one, two, three. And you've been banned for 3RR/edit warring before, so watch it. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- I understand your concerns, sockpuppetry has been a continual problem at this article. The WP:3RR does not require the same editor to be reverted, only the same content. I will try to make sure that this is resolved, I recommend you bring this up on the talk page, and if there is support and no grounded objection after a day or so, add it. In this way consensus is formed and conflict is averted. Prodego talk 02:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Eschoir ( talk) 16:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Origin of the Eucharist. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution. —
HelloAnnyong
(say whaaat?!)
14:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Several of your recent comments on the talk page of the above article are at best dubiously in keeping with wikipedia guidelines regarding such matters, as indicated at WP:TALK. Please limit your comments to those which adhere to this guideline. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 19:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm hereby letting you know that you have reverted Eucharist three times within 24 hours, and any further reversion will violate wp:3rr. (Of course you are well aware of this.) Looie496 ( talk) 16:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Again on Eucharist we are seeing changes today contrary to a looooong discussion among 4 editors (yourself + 3) in which your desired edit was not accepted. Please use a "lead us not into an edit war temptation" approach and discuss issues on talk with the 3 other editors who have been discussing with you. Remember: "all roads from edit wars lead to blocks". Please avoid reverts and changes against talk page discussions. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 16:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry Eschoir, but despite the very the clear message above, you have now crossed WP:3RR on Eucharist, a bright line rule I should say. History2007 ( talk) 20:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello, my name is Michael Tsikerdekis [8] [9], currently involved as a student in full time academic research at Masaryk University. I am writing to you to kindly invite you to participate in an online survey about interface and online collaboration on Wikipedia. The survey has been reviewed and approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee.
I am contacting you because you were randomly selected from a list of active editors. The survey should take about 7 to 10 minutes to complete, and it is very straightforward.
Wikipedia is an open project by nature. Let’s create new knowledge for everyone! :-)
To take part in the survey please follow the link: tsikerdekis.wuwcorp.com/pr/survey/?user=79818120 ( HTTPS).
Best Regards, Michael Tsikerdekis ( talk) 08:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
PS: The results from the research will become available online for everyone and will be published in an open access journal.
UPDATE: This is the second and final notification for participating in this study. Your help is essential for having concrete results and knowledge that we all can share. I would like to thank you for your time and as always for any questions, comments or ideas do not hesitate to contact me. PS: As a thank you for your efforts and participation in Wikipedia Research you will receive a Research Participation Barnstar after the end of the study. -- Michael Tsikerdekis ( talk) 07:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
In answer to your question on the Talk-page for Eucharist, my position is as follows. In the case of a small and relatively insignificant 'non-controversial' edit, I should be perfectly happy for people to go ahead at once. If it involved a major re-write of a section or subsection, I should alert interested editors with a post to the Talk-page indicating at least the general idea, and possibly a proposed first draft. I would then wait a few days, to see if there were any reactions. However, once it was clear that an edit would probably be questioned (or even if I had grounds for thinking that it might well be) and unless there were outstanding reasons for removing a totally misleading assertion, I should certainly wait three days unless there were quick responses from other editors. Jpacobb ( talk) 20:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
You are clearly in breach of WP:NPA in this edit. You had been told to avoid WP:NPA violations before. History2007 ( talk) 13:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. --
Chris
(talk)
18:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)Eschoir ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
If I am to be disciplined, please let me for proper reason: accusing others of bad faith. The complaining party had just posted completely wrongheaded application of WP:COMMONNAME, not displaying any comprehension that the policy only applied to article titles, my reply was that that comment must be in bad faith. The alternative, that he'd read that policy and did not understand that it applied only to article titles, would invite comparisons with his reading comprehension and that of an invertebrate crustacean, a contention which I rejected. when another editor responded to 'assume good faith,' I asked the 2nd editor whether he therefore thought the complaining witness demonstrated defective reading comprehension and again expressed that it wasn't my opinion. So if I am to be suspended at the record show that was for assuming bad faith, which by the way, it's not usually sufficient grounds for suspension, in my view (using my prawn- like reading comprehension)! Eschoir ( talk) 21:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Eh, no. You're selectively quoting yourself. You said that a person had either edited in bad faith, or had the reading comprehension of a prawn. That is a personal insult either way you look at it. Dancing around and playing word games here isn't helping you in the slightest. The block, and its reasoning, is absolutely valid. If you want to avoid further blocks of this nature, comment on other editors' actions, not the editors themselves. That also means that you must avoid negative speculation about other editors' intelligence. -- Atama 頭 22:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
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.
My dear friend seems to be crying out for official feedback about the WP:COMMONNAMES policy. Could we have an official interpretation of whether that policy is limited to Article Names Eschoir ( talk) 17:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello. You have
a new message at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Eschoir reported by User:Lionelt (Result: )'s talk page. –
Lionel (
talk)
07:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
In addition, the complainant is required to document his attempt to work it out on the talkpage which he has not done. You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too --> Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
My repeated attempts to get other editors to discuss content, talkpages have the perverse result of being used against me. I used the term, editors, when there's really only one other editor, Esoglou, who is currently under sanction, and who used to be sanctioned under the handle LimA. Lionelt's involvememnt stems from a cry for allies at the Christiannity noticeboard:
History2007 has referred above to a past problem with the article Origin of the Eucharist. The problem is again as acute as ever. Only two editors are active in opposing the lone editor about whose apparent aims I say nothing. I would be grateful if editors with greater knowledge than I have about Wikipedia rules would give advice. One solution with which I am toying is to let the lone editor have free rein, so that nobody then reading the article would take it seriously. Esoglou ( talk) 08:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Foor these reasonns thiis action should be dismissed with prejudice. Eschoir ( talk) 15:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
So do you think it proper to go to a special interest noticeboard and call for establishment of a "9-1-1 call system or a Mayday button (perhaps built into the WikiProject Christianity banner) as Lionel suggested so editors can be called for help" ginning up a lynch mob? And do you think it proper that Lionelt responded to this latter day Henry II's complaint "Will nobody rid me of this troublesome priest?" within 18 hours with a oomplaint - while claiming to be a disinterested editor? Is that WP:PROPER now? CHEERS! Eschoir ( talk) 21:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
What else did I miss?
user:Lima has been subject to a sockpuppet investigation once before [10] which revealed that user:Lima was using a sockpuppet account user:Platia. This account was block indefinitely and user:Lima was given a warning (by user:NuclearWarfare on his talk page “Because of your editing with the account Platia and Soidi in the same topic area, and because you denied that the Platia account was not yours here (which was proved false at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lima), I have blocked the Platia account indefinitely. Please regard this as a firm warning to abide by the sockpuppetry policy.” [11]
Account user:Soidi was an account created by user:Lima on July 21 2007. This was a sockpuppet account until November 9 2008 when a reference was added to it from the master account user:lima user page [12].
Since the last sockpuppet investigation user:Lima has created another Sockpuppet account user:Decahill. He has ignored NW’s warning and edited articles with this sockpuppet account (and both his other accounts: user:Lima, user:Soidi) in the same topic area:
Decahill & Lima Irish_Catholic_Bishops'_Conference
Decahill, Soidi & Platia (blocked account) Seán_Brady - updated JPBHarris ( talk) 10:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Decahill & Soidi Giuseppe_Leanza
Decahill & Lima Roberto_González_Nieves
Decahill & Soidi Luis_Aponte_Martínez
Decahill, Soidi & Lima Óscar_Andrés_Rodríguez_Maradiaga
Even though the last investigation concluded that the use of account user:Soidi was now acceptable (provided it was not used in the same topic area) I feel this now needs to be reviewed given the above evidence.
One article Óscar_Andrés_Rodríguez_Maradiaga has been edited by all three accounts. user:Lima cannot claim ignorance, he has been warned on previous occasions about the use of sockpuppet accounts by user:NuclearWarfare and several times by user ADM both of whom have made the user aware of Wikipedia policy on sockpuppets. user:ADM thinks that user:LCahill is also a sockpuppet [13].
In addition user:Lima has misled other users about his accounts: He refused a request by user:Leadwind to participate in the Catholic Church article claiming he no longer participates in the article; but he does participate by using his user:Soidi account - it would not be possible to edit the article with both accounts due to sockpuppetry policy. However, user:Lima then continues to canvas user:Leadwind [ [14]] to add comments to an RFC [15], one in which user:Soidi had already participated, but could not leave a comment on user:Leadwind’s talk page because of possible Wikipedia:Canvassing accusations. Hence, account user:Lima was used to do this instead.
JPBHarris ( talk) 16:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims.
I can confirm that what user:JPBHarris says is accurate, since I was the first one to openly speak about the existence of multiple accounts for this one user. ADM ( talk) 17:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I am concerned that JPBHarris ( talk · contribs), who filed this case, did so on his third ever edit. Something is not right here. Rhomb ( talk) 22:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
{{
RFCU|F|No2ndletter|Checked}}
Requested by
JPBHarris (
talk)
15:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Clerk endorsed –
MuZemike
20:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to check on the filer. Again, a brand new user whose first edits are to create an SPI case is likely
WP:PLAXICO. –
MuZemike
22:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Confirmed
Lima (
talk
+ ·
tag ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log ·
CA ·
CheckUser(
log) ·
investigate ·
cuwiki) =
LCahill (
talk ·
contribs) is a bit more complicated. The other three accounts all use the same UAs as the others at various times, and there is a lot of overlap with IP addresses, way more than there should be given how dynamic their connection is. LChahill uses only one UA, and while his/her IP ranges are close to the others, they are never in the same /16 as the others. On the other hand, they
have edited a lot of the same pages, so I am not absolutely positive. Still, technical evidence appears to indicate that s/he is
Unrelated, or at best, very
Unlikely.
J.delanoy
gabs
adds
19:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Clerk note: I probably should not have endorsed this CheckUser request as I forgot to look at the socks' userpages, in which Soidi and Decahill were declared
alternate accounts of Lima. I'll look into it a bit more if I get time, but right now I am reluctant on blocking at the moment. –
MuZemike
20:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Administrator note
User:SatDen indefinitely blocked, and
User:JPBHarris warned not to use socks again. –
MuZemike
22:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
{{
SPIclose|archive}}
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Esoglou ( talk) 09:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Ok, so after issues on
WP:AN3, my sincere attempts to guide you in the right direction, and now two separate incidents on
WP:ANI, it's now unfortunate that it is necessary to protect this project from your behaviour. Specifically, your failure to follow
WP:CONSENSUS, your
edit warring, and general lack of
WP:COMPETENCE (for example, you're continously copy/pasting other pages off of Wikipedia here, AN3, various talkpages). I even asked you to give me one good reason why you should not be blocked, and you failed to do so - you wikilwayered instead. I suggested you be mentored, yet you did not take the necessary steps to do so. Because of the damage and disruption you are bringing to this project, you are indefinitely
blocked. This means you, the person, are not permitted to edit Wikipedia. If you wish to be unblocked, you may read the
guide to appealing blocks. (
talk→
BWilkins
←track)
11:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I acknowlege and affirm your responsibility to protect the project. I will take the time to learn the unblocking procedure and do it properly. I obviously did not learn the proper way to take the necessary steps to be mentored. I thought it was obvious that I had agreed, and left it with my help request and my expression that you might take the job. Eschoir ( talk) 13:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
Research Participation Barnstar | |
For your participation in the survey for Anonymity and conformity on the internet. Michael Tsikerdekis ( talk) 12:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC) |
Eschoir ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Indefinite suspension incomensurate with the offense and counter to the stated Wiki goal of increasing the number of editors - note there is no evidence of sockpuppetru in the 9 months I have been blocked - and I was even awarded a posthumous Barnstar! Eschoir ( talk) 17:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Actually indefinite suspension is appropriate when the community judges that the account will continue to be disruptive if unblocked. Wikipedia does not have a goal of increasing the number of disruptive editors. It's commendable that you haven't socked and that someone awarded you a barnstar. However, in your unblock request you didn't address the reasons for your block and what you might do if unblocked, but instead you chose to argue with the block, which suggests that you are still failing to recognize that your block is due entirely to your own actions. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 19:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
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.
![]() |
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, please place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their
user talk page. |
Will somebody volunteer to walk me through my erroneous actions so that I might be able at some later date to request being unblocked without the suggestion being raised that I am still failing to recognize that my block is due entirely to my own actions? Eschoir ( talk) 23:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I see one of the potential experienced users willing to adopt is a twelve year old boy. Eschoir ( talk) 06:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate the helpful impulse, but I am puzzled by that response. Eschoir ( talk) 20:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. It is nice to dialogue with you. I realize that there is nothing in it for you but the pleasure attendant to each individual exchange. I hope this exchange might be reciprocally rewarding. I enjoy being tested, and esteem that quality in my correspondents. I have a standing proposition with my paralegal, that I will pay her a bonus if she can prove me wrong on any point of law, for it is in my professional interest to know when I am wrong. But there is a disadvantageous association with lawyers in this project, so much so that if you engage in "wiki-lawyering," that is a bad thing.
I selected someone, but as you said, was unable to contact him on his talk page due to the block, but emailed him on Wikimail when offered that opportunity.
Regarding 'wikilawyering' - the previous exchange: "you don't need life experience to need Wiki experience" does not, to my eyes, mean "the attributes of maturity, experience, and knowledge in a Wikipedia editor do not necessarily correlate with chronological age."
Perhaps it is just a typo "You don't need life experience to [something] Wiki experience" and need is just repeated for the sake of a reflexive parallelism.
And editing (that is, after all, the point of being here) your version [sentence diagram SUBJECT attributes VERB correlate PREDICATE with age], I would propose "the level of an editor's maturity, experience and knowledge does not necessarily correlate with his age" is less recondite. The Supreme Court agrees that: "an employee's age is analytically distinct from his years of service." Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 609, 611 (1993).
I think both are iterations that "Wiki ≠ Life," a proposition that I can get behind wholeheartedly. Can we get a consensus here? Eschoir ( talk) 04:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
That would be good news indeed! Eschoir ( talk) 20:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I investigated your home page after your first message, and was rather impressed with your choices in participation. I have been a Lewis Carroll devotee since high school - but was unaware of the movie until I saw it on your list - that seems rather daring in this environment. I will attend any advice you may utter. The time has come . . . to talk of many things of shoes and ships and sealing wax, of cabbages and kings, of why the sea is boiling hot, and whether pigs have wings. Eschoir ( talk) 20:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Anyway, let me put back on my admin hat. Perhaps I can help you out. And you need to remove your lawyer hat for this if you wear one in real life.
Let's focus on what happened to lead up to this block. I've briefly scanned your contribution history, and note that your area of interest seems restricted primarily to origin of the Eucharist and a smattering of other Biblical history subjects.
On the positive side, despite the single purpose nature of your account, I can't say I see evidence of POV-pushing on your part; your edits demonstrate a desire to improve the content on Wikipedia.
On the negative side, you have three blocks in your history, one for edit-warring, one for personal attacks, as well as the most recent indefinite-duration block, which cites the following policies and/or guidelines:
After you read those four documents, would you please describe, without arguing about the merits of your block, specific past actions of yours that would be seen by others as disruptive, incompetent, warring, or going against consensus according to those documents listed above?
Also I would ask:
Take your time answering. I may be on Wikipedia briefly but not for any significant extent until Friday afternoon. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 21:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Preface: Gratitude to you for undertaking this project with no promise of reward greater than self-knowledge and of doing something well. You have asked me to DOFF MY LAWYER’S HAT, which I attempt to do. Parenthetically, the labor that you require of me is an analogue for legal analysis, for while it is the jury’s duty to be the finder of fact it is the judge who applies the law to the facts. I am charged with the task of applying the assumed facts to the four documents [the Local Magna Carta, in lingua franca]...
But first- I have reviewed many of my 2,100 edits and I must say: I kill me. KILL! From my first edits I am pleased with their content. Why shouldn’t I be? I’m a smart guy, Mensa member, educated and articulate. But obviously I have a problem in Wiki. This analysis and review is illuminating to me and not just for the future goal of being unblocked. I never have had a dialogue with another editor who is so generous with his time.
One of my most important influences was the book “Out of my Life and Thought” by Albert Schweitzer. In it he describes the bargain he made with the senior missionaries at Lambarene in order to practice medicine there. I identify with Schweitzer, author of “The Search for the Historical Jesus”, when at Lambarene he was discouraged from discussing religion with the humble but sturdy brother monks because his complex answers would only confuse them hopelessly. That’s kind of the way I feel about Wikipedia upon learning the average editor’s age is mid-twenties.
I am not a believer, like Schweitzer and Crossan and Borg. I call myself a post-theist. Hegel’s Dialectic forms the basis for my communication model: thesis, antithesis [push-back], and synthesis. Theist, atheist, post-theist. My professional career [such as it is] involves fashioning win/win solutions for people who have fallen into hard times and applying the legal levers of power in unorthodox ways. Pushback just inspires pushback, as in Newton’s Third Law of Motion, “for every action there is an equal opposite reaction.”
So why can so much of my editing be characterized as ‘pushback’?
It can't be that I am a competetive person. I am the least competetive person I know. I am far less competetive than your average Wiki editor. I AM SO MUCH MORE UNCOMPETITIVE THAN ANYONE, I CHALLENGE ANYONE TO BE AS UNCOMPETETIVE !!!!! [little joke]
Wikipedia:Disruptive editing
Wikipedia:Competence is required
Wikipedia:Edit warring
Wikipedia:Consensus
After you read those four documents, would you please describe, without arguing about the merits of your block, specific past actions of yours that would be seen by others as
a) disruptive, defined as “holding back progress – having differing goals”
a. I have been described as a "disruptor" from my first posts at Free Republic in 1997 that needlessly paid a law firm $110,000 in their effort to prove themselves the stronger consensus to their membership back in 2001. I can be very tenacious, which may be another word for tendentious..
b. When the Eucharist article became too long and had to be divided, I was not content to have two lowbrow Christian articles on the Eucharist, instead of one on doctrines and another on history, which may reveal an equally bombastic belief in the sanctity of scientific History.
b) incompetent, about which the “whole point is that they are either incapable of recognizing their own incompetence when pointed out to them, or are incapable of changing their behavior “
a. I have not demonstrated success in navigating the social milieu of Wikipedia as I have no allies or affinity groups, or even friends, the goal after all of social networking.
b. Lack of technical expertise: copying swaths of text from one policy to another, from one talk page to another, so as to confront my accusers with “documentary evidence” when it clearly annoyed people.
c. Grudge holding – When I found out that my old adversary Lima was actually the same editor as my new adversary Esoglu I let it affect my attitude.
c) warring,
a. I frequently seem to be emulating Oscar Wilde, saying something uncivil withering or supercilious “You have the reading comprehension of a prawn” instead of “thesis, antithesis [pushback]=synthesis[new].”
d) or going against consensus
a. being one editor opposed by unanimity of the other [two] editors working on that article.
Do you have a conflict of interest with the topics you edit?
1) I have a conflict of interest with orthodoxy.
Are there other topics to which you would enjoy contributing?
I have few in which I feel I am personally needed. I started the Life Imprisonment without parole [a concept of barbarity unrivalled in human history] article and contribute to ones I have personal experience in. Free Republic, Cellar Door, John Denver.
Perhaps Parkinson’s Disease might need me.
Tendentiousness It might entertain me to work as a volunteer in refereeing disputes among editors on a topic I didn’t give a rat’s ass about.
Consensus vs. gang. I don’t think I have worked on an article that consensus ever mattered – in my experience it’s two or three like-minded guys trying to strong-arm. Unorthodox beliefs – I overestimate the other editors – Dunning-Krueger effect: highly skilled people tend to believe that people capable of their achievements are more numerous than they really are. Perhaps I am not suitable for Wikipedia recruitment. Perhaps lightning rods are not necessary here.
I could let it go. Eschoir ( talk) 05:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Eschoir ( talk) 23:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Eschoir ( talk) 06:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I am thinking that you may derive some satisfaction out of assigning me to edit an article that I have no personal interest in and therefore no POV about, to demonstrate objectivity and competence. Eschoir ( talk) 16:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Take your time.
Eschoir ( talk) 04:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I took the opportunity to check the talk pages of some of the more prominent of my former editor/colleagues appearing on this talk page like TCC (talk) and History2007 (talk) and others going back to 2007 - so many are now absent and bitter. It is almost a trope - putting in tens of thousands of edits without pay and ultimately ending spent and underappreciated and disillusioned at the ultimate quality of the project. I think I allowed myself to be trolled to an extent [ratifying my incompetence]. I never bothered with reporting or even learning procedure for AFIs or whatever - and I could have. Incompetence in some areas like learning formatting and the admininatrative system.
It seems like few editors last over a couple of years - and those that linger like Lima ( talk) are just intractable and derive some pleasure out of suffering [see the S&M Bondage picture on Esoglou ( talk)'s talk page.]
Perhaps I am still dealing with Wikipedia idealistically, and that may not still be appropriatae.
Eschoir ( talk) 22:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Eschoir ( talk) 17:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Eschoir ( talk) 23:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
The guy I emailed to be my mentor never responded.
Is it OR to use photos you have taken yourself? Eschoir ( talk) 06:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC) I see from your talk page that self generated illustrations have been an issue for you too. Eschoir ( talk) 00:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Eschoir ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have done everything asked by my mentor - he is overseas and presently has not the time or opportunity to ccomplete my rehabilitation. Eschoir ( talk) 05:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Apologies for the delay due to technical limitations on my end. I have unblocked you based on the discussion below, and am available for mentorship and advice as needed, as is Anthony Bradbury too. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 06:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Eschoir ( talk) 18:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I personally see no problem with your username. I am simply waiting, as I said, for the go-ahead from your former mentor; he is, according to his user-page, currently in the far east with only limited wikipedia access. I would under normal circumstance be willing to go ahead, but in the light of your somewhat chequered past history, of which you are aware (I do not require any form of comment here) I do need to wait for the all-clear. I remain on the case. -- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 21:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Due to your use of the name "Eschoir" I have proposed a finding of fact, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Free_Republic/Proposed_decision#Eschoir, and a remedy, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Free_Republic/Proposed_decision#Eschoir_2. This is not based on an analysis of your editing, but on use of a provocative name. You may participate in the case and contest the finding and remedy if you wish. Fred Bauder 20:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to participate but I am inexperienced in the ways of Wiki defense. Eschoir 21:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Eschoir 22:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for modifying your Proposal of Fact. I have no problem with your current formulation.
Is it the screen name you have a problem with? Would a different screen name be your preferred remedy? Eschoir 02:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Come September, I will have used this screen name for ten years. I felt it would be disingenuous not to use it. Eschoir 02:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Please do not post again on User talk:DeanHinnen. There is no reason to further inflame the situation. Thank you. Newyorkbrad 20:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Eschoir! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule alexa\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 22:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I removed your edits to my section. Feel free to add or edit your own personal section of evidence as you see fit (including referencing mine). I removed it because 1) its contrary to wiki policy to edit others evidence sections, 2) I personally don't want to discuss the details of the his case in mine section as its not relevant (only the question of identity is relevant). Dman727 17:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Eschoir 17:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The indefinite community ban of User:BryanFromPalatine for tendentious editing, personal attacks, block evasion and disruption is endorsed. The ban also applies to User:DeanHinnen and all other proxies or sockpuppets of BryanFromPalatine. User:Fairness And Accuracy For All is banned from Wikipedia for one year. The articles Free Republic and Democratic Underground are placed on article probation. It is expected that these articles will be improved to conform with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and that information contained in them will be supported by verifiable information from reliable sources. Either article may be reviewed on the motion of any arbitrator, or upon acceptance by the Arbitration Committee of a motion made by any user, and users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 00:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I think your recent edits to the FR article are really good. -- BenBurch 16:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
![]()
WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter
| ||
|
![]()
This has been a tumultuous month for the project yet again. We need your input on how the project should work and what it's role should be. And we need to start getting Featured Articles, folks! :)
This is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (Issue 013 – May 2007). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing!
| |
Complete To Do List
Make visible or invisible by clicking Show or Hide, respectively.
As the project is currently just starting, our more experienced editors are working on the project infrastructure, classifying articles, and listing/assessing red links. Your assistance is welcome. If you would prefer to just edit - and why wouldn't you? - we have a choice selection of red links to turn blue and articles to clean! Now let's get busy.
If you complete one of these tasks, please remove it from the list and add your achievement to the project log. |
BetacommandBot 23:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello Eschoir, I just wanted to remind you to mind the 3RR, which you technically violated on the Free Republic article ( [3], [4], [5], [6]) If you persist in reverting before consensus has been formed through discussion, you may be blocked, or banned from the article, as Free Republic is on probation. Please keep a cool head, and thanks for understanding, Prodego talk 02:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a
consensus among editors.
FreedomAintFree
02:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Prodego: Thanks for the advice. I disagree. The 3rr prohibits the reversion of a single editor's work. "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor" The Freepers are guilty of violation of the 3R by proxy. So far, Fredomaintfree (a Bryan sockpuppet) has reverted me [#1], I reverted him, he reverted me[#2], I reverted him, and then proxy RWR (second editor) reverted me[#3], I reverted him, then third editor reverted me[#4], I replied with new content.
No attempt by the freepers has been made to discuss changes. "When in doubt, do not revert; instead, engage in dispute resolution or ask for administrative assistance."
Check your facts. Thank you for your watchfulness. Eschoir 02:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
All contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the
userpage of another user may be considered
vandalism. Specifically, your edit to
User talk:FreedomAintFree may be offensive or unwelcome. In case you are the user, please log in under that account and proceed to make the changes. Please use
the sandbox for any tests you may want to do, particularly to userpages. Take a look at our
introduction page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you.
Wow. Unsigned! Welcome back Bryan! Eschoir 02:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I read the 3R rule differently, insofar as the word "editor" is singular. I appreciate your input. Eschoir 03:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Please follow up on the case I filed. Thanks. 64.145.158.163 21:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Greetings! Please take a look at those articles. Left-wingers and Nambla members are blatantly trying to censor them. Peer-reviewed, scientific studies have found a clear link between homosexuality and pedophilia. See this discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homosexuality#Homosexuality_and_Pedophilia MoritzB 23:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be involved in a rather heated edit war at Son of God with another user. Not to take sides in any way, but when you use words like "vandalism" in your edit summary inappropriately, it is bad form. Vandalism has a very narrow definition at Wikipedia, and the edits you are contesting are definiately NOT vandalism. They may have other problems, and I take no stand on whether you or the other editor(s) involved are in the right or in the wrong. I am only here to note that 1) edit wars are not healthy 2) content disputes should be hammered out on talk pages rather than by repeated reversions (or near reversions) of the same material and 3) just because you disagree with another editor's opinion, that does not make their work vandalism. -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 05:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
There must be some meaningful way to distinguish the Koine usage of eucharistia in the NT from The Eucharistia (rite). I imagine Latin writers would just quote the Greek, but is there a way to express the difference the defininte article makes in English, but in Greek? Otherwise November 22 becomes American Eucharist.
It has become interesting to me that the thanksgiving aspect of Thannksgiving withered so early in comparison with the dominance of the rememberance aspect. Eschoir 22:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
It might seem more dominant if "thanksgiving" had been italicized in the article, rather than "remembrance." Eschoir 06:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
If you have a problem with something in the article, take it to the talk page and don't address it by leaving inaccurate and insulting edit summaries. Lima fixed your damage already, but "Eucharist" is how it's rendered in the source. (A Protestant source with a decidedly anti-Catholic slant in its commentary, by the way.) It is, in any event, highly nonstandard to transliterate χ with a k.
Unless you reply soon to the issue I raised about your table, I'll be cutting it. It's inaccurate as it stands. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your courteous reply. I find it hopelessly confusing as to goals. However, if you can get language to stick in the first paragraph stating that this article is not a critical or scholarly examination of the history or origins of the liturgy or liturgies, but merely about what is normally understood by "the Eucharist" in snapshot form across the denominations, I wiill fold my tent and steal silently away. That is a useless article, and one not deserving of my time. Eschoir 13:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Don't presume to lecture me on any subject, particularly this one, and in such a puerile manner. You don't have the slightest clue about how to evaluate sources. Not all are equally neutral, not all are equally useful, and not all receive equal consideration. TCC (talk) (contribs) 10:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm really conducting this Socratic inquiry for your own good. Eschoir 23:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Socratic inquiry was something less tahn you described when I went to Law School.
Assuming this is true: biased sources cannot be presented as if they are neutral, or on equal footing with those that are; views contrary to the overall consensus of scholarship should be represented as such; and those that are thoroughly discredited or obsolete don't represent "significant views" in any meaningful sense, you are not (or rather your words are not) the ones in which to evaluate the sources and dole out the consideration of article content except pperhaps in Talk. Isn't our official role neutrality, with the caveat that we can print sourced views that say what we would like to say in contravention of the puerile nonsense that that other jerkball editor just posted? Isn't that what distinguishes Wiki from a partisan bulletin board, like Free Republic?
I actually disagree with your formulation as accurately describing wiki. Biased sources can be and routiinely are presented as if they are neutral, or on equal footing with those that are, many times because the editor is similarly biassed (true believers are in this category) and doesn't see it, and must be countered by views from published secondary and tertiary sourcesthat recognize the bias, reference it, and explain it; views contrary to the overall consensus of scholarship must be represented as such by published sources (themselves open to criticism of bias), and not original content; and you and I haven't the authority to edit content that is thoroughly discredited or obsolete except to add content from publlished secondary or tertiary sources which points out the shortcomings of the disfavored views. Therefore, you, or you and an ally, are not authorized to judge what comprises "significant views" in any meaningful sense.
We ahve to lay out the facts, sort out the published views, and hope the reader will reach the conclusions we prefer, but we can't publilsh our own conclusions, even those based on our excellent understanding of primary sources. That's a chat room.
Bias, even majoritarian, consensus bias (the most dangerous kind) will eventually be smoked out if it is not allowed to censor criticism for being insignnificant. Eschoir 03:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Samuel Johnson wrote, "Anyone who writes, except for money, is a blockhead." Eschoir 03:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
You are simply lying when you say I'm trying to suppress contrary views. What I want to remove is the allocation of undue weight to them. Content certainly doesn't have undue weight when it is deleted. Eschoir 00:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
With regard to this question you have shown that you do not understand what is meant by "reliable sources" and have further demonstrated an unwillingness to be educated. For example, you continue to insist, despite repeated explanations to which you have not bothered to reply in any substantive way, that obsolete sources are as reliable now as they were at the time they were written. I seaarched WP:RS for the term 'obsolete' and found no iterations. I searched wiki for Encyclopedia Britannica and found an aarticle devooted to the excellence of its content, even back to the 11th edition. I searched Eucharist and see your collective citations of a 1915 encyclopedia. Eschoir 01:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The article actally says "The 1911 Encyclopædia can continue to be a resource for readers well into the 21st century with some care and discretion in using it." These errors cause me to question your reading comprehension. Eschoir 06:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Many encyclopedias even issue annual supplements to correct information that has become obsolete over the prior year.
That "more recent research" contradicts your old source is exactly the problem
Name three research-connected contradictions - as opposed to connclusions based on alterenate interpretations of preexistinig primaary sources. Eschoir 06:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
otherwise there would be little to object to its use.
That's what I am saying. Eschoir 06:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
You could have short-circuited all of this by instead citing a modern secondary source for the POV you want to push.
Like Crossan, or the Jesus Seminar? Eschoir 06:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Where there are "alternative scholarly explanations" we of course should mention them -- but not as if they were the primary scholarly explanation.
How do you propose to measure the "primary scholarly explanation?" Eschoir 06:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Which is what I've been saying all along. (Crossan is a secondary source only to the extent he describes the evidence. He is a primary source for his own analysis and synthesis.
Thats just silly. He's a wiki secondary source until he starts editing here. Eschoir 06:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
The salient point is the breadth of scholarly acceptance of his theories, not how loudly he shouts them out. If he, or a very small coterie surrounding him, is the sole exponent of a theory, it's not worth a mention;
Not even a mention? Prof Thihede getsa mention. And you made up the breadth argument. The word used is 'significant' views. Eschoir 06:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
no more than we ought to mention -- to bring back my earlier example -- Prof. Thiede's theory on the date for the earliest Gospel ms. Although he shouted very loudly about it indeed, and although I would very much like for it to be true, it has not found acceptance among even a significant minority of paleographers.)
There is no "1915 encyclopedia" being cited.
Do some research on the international standard bible encyclopedia Eschoir 06:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
The only source around that age actually in use is the old Catholic Encyclopedia, actually completed in 1914, and it is indeed a source that must be used with caution. However, I think you will discover that Catholic theology has not changed all that much in many particulars over the past century, Vatican II notwithstanding. Certainly their Eucharistic theology hasn't changed. Even so, you will note it is not the only source mentioned for the statement it is cited to support.
So its OK to cite old Catholic theology but not other old theology because research has changed it. Hmmm Eschoir 06:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I note the date on the citation of the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia is 1915 -- but the source itself gives a copyright date of 1939.
Right, and Luke gives an authorship of "Luke" - doesn'nt make it so. Eschoir 06:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
The same standard applies there regardless. It's usable when not contradicted by more recent scholarship. I know of no scholarship that contradicts the statements sourced from it, that the Eucharist occurred at the end of the agape, and that at the agape other food and drink were enjoyed.
Didache 10 has no bread or wine mentioned, beginning middle or end. But what of it?
Surely we don't have to be stupid about evaluating sources. If the consensus of more recent scholarship contradicts an old source, then it's obsolete.
But how do you measure consensus except subjectively, like an online poll? Eschoir 06:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
If not, then not. That 19th century physics textbook, so faulty on the subject of heat transfer, would be perfectly reliable as a source for Newton's laws of motion, which are still used now as they were then. The only amplification we'd need from more recent scholarship is that they're valid only under non-relativistic conditions. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
There's no point in going on here. This has descended to the level of idiocy. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Eschoir for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.
Sorry, but on long reflection I find I must do this. I hope indeed that my suspicion is unfounded. The link given above should surely read Wikipedia: Suspected sock puppets/Fairness And Accuracy For All. Lima 16:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Eschoir 21:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Let's just cut this off so no one wastes any more time. Eschoir contributed to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Free_Republic, and I'm sure that he was closely scrutinized at that time as a possible sockpuppet of FaAfA. So we can all assume that he's not FaAfA, unless some very strong and compelling evidence can be supplied to tie him to FaAfA. This case lacks such evidence, so I'm closing it. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Fairness_And_Accuracy_For_All" Eschoir 05:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
C.Logan wanted support in an argument where the sources are fairly clear, in dealing with a troll who is insisting on his own way regardless of what any source says. It's my expertise in secondary sources he was interested in. As it happens, those already cited are more than sufficient; the troll is simply refusing to acknowledge them. If you haven't bothered to check out the problem and therefore have nothing meaningful to contribute but a personal slam, please keep out of it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, please go away if you have nothing useful to say. The problem is not a lack of citations, which have been supplied in plenty. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't an unsupported claim, it wwas a poorly supported claim of some signicance. A footnote sourcing Mme Blavatsky would be self rebuttinig. Eschoir 06:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Eschoir, I would be glad to help you with your question. However, situations like the hypothetical one you asked about do not happen in a vacuum, and I need more information before I would be willing to offer my opinion. On what article are you (or whomever) wanting to insert the sentence "the Last Supper as referenced in Mark and Matthew is set as a Passover meal"? And at what point in the article? Again, I am happy to help out, just need a little more background. Pastordavid ( talk) 18:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
As a token of my willingness to cooperate, I bring this article to your kind attention. Lima ( talk) 09:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
In regards to your question: the question you are asking is one that the texts that we have cannot answer. To answer it would be pure speculation. The New Testament was written 99% in Greek, which does have definite articles. We do not have any aramic primary sources about the life of Jesus, and thus we have no idea what they would say. Pastordavid ( talk) 11:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Eschoir, they are in fact accurate. I actually went on Amazon.com to search within the book. Harris quotes the passage and then I searched the translation of the Bacchae for it as well... thanks for defending them. 68.58.71.152 ( talk) 07:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Your user name is on the “Inactive, or have just popped out for a cup of tea...” list on the Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles page. You can move it back to the “Participants” list if you feel this is not the case. :) -- WikiProject The Beatles 15:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Eucharist (Origins), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Eucharist. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 02:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Help me on purgatory and I'll help you on eucharist. Shoot, I might help you on eucharist anyway. Seriously, what can be done? Leadwind 05:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Could you please give me a hand on talk:Tower of Babel? Leadwind ( talk) 02:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for offering your comment over at Purgatory. As you probably have noticed, things are pretty complex over there, and the article is kinda messy from having been a battleground for so long.
I was wondering if I could impose upon you, if you're feeling a tad braver, to give me some feedback on a rewrite I did. I tried, in so far as possible, to just go through and clean things up, doing some organizing, and trying hard to avoid unexplained jargon. I think it's simple and easy-to-understand, whereas the current version is likely to be very hard for a lay audience to understand on a first reading, ue to its widespread use of unexplained jargon. I filed an Earlier RFC, but it's sorta gotten buried beneath all the debating.
Do you think the proposed rewrite would be an improvement over the current version?
I _think_ every single sentence is the rewrite is verifiable, and furthermore, even though I haven't added the all cites in yet, I _think_ I know where to find a cite to justify every single sentence. I'd be willing to try to push this toward GA/FA if we can generate a consensus about the direction this thing should go and that the rewrite is a step in the right direction.
So far, all the experienced editors that have responded to my RFC thought the rewrite was, indeed, a step in the right direction, but some of the established editors on the page feel strongly the rewrite is unacceptable, so I don't want to make controversial changes without a firmer consensus.
Do you think the rewrite would be an improvement? -- Alecmconroy ( talk) 20:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you
vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be
blocked from editing.
The edit that concerns us is
here. Eschoir, your off-Wiki history with Free Republic is well-known and raises
WP:COI concerns. Making edits like this one only serves to hand ammunition to the people expressing such concerns. Since the article is already under probation, a ban from the article would be in order. Please stop immediately.
68.29.195.234 (
talk)
14:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Another anonymous threat! Bryan, is that you? Eschoir ( talk) 23:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Calling me "Bryan," or otherwise stating or implying that I am a sockpuppet, is a personal attack because it falsely accuses me of committing a bannable offense. This is a violation of WP:CIV, WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Please stop immediately. The next violation will be reported to WP:ANI, and I will seek a 24-Hour block and permanent ban from the article. If you want to make an accusation, WP:RFCU is the place to do it. 70.9.56.94 ( talk) 20:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Since you've expressed an interest in this case, I thought you might like to know that Shibumi2 has been unblocked by the Checkuser Admin who ran the RFCU on him in the first place. See for yourself, Eschoir. I hope we can all get along and write a good article. 70.9.56.94 ( talk) 20:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Holy damn, you are a name from way back! Saw your post on Talk:Mike Huckabee complaining about FR. You were a relic of FR legend when I used to post there at the first of the millennium.
Hasn't it been ten years since your war with Jim? And you are still obsessed with FR. How pitiful. I have got to show your posts to a few of my friends on another website, who haven't let go of things after being banned just last year.
Haven't you heard? FR is dead. It's a joke. It is a shadow of its former self. It is filled with anti-science anti-logic wackos who are obsessed with "them damn Messicans" and abortion and to hell with smaller government.
You are sledgehammering roadkill.
signed by a former Freeper —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.69.175 ( talk) 00:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I have reported your disruptive editing pattern at Free Republic to ArbCom Enforcement. You have been warned repeatedly. 68.31.123.238 ( talk) 20:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Could you please present your evidence for thinking that Samurai Commuter is BryanFromPalatine at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement? Thanks, Picaroon (t) 01:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll try to collect my thoughts - do I just drop them in whole at the administrator's noticeboard? Eschoir ( talk) 02:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Please obtain consensus on the Free Republic Talk page before making substantive edits, since the article is on Arbcom probation. Also, a member of the Arbitration Committee named Newyorkbrad asked you two days ago to explain your troubling editing pattern on that article. I suggest that if you have the time to edit the article, you should invest the time to explain your editing pattern to a member of the Arbitration Cmmittee who has asked for an explanation. Thanks. Samurai Commuter ( talk) 15:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution. The article is
Free Republic. Your next revert will be reported as a
WP:3RR violation and you will be blocked.
Samurai Commuter (
talk)
16:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Eschoir ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Actually I don't appeal the block. We post at the pleasure of the admins. This article needs more administrative supervision, not less. I just want to make the point regarding your comments, that my Free Republic v FreeRepublic edit is not bizarre, and has been talked about weeks ago. There has to be a way to distinguish the LLC from the website - they are not necessarily congruent. The LLC is the spaced version.
The removal of unverifiable material sourced to anonymous blogs should be deleted even if the article were not on probation.
Decline reason:
I happen to agree with you on this matter and I hope this clarity you have about the situation will continue this time tommorow. I hope that you can resolve the problems with the article without the need for edit wars. — Trusilver 08:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
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.
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider regarding your editing pattern at Free Republic to the evidence sub-page. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page. Samurai Commuter ( talk) 04:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Full court press edit warring, my friend. Eschoir ( talk) 05:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Alright, a Hail Mary pass, then. Eschoir ( talk) 05:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Whatever you mean with that last post, I don't think I'm getting it. Please copy it to the Evidence page. Lawrence § t/ e 00:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
A
proposed deletion template has been added to the article
Life Imprisonment without Parole (LWOP), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the
proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the
speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to
Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if
consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{
db-author}}
to the top of
Life Imprisonment without Parole (LWOP).
Dchall1 (
talk)
05:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated Life Imprisonment without Parole (LWOP), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life Imprisonment without Parole (LWOP). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Dchall1 ( talk) 16:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Does it matter that BFP called himself Mongo at [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/518536/posts?page=110#110 free repuublic]
Eschoir, I'm finally going to open an RfC on Lima. I'm logging issues on my talk page. Would you be able to pitch in? Leadwind ( talk) 15:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
In light of continued disputes, remedy 4 adopted in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic is amended by adding:
For the Arbitration committee, Thatcher 16:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I've adjusted the layout of your comment on AN/AE as it was hard to follow which part was being quoted. Can you check I didnt alter the meaning of your post. [7] -- John Vandenberg ( talk) 04:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Please don't threaten me with 3RR. I'm only on my second revert; Lima's edits are his own. You, however, have violated 3RR: one, two, three. And you've been banned for 3RR/edit warring before, so watch it. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- I understand your concerns, sockpuppetry has been a continual problem at this article. The WP:3RR does not require the same editor to be reverted, only the same content. I will try to make sure that this is resolved, I recommend you bring this up on the talk page, and if there is support and no grounded objection after a day or so, add it. In this way consensus is formed and conflict is averted. Prodego talk 02:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Eschoir ( talk) 16:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Origin of the Eucharist. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution. —
HelloAnnyong
(say whaaat?!)
14:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Several of your recent comments on the talk page of the above article are at best dubiously in keeping with wikipedia guidelines regarding such matters, as indicated at WP:TALK. Please limit your comments to those which adhere to this guideline. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 19:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm hereby letting you know that you have reverted Eucharist three times within 24 hours, and any further reversion will violate wp:3rr. (Of course you are well aware of this.) Looie496 ( talk) 16:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Again on Eucharist we are seeing changes today contrary to a looooong discussion among 4 editors (yourself + 3) in which your desired edit was not accepted. Please use a "lead us not into an edit war temptation" approach and discuss issues on talk with the 3 other editors who have been discussing with you. Remember: "all roads from edit wars lead to blocks". Please avoid reverts and changes against talk page discussions. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 16:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry Eschoir, but despite the very the clear message above, you have now crossed WP:3RR on Eucharist, a bright line rule I should say. History2007 ( talk) 20:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello, my name is Michael Tsikerdekis [8] [9], currently involved as a student in full time academic research at Masaryk University. I am writing to you to kindly invite you to participate in an online survey about interface and online collaboration on Wikipedia. The survey has been reviewed and approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee.
I am contacting you because you were randomly selected from a list of active editors. The survey should take about 7 to 10 minutes to complete, and it is very straightforward.
Wikipedia is an open project by nature. Let’s create new knowledge for everyone! :-)
To take part in the survey please follow the link: tsikerdekis.wuwcorp.com/pr/survey/?user=79818120 ( HTTPS).
Best Regards, Michael Tsikerdekis ( talk) 08:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
PS: The results from the research will become available online for everyone and will be published in an open access journal.
UPDATE: This is the second and final notification for participating in this study. Your help is essential for having concrete results and knowledge that we all can share. I would like to thank you for your time and as always for any questions, comments or ideas do not hesitate to contact me. PS: As a thank you for your efforts and participation in Wikipedia Research you will receive a Research Participation Barnstar after the end of the study. -- Michael Tsikerdekis ( talk) 07:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
In answer to your question on the Talk-page for Eucharist, my position is as follows. In the case of a small and relatively insignificant 'non-controversial' edit, I should be perfectly happy for people to go ahead at once. If it involved a major re-write of a section or subsection, I should alert interested editors with a post to the Talk-page indicating at least the general idea, and possibly a proposed first draft. I would then wait a few days, to see if there were any reactions. However, once it was clear that an edit would probably be questioned (or even if I had grounds for thinking that it might well be) and unless there were outstanding reasons for removing a totally misleading assertion, I should certainly wait three days unless there were quick responses from other editors. Jpacobb ( talk) 20:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
You are clearly in breach of WP:NPA in this edit. You had been told to avoid WP:NPA violations before. History2007 ( talk) 13:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. --
Chris
(talk)
18:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)Eschoir ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
If I am to be disciplined, please let me for proper reason: accusing others of bad faith. The complaining party had just posted completely wrongheaded application of WP:COMMONNAME, not displaying any comprehension that the policy only applied to article titles, my reply was that that comment must be in bad faith. The alternative, that he'd read that policy and did not understand that it applied only to article titles, would invite comparisons with his reading comprehension and that of an invertebrate crustacean, a contention which I rejected. when another editor responded to 'assume good faith,' I asked the 2nd editor whether he therefore thought the complaining witness demonstrated defective reading comprehension and again expressed that it wasn't my opinion. So if I am to be suspended at the record show that was for assuming bad faith, which by the way, it's not usually sufficient grounds for suspension, in my view (using my prawn- like reading comprehension)! Eschoir ( talk) 21:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Eh, no. You're selectively quoting yourself. You said that a person had either edited in bad faith, or had the reading comprehension of a prawn. That is a personal insult either way you look at it. Dancing around and playing word games here isn't helping you in the slightest. The block, and its reasoning, is absolutely valid. If you want to avoid further blocks of this nature, comment on other editors' actions, not the editors themselves. That also means that you must avoid negative speculation about other editors' intelligence. -- Atama 頭 22:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
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.
My dear friend seems to be crying out for official feedback about the WP:COMMONNAMES policy. Could we have an official interpretation of whether that policy is limited to Article Names Eschoir ( talk) 17:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello. You have
a new message at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Eschoir reported by User:Lionelt (Result: )'s talk page. –
Lionel (
talk)
07:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
In addition, the complainant is required to document his attempt to work it out on the talkpage which he has not done. You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too --> Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
My repeated attempts to get other editors to discuss content, talkpages have the perverse result of being used against me. I used the term, editors, when there's really only one other editor, Esoglou, who is currently under sanction, and who used to be sanctioned under the handle LimA. Lionelt's involvememnt stems from a cry for allies at the Christiannity noticeboard:
History2007 has referred above to a past problem with the article Origin of the Eucharist. The problem is again as acute as ever. Only two editors are active in opposing the lone editor about whose apparent aims I say nothing. I would be grateful if editors with greater knowledge than I have about Wikipedia rules would give advice. One solution with which I am toying is to let the lone editor have free rein, so that nobody then reading the article would take it seriously. Esoglou ( talk) 08:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Foor these reasonns thiis action should be dismissed with prejudice. Eschoir ( talk) 15:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
So do you think it proper to go to a special interest noticeboard and call for establishment of a "9-1-1 call system or a Mayday button (perhaps built into the WikiProject Christianity banner) as Lionel suggested so editors can be called for help" ginning up a lynch mob? And do you think it proper that Lionelt responded to this latter day Henry II's complaint "Will nobody rid me of this troublesome priest?" within 18 hours with a oomplaint - while claiming to be a disinterested editor? Is that WP:PROPER now? CHEERS! Eschoir ( talk) 21:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
What else did I miss?
user:Lima has been subject to a sockpuppet investigation once before [10] which revealed that user:Lima was using a sockpuppet account user:Platia. This account was block indefinitely and user:Lima was given a warning (by user:NuclearWarfare on his talk page “Because of your editing with the account Platia and Soidi in the same topic area, and because you denied that the Platia account was not yours here (which was proved false at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lima), I have blocked the Platia account indefinitely. Please regard this as a firm warning to abide by the sockpuppetry policy.” [11]
Account user:Soidi was an account created by user:Lima on July 21 2007. This was a sockpuppet account until November 9 2008 when a reference was added to it from the master account user:lima user page [12].
Since the last sockpuppet investigation user:Lima has created another Sockpuppet account user:Decahill. He has ignored NW’s warning and edited articles with this sockpuppet account (and both his other accounts: user:Lima, user:Soidi) in the same topic area:
Decahill & Lima Irish_Catholic_Bishops'_Conference
Decahill, Soidi & Platia (blocked account) Seán_Brady - updated JPBHarris ( talk) 10:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Decahill & Soidi Giuseppe_Leanza
Decahill & Lima Roberto_González_Nieves
Decahill & Soidi Luis_Aponte_Martínez
Decahill, Soidi & Lima Óscar_Andrés_Rodríguez_Maradiaga
Even though the last investigation concluded that the use of account user:Soidi was now acceptable (provided it was not used in the same topic area) I feel this now needs to be reviewed given the above evidence.
One article Óscar_Andrés_Rodríguez_Maradiaga has been edited by all three accounts. user:Lima cannot claim ignorance, he has been warned on previous occasions about the use of sockpuppet accounts by user:NuclearWarfare and several times by user ADM both of whom have made the user aware of Wikipedia policy on sockpuppets. user:ADM thinks that user:LCahill is also a sockpuppet [13].
In addition user:Lima has misled other users about his accounts: He refused a request by user:Leadwind to participate in the Catholic Church article claiming he no longer participates in the article; but he does participate by using his user:Soidi account - it would not be possible to edit the article with both accounts due to sockpuppetry policy. However, user:Lima then continues to canvas user:Leadwind [ [14]] to add comments to an RFC [15], one in which user:Soidi had already participated, but could not leave a comment on user:Leadwind’s talk page because of possible Wikipedia:Canvassing accusations. Hence, account user:Lima was used to do this instead.
JPBHarris ( talk) 16:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims.
I can confirm that what user:JPBHarris says is accurate, since I was the first one to openly speak about the existence of multiple accounts for this one user. ADM ( talk) 17:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I am concerned that JPBHarris ( talk · contribs), who filed this case, did so on his third ever edit. Something is not right here. Rhomb ( talk) 22:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
{{
RFCU|F|No2ndletter|Checked}}
Requested by
JPBHarris (
talk)
15:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Clerk endorsed –
MuZemike
20:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to check on the filer. Again, a brand new user whose first edits are to create an SPI case is likely
WP:PLAXICO. –
MuZemike
22:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Confirmed
Lima (
talk
+ ·
tag ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log ·
CA ·
CheckUser(
log) ·
investigate ·
cuwiki) =
LCahill (
talk ·
contribs) is a bit more complicated. The other three accounts all use the same UAs as the others at various times, and there is a lot of overlap with IP addresses, way more than there should be given how dynamic their connection is. LChahill uses only one UA, and while his/her IP ranges are close to the others, they are never in the same /16 as the others. On the other hand, they
have edited a lot of the same pages, so I am not absolutely positive. Still, technical evidence appears to indicate that s/he is
Unrelated, or at best, very
Unlikely.
J.delanoy
gabs
adds
19:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Clerk note: I probably should not have endorsed this CheckUser request as I forgot to look at the socks' userpages, in which Soidi and Decahill were declared
alternate accounts of Lima. I'll look into it a bit more if I get time, but right now I am reluctant on blocking at the moment. –
MuZemike
20:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Administrator note
User:SatDen indefinitely blocked, and
User:JPBHarris warned not to use socks again. –
MuZemike
22:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
{{
SPIclose|archive}}
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Esoglou ( talk) 09:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Ok, so after issues on
WP:AN3, my sincere attempts to guide you in the right direction, and now two separate incidents on
WP:ANI, it's now unfortunate that it is necessary to protect this project from your behaviour. Specifically, your failure to follow
WP:CONSENSUS, your
edit warring, and general lack of
WP:COMPETENCE (for example, you're continously copy/pasting other pages off of Wikipedia here, AN3, various talkpages). I even asked you to give me one good reason why you should not be blocked, and you failed to do so - you wikilwayered instead. I suggested you be mentored, yet you did not take the necessary steps to do so. Because of the damage and disruption you are bringing to this project, you are indefinitely
blocked. This means you, the person, are not permitted to edit Wikipedia. If you wish to be unblocked, you may read the
guide to appealing blocks. (
talk→
BWilkins
←track)
11:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I acknowlege and affirm your responsibility to protect the project. I will take the time to learn the unblocking procedure and do it properly. I obviously did not learn the proper way to take the necessary steps to be mentored. I thought it was obvious that I had agreed, and left it with my help request and my expression that you might take the job. Eschoir ( talk) 13:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
Research Participation Barnstar | |
For your participation in the survey for Anonymity and conformity on the internet. Michael Tsikerdekis ( talk) 12:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC) |
Eschoir ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Indefinite suspension incomensurate with the offense and counter to the stated Wiki goal of increasing the number of editors - note there is no evidence of sockpuppetru in the 9 months I have been blocked - and I was even awarded a posthumous Barnstar! Eschoir ( talk) 17:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Actually indefinite suspension is appropriate when the community judges that the account will continue to be disruptive if unblocked. Wikipedia does not have a goal of increasing the number of disruptive editors. It's commendable that you haven't socked and that someone awarded you a barnstar. However, in your unblock request you didn't address the reasons for your block and what you might do if unblocked, but instead you chose to argue with the block, which suggests that you are still failing to recognize that your block is due entirely to your own actions. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 19:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
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.
![]() |
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, please place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their
user talk page. |
Will somebody volunteer to walk me through my erroneous actions so that I might be able at some later date to request being unblocked without the suggestion being raised that I am still failing to recognize that my block is due entirely to my own actions? Eschoir ( talk) 23:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I see one of the potential experienced users willing to adopt is a twelve year old boy. Eschoir ( talk) 06:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate the helpful impulse, but I am puzzled by that response. Eschoir ( talk) 20:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. It is nice to dialogue with you. I realize that there is nothing in it for you but the pleasure attendant to each individual exchange. I hope this exchange might be reciprocally rewarding. I enjoy being tested, and esteem that quality in my correspondents. I have a standing proposition with my paralegal, that I will pay her a bonus if she can prove me wrong on any point of law, for it is in my professional interest to know when I am wrong. But there is a disadvantageous association with lawyers in this project, so much so that if you engage in "wiki-lawyering," that is a bad thing.
I selected someone, but as you said, was unable to contact him on his talk page due to the block, but emailed him on Wikimail when offered that opportunity.
Regarding 'wikilawyering' - the previous exchange: "you don't need life experience to need Wiki experience" does not, to my eyes, mean "the attributes of maturity, experience, and knowledge in a Wikipedia editor do not necessarily correlate with chronological age."
Perhaps it is just a typo "You don't need life experience to [something] Wiki experience" and need is just repeated for the sake of a reflexive parallelism.
And editing (that is, after all, the point of being here) your version [sentence diagram SUBJECT attributes VERB correlate PREDICATE with age], I would propose "the level of an editor's maturity, experience and knowledge does not necessarily correlate with his age" is less recondite. The Supreme Court agrees that: "an employee's age is analytically distinct from his years of service." Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 609, 611 (1993).
I think both are iterations that "Wiki ≠ Life," a proposition that I can get behind wholeheartedly. Can we get a consensus here? Eschoir ( talk) 04:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
That would be good news indeed! Eschoir ( talk) 20:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I investigated your home page after your first message, and was rather impressed with your choices in participation. I have been a Lewis Carroll devotee since high school - but was unaware of the movie until I saw it on your list - that seems rather daring in this environment. I will attend any advice you may utter. The time has come . . . to talk of many things of shoes and ships and sealing wax, of cabbages and kings, of why the sea is boiling hot, and whether pigs have wings. Eschoir ( talk) 20:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Anyway, let me put back on my admin hat. Perhaps I can help you out. And you need to remove your lawyer hat for this if you wear one in real life.
Let's focus on what happened to lead up to this block. I've briefly scanned your contribution history, and note that your area of interest seems restricted primarily to origin of the Eucharist and a smattering of other Biblical history subjects.
On the positive side, despite the single purpose nature of your account, I can't say I see evidence of POV-pushing on your part; your edits demonstrate a desire to improve the content on Wikipedia.
On the negative side, you have three blocks in your history, one for edit-warring, one for personal attacks, as well as the most recent indefinite-duration block, which cites the following policies and/or guidelines:
After you read those four documents, would you please describe, without arguing about the merits of your block, specific past actions of yours that would be seen by others as disruptive, incompetent, warring, or going against consensus according to those documents listed above?
Also I would ask:
Take your time answering. I may be on Wikipedia briefly but not for any significant extent until Friday afternoon. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 21:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Preface: Gratitude to you for undertaking this project with no promise of reward greater than self-knowledge and of doing something well. You have asked me to DOFF MY LAWYER’S HAT, which I attempt to do. Parenthetically, the labor that you require of me is an analogue for legal analysis, for while it is the jury’s duty to be the finder of fact it is the judge who applies the law to the facts. I am charged with the task of applying the assumed facts to the four documents [the Local Magna Carta, in lingua franca]...
But first- I have reviewed many of my 2,100 edits and I must say: I kill me. KILL! From my first edits I am pleased with their content. Why shouldn’t I be? I’m a smart guy, Mensa member, educated and articulate. But obviously I have a problem in Wiki. This analysis and review is illuminating to me and not just for the future goal of being unblocked. I never have had a dialogue with another editor who is so generous with his time.
One of my most important influences was the book “Out of my Life and Thought” by Albert Schweitzer. In it he describes the bargain he made with the senior missionaries at Lambarene in order to practice medicine there. I identify with Schweitzer, author of “The Search for the Historical Jesus”, when at Lambarene he was discouraged from discussing religion with the humble but sturdy brother monks because his complex answers would only confuse them hopelessly. That’s kind of the way I feel about Wikipedia upon learning the average editor’s age is mid-twenties.
I am not a believer, like Schweitzer and Crossan and Borg. I call myself a post-theist. Hegel’s Dialectic forms the basis for my communication model: thesis, antithesis [push-back], and synthesis. Theist, atheist, post-theist. My professional career [such as it is] involves fashioning win/win solutions for people who have fallen into hard times and applying the legal levers of power in unorthodox ways. Pushback just inspires pushback, as in Newton’s Third Law of Motion, “for every action there is an equal opposite reaction.”
So why can so much of my editing be characterized as ‘pushback’?
It can't be that I am a competetive person. I am the least competetive person I know. I am far less competetive than your average Wiki editor. I AM SO MUCH MORE UNCOMPETITIVE THAN ANYONE, I CHALLENGE ANYONE TO BE AS UNCOMPETETIVE !!!!! [little joke]
Wikipedia:Disruptive editing
Wikipedia:Competence is required
Wikipedia:Edit warring
Wikipedia:Consensus
After you read those four documents, would you please describe, without arguing about the merits of your block, specific past actions of yours that would be seen by others as
a) disruptive, defined as “holding back progress – having differing goals”
a. I have been described as a "disruptor" from my first posts at Free Republic in 1997 that needlessly paid a law firm $110,000 in their effort to prove themselves the stronger consensus to their membership back in 2001. I can be very tenacious, which may be another word for tendentious..
b. When the Eucharist article became too long and had to be divided, I was not content to have two lowbrow Christian articles on the Eucharist, instead of one on doctrines and another on history, which may reveal an equally bombastic belief in the sanctity of scientific History.
b) incompetent, about which the “whole point is that they are either incapable of recognizing their own incompetence when pointed out to them, or are incapable of changing their behavior “
a. I have not demonstrated success in navigating the social milieu of Wikipedia as I have no allies or affinity groups, or even friends, the goal after all of social networking.
b. Lack of technical expertise: copying swaths of text from one policy to another, from one talk page to another, so as to confront my accusers with “documentary evidence” when it clearly annoyed people.
c. Grudge holding – When I found out that my old adversary Lima was actually the same editor as my new adversary Esoglu I let it affect my attitude.
c) warring,
a. I frequently seem to be emulating Oscar Wilde, saying something uncivil withering or supercilious “You have the reading comprehension of a prawn” instead of “thesis, antithesis [pushback]=synthesis[new].”
d) or going against consensus
a. being one editor opposed by unanimity of the other [two] editors working on that article.
Do you have a conflict of interest with the topics you edit?
1) I have a conflict of interest with orthodoxy.
Are there other topics to which you would enjoy contributing?
I have few in which I feel I am personally needed. I started the Life Imprisonment without parole [a concept of barbarity unrivalled in human history] article and contribute to ones I have personal experience in. Free Republic, Cellar Door, John Denver.
Perhaps Parkinson’s Disease might need me.
Tendentiousness It might entertain me to work as a volunteer in refereeing disputes among editors on a topic I didn’t give a rat’s ass about.
Consensus vs. gang. I don’t think I have worked on an article that consensus ever mattered – in my experience it’s two or three like-minded guys trying to strong-arm. Unorthodox beliefs – I overestimate the other editors – Dunning-Krueger effect: highly skilled people tend to believe that people capable of their achievements are more numerous than they really are. Perhaps I am not suitable for Wikipedia recruitment. Perhaps lightning rods are not necessary here.
I could let it go. Eschoir ( talk) 05:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Eschoir ( talk) 23:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Eschoir ( talk) 06:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I am thinking that you may derive some satisfaction out of assigning me to edit an article that I have no personal interest in and therefore no POV about, to demonstrate objectivity and competence. Eschoir ( talk) 16:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Take your time.
Eschoir ( talk) 04:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I took the opportunity to check the talk pages of some of the more prominent of my former editor/colleagues appearing on this talk page like TCC (talk) and History2007 (talk) and others going back to 2007 - so many are now absent and bitter. It is almost a trope - putting in tens of thousands of edits without pay and ultimately ending spent and underappreciated and disillusioned at the ultimate quality of the project. I think I allowed myself to be trolled to an extent [ratifying my incompetence]. I never bothered with reporting or even learning procedure for AFIs or whatever - and I could have. Incompetence in some areas like learning formatting and the admininatrative system.
It seems like few editors last over a couple of years - and those that linger like Lima ( talk) are just intractable and derive some pleasure out of suffering [see the S&M Bondage picture on Esoglou ( talk)'s talk page.]
Perhaps I am still dealing with Wikipedia idealistically, and that may not still be appropriatae.
Eschoir ( talk) 22:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Eschoir ( talk) 17:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Eschoir ( talk) 23:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
The guy I emailed to be my mentor never responded.
Is it OR to use photos you have taken yourself? Eschoir ( talk) 06:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC) I see from your talk page that self generated illustrations have been an issue for you too. Eschoir ( talk) 00:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Eschoir ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have done everything asked by my mentor - he is overseas and presently has not the time or opportunity to ccomplete my rehabilitation. Eschoir ( talk) 05:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Apologies for the delay due to technical limitations on my end. I have unblocked you based on the discussion below, and am available for mentorship and advice as needed, as is Anthony Bradbury too. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 06:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Eschoir ( talk) 18:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I personally see no problem with your username. I am simply waiting, as I said, for the go-ahead from your former mentor; he is, according to his user-page, currently in the far east with only limited wikipedia access. I would under normal circumstance be willing to go ahead, but in the light of your somewhat chequered past history, of which you are aware (I do not require any form of comment here) I do need to wait for the all-clear. I remain on the case. -- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 21:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |