User talk:Commodore Sloat

Archives
June 2004 – May 2006 May 2006 – December 2006

Iraq

Did you see the June poll? It occured after discussion had begun and showed a drastically different result than the May poll, with 25-4 in favor of including it on the basis that the WoT is a specific campaign which the Iraq war was specifically begun under. But this poll wasnt binding and wasnt a consensus either. That was reached after discussion, and posted later that month [1]. You participated in discussion then, and you know what happened. This whole act thats being put on that no consensus was reached is pretty disheartening. While I can understand newcomers not being aware, someone who was involved in discussion should know better. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

No, because, again, a something is either part of a calculated campaign or it is not. There isnt anything to debate. The only issue that needs debating is how to present this information, and ultimately that was what the consensus decided. Please take a look at Publicus's latest statement which explains that. ~Rangeley (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Mediation

I'll be contacting those users who haven't responded by tomorrow to see why. For now, I'm happy for you to make that edit, but, if you're reverted, please don't revert back (I'm sure you know this, but still). If a reversion does take place, we can take this as a sign that your change was opposed by someone. Martinp23 19:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

mediation

i've begun the arbitration process to the best of my ability. it's dissapointing to see that you are unable to work in good faith on this matter. to whatever degree you are associated with the previous two auto-reverters notwithstanding, the precident set by your behavior merits 3RR. 67.175.216.90 23:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

this business of following my contrib log from article to artcle to revert my contribs out of spite constitutes WP:NPA violation. i wish there was a reasonable explaination for your aggression or why its fixated on me, but whatever it is, your abusive behavior is not helpfull. 67.175.216.90 00:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edits are almost indistinguishable from vandalism; that's why they were reverted. csloat 00:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

repeatedly asserting this does not make it so. this - your willingness to attack and mischaraterize - is why mediation is nessesary 67.175.216.90 01:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You are the one violating the rules. If you have an argument as to what the hell piss christ has to do with the abuse of prisoners at Gitmo, you should have told someone what it is. csloat 01:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

again, assertion does not make truth. you can refuse to aknowlege my argument, but by refusing to aknowlege that i made an argument, you've stepped outside of any reasonable congress which might occur. my argument is still there, for others to r4eview ad judge for themselves. this is why mediation is the nessesary next step to resolve this.

and my argument's merits notwithstanding, your "stalking" behavior constitutes WP:NPA and there's no excuse for it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.175.216.90 (talk) 02:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

Just leave me alone, alright? I'm not "stalking" you. Your edits were borderline vandalism and I reverted them. I saw an unexplained edit by you on another article so I reverted that too; you explained yourself there so I left it alone after you reverted me. However, you are flat wrong about the Quran article and you have refused to defend your changes. Your 3RR violation was reported and you will most likely be blocked for it; either way, your "piss christ" edit to the quran article will continue to be deleted by myself and others unless you can explain it in a manner that is backed up by reliable sources and makes encyclopedic sense. Now stop insulting me. csloat 02:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Help needed

I recall you've been an active editor on Saddam Hussein. As you can imagine, the page is turning into an utter mess. If you can help monitor the recent changes, your help will be quite useful. Happy New Year, 172 | Talk 05:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll take a look. I'm not too surprised that his execution has led to problems on the page; hopefully in a few weeks they can be settled and sorted out. csloat 05:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Piss Christ

When I wrote the following, I thought you were in favor of the Piss Christ link to the Qu'ran article, (you are against it right? ...the unsigned comments threw me off.) Let me know if there's anything more I can do. User:Pedant 11:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am against it. The anon who is making trouble about this refuses to sign his comments, adding to the confusion. My argument is that the only legitimate way this can be added is if there is a reliable source connecting the two and the anon can write a paragraph explaining the connection in a manner that is not WP:NOR. Happy new year! csloat 21:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree there is a connection between the two controversial desecrations, but there are significant dissimilarities.

Remember, too, that consensus is a fundamental core policy of Wikipedia, a policy which Jimbo Wales has insisted is, and will be, an unshakeable inherent part of Wikipedia.

The very idea that that the controversy exists, and that there is not an agreement on whether to link Piss Christ to 2005 Qur'an desecration shows clearly that there is not a consensus, and I believe it unlikely that a consensus could be reached such that an edit including Piss Christ as a cross reference would be a stable edit.

Edit wars of this type are generally unending: Neither including nor excluding the link is likely to be approved widely enough to become a clear consensus.

However, I think the issue could be satisfactorily resolved by connecting the two articles via an indisputably relevant cross ref, such as Desecration. That article could use some expansion anyway... so how would you feel about writing a few paragraphs there about notable desecrations and reactions to them? I am certain nobody would object to linking to the article Desecration from both Piss Christ and Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005, and anyone should approve of an expansion to the article.

The deal is that the 2005 Qur'an desecration is an act related to the torture and deliberate humiliation of a prisoner, and Piss Christ is a work of art by an artist, intending to make an artistic statement, to provoke a reaction in the context of what is and what is not art, what is allowable as art, the meaning of the concept of sacred... an attempt in other words to explore the concept of sanctity and the concept of what is permissable as artistic expression.

To engender more communication and understanding in other words.

This is a marked contrast to the intentional mis-use of a sacred symbol as a means to harm another human (assuming that it was not as has been claimed simply an accident in which case there is still marked dissimilarity: accidental vs intentional desecration) in the Qu'ran incident. One may say that art is intended to advance human culture and knowledge, but that torture and intentional humiliation have the opposite intent and/or effect.

In short, the two are dissimilar enough that I am sure that you can understand that some, or many, may object to a direct cross-reference.

Yet the two do share a distinct connection, in that there were very strong worldwide reactions to both.

Those who do not think the two are directly related might not, on the other hand, object to linking to both articles from a more generic article, and/or to placing both articles, as well as the Desecration article into a category such as Category:Desecration. Bear in mind though, that a category is very likely to be deleted if it does not have at least one parent category (ie, the category itself is a member of another category) and several articles as members of that category.

I know that once one has entered into an argument, in which they were certain they were right, that it is often hard to see the other side, but that is precisely what an advocate does, or attempts to do. If you ask me for help, the first thing I do is to try to understand both sides, and to express those sides to those who may not have seen the other side.

If you like, I would be happy to express your side to those who disagree with you, but it seems that they, and you, both already have a pretty clear understanding of the issues. It seems to me that it is simply the case that there is a disagreement over the inclusion or exclusion of the link, and that no consensus is likely regardless of how long the discussion continues.

I feel it would be fruitless, and a waste of community resources (your time and their time could be better spent working together) to attempt to reach a consensus for inclusion of a direct cross-reference between the 2 articles in question.

I hope that I have been of some help to you with this, and I welcome further discusssion, or questions. Feel free to contact me any time for any reason. Thanks for your efforts and contributions as well. User:Pedant 10:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not post offensive words onto articles or talkpages.Thankyou.Nadirali 03:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As user of anti-vandal tool,I ocasionally volenteer to filter recent changes.That is the program I use is automatically set to search for bad words.It may have picked up a word you posted and automatically informed me.I may have made a mistake and I apologise for that.Regards.Nadirali 04:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediation update

Sorry to talk page spam - I'm just informing you that we now have two items for discussion on the mediation page. Thanks, Martinp23 14:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

For you

Keep your head up, keep breathing, take the high road and believe in yourself. I believe in you. :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I got a 4.33 last semester BECAUSE I kept my editing to an absolute minimum and avoided late-night argue-fests. When you've got an outside life to attend to, working one's way thru instances of WP acrimony can be poison... and it certainly isn't worth it. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

thankyou

Thankyou very much for the barnstar.You have no idea how much this means to me.I very much appriciate it.

Such good faith is the key to good co-operation among users.

Again thankyou very much and please don't hesitate to ask for any assitance I may be able to provide you with in anyway that I can. All the best.Nadirali 04:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Iraq war

In past discussion, a majority of users opposed the use of the phrase "Part of the War on Terrorism" subtitle into the infobox on the [[Iraq war] page. Nonetheless, Rangeley has repeatedly re-inserted it. I'm hesistant to just remove it myself again-- could you look the situation over, deter Rangeley from continuing to re-insert the subtitle, and remove it if you feel it is appropriate to do so? --Alecmconroy 17:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed it, but I really can't "deter" rangely from continuing to be disruptive. If a majority of editors support its removal, they should keep reverting rangely; eventually he will tire of it or he will start violating 3RR and be blocked. Looking over the discussion in talk briefly, it looks pretty conclusive, so he should go with the consensus. csloat 19:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

RIP Robert Anton Wilson, fnord!

Robert Anton Wilson, one of the great writers and thinkers of the 20th century has passed on. His seminal work, The Illuminatus! Trilogy, and other writings, taught me not only to question almost everything, but to honor the power of, and sometimes even embrace the outlandishness of certain conspiracy theories, while not necessarily believing in them. After all -- how far apart in terms of probability, are the claims that aliens from the planet Xenu terrorized the earth, that the planes which hit the WTC were actually holograms, that George Bush and Queen Elizabeth are really Reptilian Humanoids, or that a man lived inside the stomach of a whale for 3 days and survived unscathed? Robert (RAW) was a libertarian, founder the Guns and Dope Party, The Pope of the Church of the SubGenius and Bishop of Discordianism. If you don't know his work, especially The Trilogy, you should. All Hail Eris! and fnord! - Fairness And Accuracy For Tom Delay 23:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Many user names mentioned

Among them is yours in the section titled "The barrier to re-inserting the disputed text" at Talk:Iraq War. --Timeshifter 06:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to remove it, do you mind presenting your argument for doing so? ~Rangeley (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I did; it was in the edit summary. csloat 06:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"rv consensus" is not an argument. And neither is "revert to version..." etc. Please participate in discussion. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I did. csloat 03:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The only one I can see in this round was here [2] where you say that there are more who oppose it. This obviously isnt an argument, as Wikipedia is not a Democracy. You need to present your line of reasoning which you beleive trumps the idea that campaigns are definable by their maker. ~Rangeley (talk) 04:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've presented it several times already; I'm not going through the arguments with you again. You're being disruptive. csloat 04:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Cole Mediation

Hi Cloat. Can you come in on the mediation page under "Isarig's Compromise"? Armon is saying, mistakenly I think, that you've rejected it. It would be a shame if the moment of possible resolution were to pass. --G-Dett 16:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This is bullshit. I don't see why anyone who wants Cole to have fair treatment would even go down a route that involves some minor slam from some nobody turn into a huge blown-out issue in his biography. Check out my edit. This is all that's needed. Anything more puts undue weight on some guy's smearing Cole. It's not as though this has made any wider splash.

This always happens. It's so frustrating. Rightists find some mud someone slung on the web. They add it to the article on a liberal figure. It gets removed. They put it back. Realising that they'll fight to the death to keep it because it has a "source" (even though the source is just some guy in this context; professors are experts in their field, not in every conceivable area), we try to "balance" it. What we end up with is the mud bloated out of all recognition, so that it seems to be of major importance in the guy's bio. This is just some guy mudslinging in the New Republic, not a major event in Cole's life. Grace Note 07:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Your input desired on arbitration request page

Here is the arbitration request concerning the issues discussed here: Talk:Iraq_War. Please feel free to comment. --Timeshifter 04:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

MEMRI page edit summaries

Look at the page history sloat. You reverted under me while I was making a series of minor edits. I thought I'd overwritten myself.

Or were you talking about this where I thought I'd removed something, apologized, then did. You could have simply written "rv" instead of being abusive. I could have made a big fuss about it, but didn't, I could also troll for similar examples -but what's the point? Either drop it, or dob me in, but PLEASE stop filling up the talk page with this nonsense. <<-armon->> 23:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I was talking about four times where you deleted the controversial paragraph and used deceptive edit summaries that made it appear you were hiding this deletion. [3][4][5][6].

I'm willing to accept your explanation that this was a mistake. I don't see where you apologized for it, but if you did, I accept your apology. When I said your edit summary was deceptive, that is what I meant; I was not trying to call you a liar or be abusive towards you. It was Isarig who made those assumptions, and it is he who is "filling up the talk page with this nonsense." Have a good day. csloat 00:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Read the edit summaries you are so obsessed with. <<-armon->> 01:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not "obsessed"; I mentioned this once and it was Isarig who chose to keep bringing it up. As stated above, I accept your apology and would prefer to drop the matter. csloat 01:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Your lack of an apology for calling me a lair and going off half-cocked, is noted -as is shifting the blame for your own behavior on someone else. <<-armon->> 05:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't comment on your personality - I said your edit summaries were blatantly deceptive; they were. It was you who was deceptive about your edit summaries, not me. I don't understand why you wish to dwell on this issue. csloat 05:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the link you provide above (when you say "read the edit summaries") is not relevant to the issue here; that was not one of the edit summaries I found deceptive. The ones I found deceptive are listed above and you can see them for yourself, but it is not necessary; I have already stated that I will accept at face value your claim that they were mistakes of some sort. And I apologize if anything I said appeared to attribute motive to the deceptiveness of your edits. I don't know why you were deceptive, but I will accept your explanation that it was unintentional.csloat 05:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Iraq War infobox proposed compromise

Hey Commodore,

I was hoping to get your opinion on a proposed compromise to Iraq War infobox-gate that Kizzle and I have proposed. As we see it, the core debate is between people who want to (1) identify that the Iraq War is technically part of the "War on Terrorism" military campaign; and people who (2) think that even if Bush defines it as part of the campaign, there is reason to doubt that it's rationally related to the campaign's goals, or that it has propoganda value. Kizzle's and my proposal is to clearly identify that the campaign is a Bush administration designation, as follows:

Identified by the Bush administration as part of the "War on Terrorism"

For me, I tend to think that future history books writing about Bush's war on terror will include discussions of Iraq -- they will probably conclude that the Iraq war was a misguided element of the campaign that failed to advance the campaign's strategic goals, but at the end of the day, was still part of Bush's campaign. The limited campaign identification above sticks to verifiable info and won't misinform anyone - it's for the reader to judge whether the Bush admin has correctly identified the limits of the campaign, as well as whether the Iraq war was a productive part of the military campaign. At the same time, it meets the WP:MILHIST goal of identifying the larger military campaign, without making any claims that anyone might dispute.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts -- here's an example of the proposed compromise on the actual Iraq page, and here's the section of the talk page discussing the compromise. Thanks, TheronJ 18:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

personal attacks, assuming bad faith

Sloat, after working with you for almost a year or so now on various pages, I continue to be distressed with your tone when you interact with editors you don't agree with. Here's a recent comment from the MEMRI talk page: "Again, you are intentionally distorting the issue." These comments are disruptive. Elizmr 01:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

And I continue to be distressed with yours. It's amazing that you complain about me making statements like this, while you never say a word about Isarig making frequent statements that make this one look mild in comparison. In the item you quote, I called Isarig on an obvious intentional distortion: he claimed a particular quote was in the context of something and a simple check of the link showed that he was wrong. I pointed this out to him and, instead of acknowledging that he made a mistake, he stated that the quote is in context. It is not, and he has reason to know it is not, and his assertion that the quote is on point to the MEMRI dispute is completely false. So I stated that he was intentionally distorting the issue as it appears he was. If he wasn't, he is perfectly capable of indicating that he made a mistake; but he has not done so and I don't expect him to. As I stated in the post, I feel that he is simply baiting me at this point. If you are not doing the same, I urge you to call Isarig on disruptive comments that he constantly makes towards me. Otherwise, please do not comment further on my talk page about a conversation you did not participate in. csloat 03:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

You and Isarig disagree. That is not a reason to say that he is "intentionally distorting the issue." He is not "intentionally distorting" anything or "baiting" you. He just doesn't agree with you. It is ok not to agree. Disagreement is not a basis for a personal attack or an assumption of bad faith. If Isarig is acting the same way you are and I am not calling him on it, then I apologize---I will look more carefully. Elizmr 22:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not just that he doesn't agree; it's that he has shown clearly a willingness to argue strategically rather than communicatively -- in other words, to make arguments he doesn't believe just in order to "win" or to "bait me." It's not just disagreement at that point, and WP:AGF does not mean "withhold all of your logical faculties when another user has clearly demonstrated a lack of good faith." I will continue to AGF when there is no evidence to the contrary (and I do so even with Isarig, as you will note from my recent post on the memri page), but I will not play dumb when another user is clearly being manipulative.csloat 18:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have reviewed Isarig's recent comments on the MEMRI page and have found nothing constituting an assumption of bad faith or a personal attack. I have found one rude remark, and will put a note on his user page about it. Elizmr 22:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Your comment on Isarig's talk page contains a backhanded attack on me (basically, you called me a liar), and it states that other than one rude comment that Isarig made no other personal attacks or assumptions of bad faith. You might want to review his comments again if you're interested in honesty at all here. Nearly every comment he makes to me contains assumptions of bad faith and threats as well as the occasional insult. It doesn't matter much - I've explained myself on the issue you brought to me, so I believe we're finished here. Enjoy your day. csloat 08:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Sloat, honestly, you can't make an outrageous comment like that and say "case closed end of story". I DID review Isarigs recent comments, but only found the one episode of rudeness that I in turn pointed out to him. I feel your summary above that "nearly every" comment Isarig makes to you contains "assumptions of bad faith" "threats" and "the occassional insult" is inaccurate. I continue to be on record as protesting your behavior. Elizmr 12:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing for you to protest; I have clarified the behavior you had a problem with. As for Isarig, you are mistaken. I think you are probably being honest, but I think your agreement with him is clouding your judgement. It doesn't matter - the important thing is that I have explained the matter you have brought to me, which is why I said we are done here. I'm really not interested in discussing Isarig with you further, and I'm not sure why we need to go on and on on my talk page. csloat 18:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Richard Clarke

(Cross-posted from here.)

Re: this edit. Please look at my edit summaries and at the discussion on the talk page, which I noticed you have not participated in. It is uncivil and inaccurate to call that edit "vandalism." It was clearly explained in talk and in the edit summaries, and a consensus of editors participating in the discussion supported the edits. Please participate in that discussion before starting an edit war over this. Thanks. csloat 06:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The edit summaries were clearly explained, but deliberately misleading and inaccurate. As to the first edit I reverted, the sentence may have been weird, but it was legitimate criticism from notable sources. Rather than just delete the sentence and its two references, it should have been edited for clarity. Criticism shouldn't be censored because somebody disagrees with it.

How was the second edit I reverted bizarre? It described an error that may seem minor, but has severe implications for the book's credibility. The small details Clarke purportedly remembers lend an air of legitimacy to his account, but falls apart under closer scrutiny. Maybe such minute criticism belongs in the main article for the book, but there should be at least a mention of criticism in the section. And this point isn't yet found in the book's article. Nathanm mn 06:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Please state your case on the talk page of the article. The passage about p. 237 was moved to the page about the book, and there was a discussion about the other stuff. Every user participating in the discussion supported the removal. If you want to add your opinion please do, but do not misleadingly call my actions "vandalism." There was absolutely nothing "misleading" in my edit summary, and saying that it was "deliberately" so is a violation of WP:AGF. csloat 19:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know Wikipedia had a policy requiring the discussion of every possible edit in committee. As far as I know, it doesn't. So when I saw some blatantly POV deletions, I reverted them. The error on p237 wasn't in the book's article at that time (although it's since been added), and the other edit removed valid criticism, rather than just rewording a weird sentence. The reason I called it vandalism is because the edit summaries didn't match the edits. Referring to the deleted material as bizarre and weird makes it seem like it was just vandalism or poorly written, unsourced allegations. But in fact, it was properly cited and perfectly legitimate criticism. I can't accept in good faith that the craftily deceiving summaries accompanying the edits weren't deliberate. Nathanm mn 18:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not about what Wikipedia policy says; this is about common sense. The fact was that there was an ongoing discussion and other users agreed with my comments and my deletions. If you disagreed you should have said something. As for calling it vandalism, it is pretty clear that you were wrong; best thing to do at this point is apologize and move on. Thanks. csloat 20:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and please stop accusing me of lying. Please see WP:AGF. My edit summaries were anything but "crafty" -- perhaps they were lazy but they were not deceptive. I thought a minor error on p, 237 was being blown way out of proportion by having a paragraph as long as the summary of the book itself. That struck me as "bizarre." The other sentence was "weird" to me because it seemed to both attack and defend Clarke at the same time. Anyway the edits were more fully explained on the talk page, which you should have looked at before calling my edits vandalism.csloat 20:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Juan Cole arbitration

It should be noted that arbitration doesn't deal with content issues normally, but it will deal with BLP issues. I would recommend that you and others read over the recent BLP case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rachel_Marsden for an idea of how things will go, or what rulings can be applied to this situation. Feel free to share this past arbitration case with others, as I am not interested in being "disruptive" by posting on the Juan Cole page while not having an account, or appearing to be a sock. Also, if it is decided to file for an arbitration proceeding, your case may be aided by having Juan Cole make a statement as Rachel Marsden did, something he would be likely to do, although it would be useful to inform him via email as to what his statement should focus on. --70.51.230.48 23:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip; I think the Marsden page will be helpful if this does indeed go to arbitration. Why haven't you gotten a userid? It would make some take you more seriously -- the "sock" nonsense is just that, but it's an easy charge for certain users to throw around whenever they realize someone new disagrees with them. In any case, I appreciate your contributions to the discussion. csloat 01:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking at Isarig and Armon's block logs, it is clear they are no angels when it comes to behavior: [7] [8]. I think that all will take some hits with regards to behavior, but it is understood that things can get heated during long running content disputes. What matters is the unacceptable BLP violation, the rest is just details, and the arbitration committee is likely to see it in that light as well. --70.51.230.48 03:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Your block logs, (and record in general) on the other hand, are obscured. It's precisely that avoiding of accountability that I object to with your edits strewn over various Ottawa IPs. <<-armon->> 04:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect to the anon editor from Ottowa, Canada (and at the risk of being accused of biting a newcomer even if that newcomer is engaging in Wikilawyering from an anop IP address[9]), your statement, "it is understood that things can get heated during long running content disputes. What matters is the BLP, the rest is just details," comes up pretty heavily against some core guidelines of Wikipedia, namely WP:NPA, WP:AGF. Sloat's behavior on the Cole page, in addition, has not deteriorated late in the context of a long running content dispute. His talk page comments from inception have been dismissive and snarky[10]. He has never been able to write for the enemy or even entertain a view other than his own. Elizmr 13:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:DE on MEMRI

Just to be clear. My suggestion was to Jgui. Your reinsertion of disputed text falsely called a "compromise" in the edit summary is further evidence of the pointlessness of any sort of WP:DR with you other than arbcom. <<-armon->> 13:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear. Your claim that I am being disruptive is both false and hypocritical. You are deleting sourced and relevant text that has been more than justified in talk. If you would like to take this issue to arbcom, that is fine, but we should go through the other steps in WP:DR -- e.g. mediation -- first. I believe you are deleting sourced and relevant text that has been clearly explained over and over again in talk. You continually ignore the arguments there. That is your right, of course, but you cannot expect to simply delete material you don't like when it has been clearly explained, evidenced, and justified. csloat 13:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way I did not "falsely" call that text a compromise; it was called a compromise a week or two ago when it was offered as such; it both provides the criticism and MEMRI's response. If you don't think it clearly articulates MEMRIs position, feel free to tinker, but do not simply delete. Thanks! csloat 13:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR on Juan Cole

You appear to have violated 3RR on Juan Cole, and have been reported Here by Isarig. I'm just notifying you because it didn't look like the typical back and forth intentional 3RR violation and thought you might benefit from a bit of a heads up. --Wildnox(talk) 01:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Widnox, in what way was this a technical 3RR violation? Simply because I edited the same paragraph again? Edits 1+2 are totally different from edits 3+4 and I believe Isarig's report is incorrect and possibly dishonest. csloat 01:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, the reverts do not all have to be of the same material to violate 3RR. You could make four reverts on the same article that are otherwise unrelated and violate 3RR. Usually they are all the same in violations that are clear cut. The reverts not all being the same was a big part of the reason I thought you deserved the benefit of the doubt. I didn't think you would be blocked so quick and would be able to comment on the report and explain any misunderstanding here. --Wildnox(talk) 02:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

See below. They are not all reverts. I do not see 4 reverts here and I don't understand why I was blocked. csloat 02:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking at that #3 again right now. I think you're right about it being quite a stretch to call that edit a revert.--Wildnox(talk) 02:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked you for 48 hours. This was your 3rd 3RR on a Cole related article and your second on this article directly. This is not an acceptable method of editing. JoshuaZ 01:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

((unblock|This was not a violation of the 3RR in any way. The first reverts concerned the word "Jewish" which was not removed in the other changes. The "fourth" revert was a revert of a different change, where Isarig, who reported me, had deleted sourced and relevant content that had been agreed to in the talk page and that he did not discuss there. I believe I should be unblocked forthwith and that Isarig should be blocked or at least warned for abusing the 3RR process. He knows very well that there was no 3RR violation but his report was very deceptive.))

As the one who made the block, I will point you to the relevant quote from WP:3RR "An editor does not have to perform the same revert on a page more than three times to breach this rule; all reverts made by an editor on a particular page within a 24 hour period are counted." JoshuaZ 01:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

But where was the fourth revert? The changes listed as revert #3 are not a revert at all but the addition of text to the paragraph -- text that I had discussed in talk openly and had been accepted by at least one user who was on Isarig's "side" of this topic. At most you can count three reverts but even that is problematic. csloat 02:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? The fourth revert is explicitly stated as restoring in the edit summary. The third revert listed added material that had been removed prior and specifically under contention. JoshuaZ 02:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't think that's correct at all. The thing listed as revert #3 is not a revert. It added material based on the discussion on the talk page. This material was being discussed, true, but I did not think my actions were out of line in any way and I certainly don't see that I was reverting. I feel that this is a stretch. csloat 02:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

(By the way, I think edit #2 is also not clearly a revert.... true, "Jewish" was removed again, but I also added language that I felt was more specifically useful than the word "Jewish" in that context. I did not revert to the same thing and specifically in my edit summary explained what I was doing. That's why I feel completely blindsided by this block -- when editing I only saw two reverts, #1 and #4. I understand how #2 could be construed as a third revert, but #3 I just don't see it at all.) csloat 02:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Revert #2, where csloat replaced the word "Jewish" with "who have close ties to the Likud party", is not a revert, it was a good-faith attempt at compromise. Given that we are slowly but surely reaching consensus on this section, I don't see this block as justified on technical grounds nor helpful on practical grounds. - Merzbow 03:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've unblocked for now since a) this was just barely 3RR and b) it may actually be helpful to let the user be unblocked. If however, I see you engaging in any revert warring at all, the block goes right back on. JoshuaZ 04:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

As of right now, I am still blocked. Hopefully the unblock will take effect soon? Also, you say that if I engage in any revert warring I will be blocked again -- fair enough; but does that rule apply to the other editors who were reverting me? Thanks. csloat 05:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Your log says unblocked. Glitch maybe? --Wildnox(talk) 05:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, what message are you getting? JoshuaZ 06:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Found and disabled a related autoblock -- try now? – Luna Santin (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

semi-formal mediation attempt

I've put pages at User:JoshuaZ/Juan Cole and User:JoshuaZ/MEMRI. I'd like if for each disputed passage you would put your version and then right under it an explanation of your logic. Hopefully we can come to some agreements on these issues. JoshuaZ 19:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"Elizmr you are well aware of this; it is not helpful to play dumb about any of this"

Sloat, wp:agf. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elizmr (talk • contribs) 23:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Sloat, assume good faith. I left my explanation of why I feel that a TRANSLATION and an INTERPRETATION are different things and why they are different in this particular case to expand on the quotes from the Oxford English Dictionary that I had left earlier and expected to suffice. I fail to see how leaving quotes from the OED could be interpreted as "playing dumb". Elizmr 23:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to assume good faith, Elizmr, but you're testing the limits. You have been involved in the conversation for weeks now, so you know very well what it is about; the definitions seem like distractions from the issue. Do you really not understand what this dispute is about? I find it hard to believe, that's all. csloat 00:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I was discussing, on a talk page, the difference between a translation and an interpretation. The difference between the two terms is very relevant to the topic. The dictionary definitions I posted are relevant to the discussion. I fail to see how this qualifies as "playing dumb" or "tests limits". Elizmr 01:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was playing dumb because you seemed to be acting like you didn't understand the issue. Those definitions are distractions from the issue. csloat 01:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Those definitions are part of the issue, but let's take it back to the talk page. My intent here was to ask you to stop saying things like, "stop playing dumb". Elizmr 06:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

And my intent was to ask you to stop playing dumb. csloat 22:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Cole paragraph

Please read the "off the map" paragraph I added again carefully. I think it is balanced as it is - and personally I don't think you should be arguing this point. (On the other hand I could understand an argument that this whole paragraph is not justified, but I assume that would be an uphill battle). email me if you want to discuss further. Thanks, Jgui 18:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP

Sloat, Given your efforts to uphold WP:BLP when it comes to some (Juan Cole), I find the the language you are using to describe others [11] somewhat ironic. Please consider this a formal attempt to ask you to address your behavior on this point. Elizmr 03:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you indicate what provoked this comment Elizmr? I find it strange that I am being blocked for this comment when the comment caused no controversy whatsoever on the page when I wrote it and has not been mentioned in two weeks until today. csloat 05:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If you didn't notice, I made the blocking decision. This is not the first time you made a major BLP violation. This is your wakeup call that BLP doesn't only apply to people you like. JoshuaZ 05:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I am completely aware of that; my questions about the block to you are below. I was asking Elizmr what prompted her to bring up this comment, which is two weeks old. I am not blaming her for the block, though I still do not understand it. I have no wish to violate BLP in either the articles or the talk pages. csloat 05:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

A simple, "I'm sorry, I should apply the guideline more evenhandedly" might have sufficed, but instead you choose to make a bad faith assuming insinuation. Not that I owe you any explanation, but I had not been watching the mediation page since the mediator was away. I saw mention that the case was closed and went back to wade through the page just last night. As I said above, since you are an editor who talks a great great deal about BLP protection I found it disturbing that you apparantly only feel the guidlines applies to some, and not other, individuals. I think that we need to be responsible for our actions, even if they were something we did two whole weeks ago, so I decided to call this to your attention. Please note that I did not go behind your back to report this problem without letting you know first and I had nothing whatsoever to do with your block Elizmr 02:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

WTF are you talking about? I made no "bad faith insinuation"; I just asked what provoked your comment about something two weeks old. Do me a favor and stay off my talk page from now on - I don't find your comments helpful at all. Thanks! csloat 01:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked you for 24 hours for this gross BLP violation. JoshuaZ 04:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC) {{unblock|Can you explain the violation or why something this old is even coming up now? I don't see how I've violated [[WP:BLP]]. Hitchens' alcoholism is well known and is something he is proud of -- note his 2003 article in which he states that his daily intake of alcohol could "kill or stun the average mule." That article (it's cited in the Hitchens biography page -- Christopher Hitchens, "Living Proof," Vanity Fair (March 2003)) is a virtual praise to his own alcoholism. I was given no warning at all about this block (for something I wrote two weeks ago, that apparently caused no controversy at all at the time, on a mediation page that is apparently defunct at this point). It is strange and rather disturbing that something I wrote weeks ago can be ignored but suddenly and without warning become the basis of disciplinary action, without even an explanation.}}

Amazing, you don't learn do you? What is well known is that the man drinks a lot, not that he is an alcoholic. Your insistence here on repeating it makes me inclined almost to lengthen the block. JoshuaZ 05:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm really sorry. Perhaps I am inaccurate but it is my understanding that someone who drinks a lot daily -- in his own words, an extreme amount -- is "alcoholic." Is it really a BLP violation to make that connection under the circumstances? If so, I withdraw the remark. Is it ok to refer to Hitchens as someone who states his daily intake of alcohol is enough to kill or stun the average mule? I'm not being facetious here; I'm really trying to understand why I have been blocked. csloat 05:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. If you simply made a comment about his alcohol consumption that would be one thing. However, we both know that he doesn't identify as an alchoholic and to claim that saying he drinks a lot is the same thing is almost ridiculous. JoshuaZ

It's not just "a lot" -- it is an unhealthy amount, and it is on a daily basis. But I will refrain from referring to Hitchens as "alcoholic" on Wikipedia in the future and refer to him instead as "someone who states his daily intake of alcohol is enough to kill or stun the average mule," when his alcohol use is an issue. I just wish I was warned about this before being blocked, since it seems to be a narrow semantic disagreement rather than an actual violation of BLP. csloat 06:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

And, just so we are clear, can you please cite the section of WP:BLP that this word is in violation of? I'm not trying to wikilawyer this - I accept that I have been blocked and I agree not to call him an "alcoholic" anymore - but I'd like to know what this violates so that I can understand why it is not ok to say someone admits to being an alcoholic in a talk page but it is ok to insert in someone's biography page the statement that they responded to an argument by calling the other person an alcoholic. csloat 06:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, this should be obvious. Saying "X called Y an alchoholic" is verifiable if we have a source for X doing so. "Y is an alcoholic" unless you have a reliable source that says so is not acceptable. If the New York Times for example, said he was an alcoholic that would be citable. JoshuaZ 06:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

An iffy block. I think the comment was in poor taste, but given that it was on a talk page and was clearly the expression of one editor's opinion as opposed to, say, an uncited addition to an article page, removal of the comment and a polite user talk page warning would have been more appropriate. - Merzbow 06:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

See WP:BLP. BLP applies just as much to talk pages as it does to mainspace. JoshuaZ 06:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

And people who violate BLP in article space are rarely blocked without warning -- the item is removed (usually immediately, not two weeks later) and a polite warning precedes any disciplinary action. I accept that I am blocked (and I acknowledge that my comment was in questionable taste) but I still don't understand the block, and I haven't seen reference to any specific part of BLP that was violated. I still think this is largely semantics -- it is one thing to say that a person is an alcoholic out of the blue; it is quite another when the subject openly admits to getting halfway through a fifth of hard liquor before 1pm on a daily basis. Good day. csloat 06:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back

Watch our for violations of BLP and stay on the high road, it's where you do your best work!  :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Two days after a block for BLP violation

OK so 2 days after you're given the benefit of the doubt re: your BLP block, you decide to reinsert your BLP violation on the Hitchens page. You've been reverted -now cut it out. <<-armon->> 23:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not a BLP violation. See JoshuaZ's comments on the matter above. What is fascinating is that the information you are removing here is the exact information you are insisting on in the Juan Cole page. Now, you cut it out. csloat 04:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is a BLP vioaltion - a clear and gross violation. JoshuaZ's comments above say ' "Y is an alcoholic" unless you have a reliable source that says so is not acceptable.' - and that is exactly what you have done - taken a self-published comment from a partisan blog, an unreliable source if ever there was one, and put it in the biography of a living person. Do it again and you will be blocked for a long, long time. You have been warned. Isarig 04:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You are knowingly misinterpreting the discussion above in order to threaten me. Please don't ever threaten me again. Thanks. csloat 05:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Everyone can read the discussion above, which I quoted verbatim. You are not fooling anyone with this clumsy slight of hand. I am warning you for the last time: DO NOT REPEAT THAT BLP VIOLATION. Isarig 06:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes you quoted the above out of context as is your wont. Now I'm warning you for the last time: Stay off my talk page and STOP THREATENING ME. csloat 06:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Not that it matters now - the block was overturned long ago, and it seemed obviously inappropriate from the beginning - but it is worth mentioning that both Hitchens and his wife have described him as "an alcoholic" in published sources (Hitchens in the Atlanta Journal Constitution in 1999 and his wife in the New Yorker, October 2006). I've added this material to the Hitchens bio along with other relevant and notable references. The Cole quotation was fine, despite the posturing by armon and Isarig above, but it's not necessary to include it. csloat 12:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The block was not overturned - a lenient admin who was misled by you into believing that this was your first block cut it short. Inserting offensive material from a partisan self-published blog is not fine, and if you believe it is - go ahead and reinsert that quote. Nothing would please me more than seeing you blocked for a long time for such blatant flaunting of one of WP most basic policies. Isarig 16:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong but I do not care what you think. Your comment is very telling about your goals on Wikipedia. I asked you to stop posting on my page; any further posts by you to my talk page, about any matter whatsoever, will be deleted without being read. csloat 19:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

My comment is indeed telling - I want to see WP edited according to its policies, and I want editors who flaunt those policies, and make a point of doing so, to be blocked. You have been warned. Isarig 19:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)