User talk:Osarius/Archive 2

Barnstar!

(Barnstar moved to section above)

No problem, we need more new pagers! Scapler (talk) 01:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

That is, new page patrollers, as opposed to Scapler (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Wheelchairs

What do you have against wheelchairs you anti-wheelcharite! See Talk:List of wheelchair users, nominate for AfD is you still want to. Pirate^Argh!!1! 14:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not have anything against wheelchairs or wheelchair users. A friend of mine uses one. manadude2 (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Black President

Thanks for requesting the speedy. Could you point me to the AfD that applies here? PhGustaf (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

On the Black president talk page, you said: "It's a personal essay, just an undocumented expression of one person's opinion. I'm too lazy to AfD it right now, but will if it doesn't get better fast." I just AfD'd it for you. This page will not become better. manadude2 (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Its creator's attitude certainly suggests that it will not become better. PhGustaf (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I have contributed to WP:Articles for deletion/Black president. I think you should too. manadude2 (talk) 21:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar

Thanks for the Barnstar. I really appreciate it. Chris (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem! You deserve it. manadude2 (talk) 22:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

New Barnstar

Nice work on the new category Barnstar, James. But did you realize that someone already has created a sports Barnstar? Click on the link. I suspect that you didn't realize that this was a sports barnstar because you thought it was a running or track-and-field barnstar. Why? Because of the image in the center. And your barnstar has the same problem—editors are likely to be quick to assume that this is a soccer barnstar, because they'll see the image without reading the text.

So let me ask you something. I assume that you would like to see this become a popular barnstar, right? So what about this? What if you changed the image of your barnstar to one where there was a different symbol of sports on each point of the barnstar? Instead of a soccer ball in the middle, a soccer ball at the top point, an American/Canadian football on the next point, a basketball on the next point, and some other symbols on the other two points, maybe something for track—a running shoe?—or for baseball.

Anyway, it's just a thought. I like to see people give out barnstars, and I think your current image is less likely to catch on—especially with American editors—than something more universal. If you could change the image to something like what I am describing, I would support using it to replace the current sports barnstar. Just give it a thought. Cheers. Unschool 01:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks unschool, I will change the picture. manadude2 (talk) 10:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, hey, good work, we're definitely getting there! Next suggestion, per the person looking over my shoulder: Can you make the sports images bigger? At least on our monitor, it's difficult to make out all of the images. But the idea is clearly there. So can you do it without making them fuzzy? (Are you using bitmaps or vectors?) Unschool 03:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I can enlarge the images, I have it saved on my college server so I can only edit it during the day. I have no idea if the pictures are bitmap or vector. manadude2 (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't really know much of anything about that myself, other than I understand that the vector-type images stay sharper when you blow them up. Anyway, whenever you can get around to it. When it looks snazzy enough, we'll ask the community to replace the old sports barnstar with yours. Cheers. Unschool 05:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Great! Thanks Unschool! Hopefully by the end of the week, it will be finished. manadude2 (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Any progress? Unschool 19:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, man, I'm sorry that I didn't notice what you had done. It looks great! Like an idiot, I kept checking the edit history at WP:BS, waiting to see if you had had a chance to revise the image. But of course, that's not where you were doing the editing. Anyway, it's a great improvement, and I'm going to ask other editors to approve replacing the Running Man image. with your Pentathalon image. Unschool 04:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Great! Thanks Unschool. I had a bit of trouble replacing the image, but it was my fault, but also partly Wikipedia's as the image didn't update automatically. Thanks for your help! manadude2 (talk) 09:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Black president

I have rewritten this article and fully cited it. I hope you can read over it and share your thoughts. • Freechild'sup? 15:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thats better, but we still have to see what the deletion discussion decide on. manadude2 (talk) 09:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Please excercise caution

... when "correcting" spelling. You "corrected" a book title[1] which is indeed "As Nasty As They Wanna Be" and not "...Want To...". KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok sorry, thanks for the tip. manadude2 (talk) 09:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring by users Contrivance and Combatant

Hi manadude2, I noticed you've been helping to mediate between these two users...do you know if they each have gotten warnings about 3RR? From what I have seen so far in my brief skim of the issues, it does look to me like Contrivance is being a bit incivil (strongly worded edit summaries, accusing Combatant of COI and being a sockpuppet) but both users are well past the acceptable number of reversions, and have reached the point where it seems like they both need to take some time away from the page and seek mediation. I just didn't want to jump in if you are already handling the situation....if they have been warned about 3RR already, though, and are still edit warring, it might be appropriate to ask each of them to back off for a minute, and to file a 3RR if they don't. Any thoughts? Politizer ^talk/_contribs 22:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they have had a 3RR, and as they have been warring for some time, I think I will issue a 3RR to both of them. It might stop them, it might not, just see how it goes at first. manadude2 (talk) 08:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Politzer and Manadude2, I welcome the outside intervention in the problems in the William Rodriguez page. I admit that I have been provoked into incivility by Combatant and her allies--after a long history in which they have uncivilly accused me of racism and lying, and when some of her allies have attempted to intimidate by threatened outing. I have been skating on the edges of the 3RR rule because Combatant, apparently the only pro-Willie editor qualified to edit the William Rodriguez page, insists on reverting all my edits without any explanation of why she does so. Many of Combatant's edits can easily be refuted on factual grounds. I welcome a discussion of the issues; Combatant's position is not supported by the facts. Contrivance (talk) 08:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Contrivance, what Combatant has said about her being the only "qualified" editor to edit that page is completely incorrect. Anyone who joins Wikipedia, and even anonymous IP addresses, are allowed to edit any page within reason. You cannot be "qualified" to edit a page on Wikipedia, she is claiming that the page is hers by saying that. My advice is to ignore her, and just calm down for a week or so, stop edit warring on that page and on her/your talkpage. I have issued the 3RR warning, which allows you to revert 3 edits on one page in a 24 hour period ONLY. manadude2 (talk) 08:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

HI politizer and Manaduude2, I also welcome intervention since the user Contrivance, as you can read on the talk page and also in the archive from last year, have been clearly in an effort to also intimidate and revert editing that does not agrees with his already clearly stated agenda of calling Rodriguez a liar, a bullshit and a dubious character. I am not an ally of Rodriguez and proof of that should be given. I took an interest in the story by seeing that the Spanish Media has a different concept that the Anglo one on the subject. Contrivance has resorted to read mindds, ( wiki is not a crystal ball) using gossip, wrong interpretation of articles, unacepted , non encyclopedic links, etc. I have explained at large the edits and also why some attempts by Contrivance, who by his own admission-hates Rodriguez ( see talk page)keeps placing negative instead of neutral point of views. The facts are muddied constantly by user Contrivance. His tactic of bombarding everybodys personal page with nonsense and also the discussion page should be noted as vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Combatant (talk • contribs) 15:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

When did I say I hated Rodriguez? Where did I place negative POV? If Rodriguez makes claims that are not supported by facts, how is pointing that out negative? Contrivance (talk) 07:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

William Rodriguez page

I see you have intervened with the William Rodriguez page, which is super helpful. I tried to help, and be fair to all parties. But I'm not uninvolved enough to take any admin actions, and have been subjected to personal attacks by editors on that page. User:Combatant is 99.9% likely a sockpuppet of User:Wtcsurvivor (see Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Wtcsurvivor for a list of some of the other sock accounts). But, I think there certainly are WP:BLP problems with User:Contrivance's editing of that page, along with Kevin Barrett and other related pages. I think the BLP problems are what draws Combatant/Wtcsurvivor back repeatedly. But, Combatant/Wtcsurvivor has frequently been incivil, engaged in edit warring, personal attacks, and attempts at outing/intimidation (e.g. [2]). Problems with the page have gone on for a long time.

My recommendation is a topic ban for User:Contrivance covering 9/11 and/or BLP pages, and a block of User:Combatant as a sock puppet and history of abusive editing. A topic ban could fall under the 9/11 arbcom case. I also recommend permanent semi-protection of the article, and possibly even the talk page, since Combatant/Wtcsurvivor often edits as an IP user. Still, I'm not uninvolved enough, so use your judgment. User:EdJohnston has handled many of the sock puppet blocks, so you can talk to him if you want opinion of someone uninvolved but familiar with the case, and User:Arthur Rubin is also knowledgeable (but, like me too involved to take admin actions). Please let me know if you have any questions. --Aude (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I see now that you are not yet an admin, and it appears Politizer is not an admin either. It would be excellent if you could find an uninvolved admin to help resolve this. I have posted about this on ANI a couple times, but it fell on deaf ears, so I somewhat gave up in frustration. --Aude (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention to the Rodriguez page. Note that Combatant and her many socks are suspected of being the subject of the article. A ban on my editing of 9/11 articles would not be appropriate--if I have crossed the line on BLP policies it is only because other editors have tried to turn the article into a promotional piece for Willie's disaster management consulting business. The anarchical environment in which socks of the subject of the article are permitted to accuse me of lying and racism, to lard the article with obfuscatory spam, to engage in reversion wars without discussing the reasons for reinstating errors of fact, and to try to intimidate by threatening outing has naturally led to a certain ... combative environment. I'd suggest that the tone of articles like those on James Frey, Stephen Glass, Jayson Blair, and Janet Cooke would be appropriate. Imagine if the subject of one of those articles tried to edit out or obfuscate everything negative! Also please note that Combatant and her many socks have no interest in any subject other that William Rodriguez--except that they undo my work on a couple of other articles. 63.199.155.82 (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Re Aude: thanks for your input on this. I agree with your suggestions...do you know if a checkuser would be warranted for either of the sides involved (Combatant's and Contrivance's)? I presume that action against sock puppets/puppeteers trumps everything else. As for resolving the actual issues in the article, it's a topic I don't know a lot about and can't do anything other than point people to relevant noticeboards, as I have done; I haven't see any of them make an effort to go to any of those places, though, so I might post a message myself at BLP/N and places like that.

It's pretty much impossible for me to judge any of the content or find out more about the history of the dispute when both of the editors involved are repeatedly sending me vague accusations about the other. AFAIK it looks like they have both been tendacious and may need to be subject to at least a temporary editing ban on this article and some related articles (that is assuming they won't already have been subject to indef blocks or other action for sock puppeting), but I wouldn't be able to suggest anything more without a more informed opinion about the editing dispute, and without (possibly) a checkuser to look into the sockpuppet stuff, since Combatant has been accused repeatedly of being a sock and Contrivance appears to be editing from numerous IPs. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 19:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Possibly, we could try an request for comment or something at arbitration. There is arbitration enforcement, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Clarifications_and_other_requests, and as a last resort, a new arbcom case could be requested. Though, the arbitration committee does not rule on content issues, but only behavior. The BLP noticeboard is also certainly worth a try. --Aude (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Message left here at the BLP noticeboard. I don't have any experience with RfCs and arbitration enforcement, so I'll bow to your advice on that one (although my intuition is, like you hinted, that we should try to avoid going to arbcom over an issue that seems to only involve one article and two editors). I still think a checkuser on Combatant, as well as on the various IPs under which Contrivance has been editing, would also help out, but it depends on whether there is enough to warrant asking for a checkuser (again, I'm not familiar with the criteria/policies for requesting checkuser). Politizer ^talk/_contribs 20:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The belief that Contrivance edits from numerous IPs is not justified. I note with amusement that discussion of the sockpuppetry of various William Rodriguez editors indicates that Contrivance was suspected of being a sock of the subject of the article. The basic issue is that William Rodriguez's notability depends on his hero story about 9/11. This story has changed through the years, he has advanced implausible, unsubstantiated, and impossible claims while requesting financial donations, and now he and/or his associates are trying to cover that up by lying, obfuscating, wikilawyering about sources, and trying to intimidate other editors. The intimidation of the editor Jazz2006 was particularly egregious. Also please note that I operate under a shared IP address and am not responsible for all the wikpidedia activity that emanates from this address.63.199.155.82 (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not amused. I believe I have been openly accused by several editors, to be the subject of the article, in plain words, to be William Rodriguez. I will like to see a positive proof of this as publicly stated by the editors and one admin. I have been in contact with Rodriguez via email and invited him to comment directly to Aude, contrivance and others. I hope he does since he is travelling at the time. The article became my interest due to lack of even handed portrayal by some editors who let their passion take a clear agenda to attack the subject. I was a member of the same organization of Contrivance and therefore a know by his own mouth his agenda here. I can forward, privately, to the admins that requests it, email with this editor real IP and see if they match also links to his statements outside wikipedia as an example. Seethat Contrivance really only edits 3 specific articles, "Kevin Barrett", "Carol Brouillet" and "William Rodriguez" the same 3 people which I can prove without a doubt, have been harrased via email by Contrivance real persona. I have copies of all 3 subjects emails and since this is not an article, original research is allowed. Rodriguez notability does not depends about his expresions of 9/11 but for saving lives on that day.Combatant (talk) 04:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I edit all kinds of articles. Rodriguez saved two lives on 9/11: Mr. Giambanco and another man trapped in the elevator. He claims he saved hundreds. I don't know how Combatant can claim to be part of an organization I am in when she doesn't know who I am. Contrivance (talk) 07:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I have created a new sockpuppet investigations page, which would be helpful to sort things out. But, with all respect to Manadude2, I don't want to clutter up his/her talk page, so I will post on the BLP/N. --Aude (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou all for your inputs. I shall seek admin help. Sorry for no response for the past 3 days. manadude2 (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Contrivance

I also got that e-mail from User:Combatant...apparently he thought I was an admin. I deleted it pretty much right away, since I don't want to have all that personal information, and I told him to e-mail an admin or a checkuser and not to share any of that information unless they explicitly request it...but his e-mail privileges have already been blocked (and rightfully so) so that information probably won't resurface again.

Anyway, personally I think Contrivance's identity and activities off-wiki are irrelevant and don't need to be brought up. If he/she is a problematic, tendentious, POV editor (which I believe he/she is), there is plenty of evidence from the user's own contributions, evidence enough to have administrative or community action taken without any need to consider this other information. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 19:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think comparison to the James Frey article are appropriate. Imagine you had one editor who was trying to include in the article the information that Frey's memoir contained much that wasn't true, and another editor who tried to keep that information out, and who engaged in wikilawyering about sources, obfuscation, attempted intimidation by attempted outing, attempts to "balance" the presentation by including every nice thing anybody ever wrote about Frey, accusations of racism and bias and a personal vendetta against the subject--IOW, every means possible to keep out and cover up the truth.

My intention was and is to present the William Rodriguez story in an even handed way. Unfortunately for William, the facts are not kind to him--just as they are not kind to James Frey and Stephen Glass. That's not my fault. I don't invent the facts. Contrivance (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Manadude2

Manadude2 wrote: I have received an email from Combatant who is now indefinatly blocked from editing (not by me). It states that you have had involvement in editing the William Rodreguez pages at:

   * "Democratic Underground" as the user "Petgoat"
   * "YouTube" as the users "Truetruther" and "punxsutawneybarney"
   * "911blogger" as the user "Petgoat"

You also made a page on "Google Groups" as the user "Brian Good" with the title "Strategy Idea: Be the WikiMEDIA" whch can be found here (Evidence 1)

You also have made negative attacks on the Wikipedia users "Kevin Barratt" and "Carol Brouillet". It can be seen on another "Google Groups" and explained by Carol herself that this user has a vendetta against the 2 parties mentioned: Evidence 2.

Please reply on my talk page with further details. manadude2 (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

My response: William Rodriguez believes that there is only one person in the world who believes he is a liar. He is wrong about that. Why should you should believe his claims that "Brian Good", "Petgoat", "Truetruther" and "punxsutawneybarney" are Contrivance--any more than you should believe his claims that he saved hundreds, rescued 15, turned down million-dollar movie deals, witnessed 22-story collapses or any of it. And even if you do believe it, does your barnster constitute a license to attempt to intimidate by attempted outing? Last summer two 9/11 rivals of Willie (Kennie Johannemann and Barrie Jennings) died mysteriously. If I have done something inappropriate, let's talk about what I did (and the egregious behavior on the part of a bunch of finger-puppets that provoked it.) Why stoop to WtcSurvivor's level of an attempted ad hominem attack?

I don't see how pointing out negative commentary amongst the truth movement about Kevin Barrett is an attack on Barrett or on Brouillet. I don't see what Brouillet's emotional attacks on Brian Good or Good's call to "storm the barricades" have to do with me. Contrivance (talk) 08:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)