User talk:Seicer/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Seicer. 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.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Vandalism of my page - why it happened

This all goes back to my efforts to apply our standards (mostly WP:N and WP:V to Tefosav, an recreated article which still strikes me as about a non-notable bunch of people doing some kind of music for which they seem to make up terms at random. The article is unsourced, and the author removes speedy tags and whines that we're not into these future experiences which aren't documented because they're too visionary (or some such language). I've not deleted this the second time; but could you take a look and see whether I'm missing something? If it strikes you as a speedy, do the deed; if not, put whatever tags you deem appropriate there. --Orange Mike | Talk 06:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Just out of good faith, I'm going to let it remain for a few days to see if it improves. If not, I would suggest passing it on to AfD. I've unblocked the user out of good faith, in that I believe it was more of an overall "I am out of options" plea than anything, moreso than outright vandalism. I've given him pointers on where to look for further assistance, so hopefully he'll abide by that. seicer | talk | contribs 06:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope you're right, but I fear you will encourage him in his worst impulses. He is apparently hostile to the five pillars, believing in some shapeless form of vague "community editing" that bewilders this hippie Quaker no end. --Orange Mike | Talk 06:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for blocking that "Timmydogman" account. He has an obvious sock at User:Woah Its Jaaaack which still appears to be unblocked. Might I impose on you to put the kibosh on this account as well? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

PMDrive1061 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Advice

Hello. I am concerned about this rather hostile SPA. Any advice? --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep a watch on it but I don't see anything too serious yet. seicer | talk | contribs 02:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm just because sociological theory is being met with "this theory is wrong because I know so, and it's POV because it demonizes white people" (neither of which is correct). The sociological study of race, especially racial privilege, is often met with such apprehension, but I'm concerned that this person sees these articles, which properly (and NPOV-ly) document an accepted sociological theory not as such, but as offensive, racial attacks on white people. It's disruptive, and while clearly not intended to be, I think this person may be having issues with the WP side of things as well as the sociology side of things. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And now this is what I'm concerned about: 1 2 3 4. I wonder if I asked, if SSPing these would be fishing, or if this editing pattern & uncanny mutual agreement seem odd to anybody else.

--Cheeser1 (talk) 06:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not for sure, but any further escalations might result in a page protect. Don't revert on the basis of the NPOV tag alone -- I'll handle that. Editors just can't come in, slap up a few tags, and expect it to be fixed without discourse. Perhaps requesting CU might be in order; I'll seek another administrator's opinion on this tomorrow. seicer | talk | contribs 06:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well you may be right about that, just read the discussion page, if there's any absence of intelligent discourse, you can first look at the attacks by "Cheeser1" as one possible reason. Please do bring in objective support, and while your at it, check out the handles like "Cheeser1", "Murderbike", "Yahel Guhan", etc. for possible Sock Puppetry. I support the page protect, this guy(s) engaged in a barrage of attacks on one simple, and pretty justified tag. The neutrality tag invites discussion and other viewpoints, and discourages bullies from "over-protecting" an article, which appears to be whats happening here, under the misguided guise of "reliable sources". Thanks for your help.Beatmakerz (talk) 07:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Check us for sockpuppetry. Three established long-time contributors. Good idea. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point and thank you Seicer and Beats. Not sure if its one guy or a group, but editors like Cheeser who try to berate and intimidate other editors completely disable any type of intelligent discourse in the process. This was such an unpleasant experience that at this point I'm really losing interest. A tactic I'm sure they've used before, judging by their history(s). I hope yall can bring in some objectivity to this subject.BGMNYC (talk) 08:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Since they're now flocking to this page - another uncanny coincidence - I'll start to compile the evidence here (that is, besides the uncanny mutual agreement, abuse/pointy-use of dispute tags, and SPA activities of these accounts that are all highly focused on using a personal opinion to debunk or combat the racism and "demonization" s/he seems to perceive exists in a widely-accepted sociological theory).

Extended content

Use of plurals of this form: guy(s), history(s), etc
[1] [2]
Constantly forgetting signature
[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
Fixing caps on Caucasian
[11] [12] [13] [14]
Constantly using scare quotes for "sources" "reliable" "theory" etc. (whatever s/he disagrees with)
[15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]
Spelling it privelage
[33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38]
Use of caps:
[39] [40] [41] [42]

The five accounts in question are also clearly linked:

BGMNYC = 71.141.129.18 = Beatmakerz = 75.7.28.238 =? DATBUS

The small amount of editing outside of these race-related topics links DATBUS to our 71-ip through The Partridge Family.

Note that the two IPs above both trace back to tbr2.sffca.ip.att.net[43] [44] aka San José/San Francisco, CA[45]. Other similarities I haven't combed through yet include the use of particular words ("humanity" "demonize" etc. in reference to whites) and overlinking the term people of color on talk pages. I could probably also find a few more examples of the item-by-item breakdown above. Plus I kind of find this disturbing. --Cheeser1 (talk) 09:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Based on the above, I would take it to checkuser. seicer | talk | contribs 13:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The above IP addresses revolve to the same locale. seicer | talk | contribs 13:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI: User_talk:Netkinetic#Can_We_Talk. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noted it as canvassing at SSP. The head has now been indef blocked, along with his socks. Good eye :) seicer | talk | contribs 03:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Prem Rawat and my Talk Page

Hi. I appreciate your comments on my recent arguments with Jossi. As you may know by now we are both passionate about the Prem Rawat article though from opposing viewpoints. I accept all the admonishments for being over-heated etc and offer apologies all round. I am a little upset that you see my talk page as 'nothing more than a winded soapbox' since that was absolutely not ever my intention. In fact I thought it was supposed to be an honest and up-front statement of intent and a place for discussion which does not interfere with the article. That was my understanding and why I proclaimed my honest feelings there and invited arguments to continue there. I am not in the least interested in preaching from a soapbox but I am very interested in a public-spirited debate about the issues raised around the Prem Rawat article. I also strongly believe in not hiding behind anonymity and being upfront about one's own POV. My intention, contrary to the judgements I have been attracting as of late, is to make the Prem Rawat article fairer and more neutral. That is why I have concentrated lately on rather vehement arguments about the POV pushing from Prem Rawat supporters there. I hope you also noticed that other genuinely neutral people there share many of my hard-fought criticisms although they are naturally more dispassionate about the subject. PatW (talk) 02:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

My request for bureaucratship

Dear Seicer, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats.
I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight.
I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community.
I was a little miserable after the results came out, so I'm going to spread the love via dancing hippos. As you do. :)
I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to call me out. ~ Riana ⁂ 11:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Shortt-syncronome_clock entry?

Why was this deleted? It is an important timekeeping mode that is just not indexed in any other way on wikipedia. I was working on that article. --BenBurch (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Your article is still there at Shortt-synchronome clock. I deleted a redirect. seicer | talk | contribs 17:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That will teach ME to save misspelled links. Sorry. --BenBurch (talk) 01:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Cory Bold page delted for no reason, when there is factual evidence

Please take a look at my discussion page I have added for "Cory Bold" page. When and Why can you delete a page, where there is in fact plenty websites with mentions of his discography prooving that Cory Bold is in fact a music producer? In the discussion page for Cory Bold, I go on and list a good bit of websites with factual proof, ranging from hollywood.com to cduniverse.com

Thank You

Wikiuser12348 (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi

I only put two tags on the page. Now my talk page is being flooded. I have stopped along time ago, before any warning, but someone was upset and posted a complaint. I have attacked no one, only question content. Can you please help? Thanks, Thright (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)thright

Then you can ignore my notice if you have been warned previously. seicer | talk | contribs 02:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Beyond the Red Line article

Just making the long story short.. The A7 criteria

An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources. A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. Other article types are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead.

As the article in question is actually about software (video game) I'm asking either to undelete the article or provide some other reason for its speedy deletion. Thank you. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I decided check today and saw that regardless of your repeated visits and edits to the talk page you have apparently chosen to ignore this. So i'll toss it for the deletion review

I haven't ignored it, I just don't see where my intervention is necessary. WP:DR is where you needed to go. seicer | talk | contribs 18:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Beyond the Red Line

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Beyond the Red Line. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Wanderer602 (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

lil help

I'm thinking I've somehow did not properly write down the fair use justification on Image:Tunnels_uncovered_in_Rafah.jpg and I could really use a bit of help on bringing it back.

We can either discuss this on your/my talk page, or you can email me. Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. seicer | talk | contribs 02:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Gmail group

You seem like the odd one out here ;) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Minor technicality/semantics

Thanks for your assistance applying the block hammer to my favorite harasser. However, I must raise a minor objection to the template you're using which states "Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions." This is a banned user, and banned users are not welcome to make any contributions, constructive or otherwise.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't aware that he was banned. I assumed he was blocked for abusing sock puppets. Thanks for notifying me; I would refactor it, but the user revolves around so many IP addresses that anything more than a 24h block is kind of useless. seicer | talk | contribs 02:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Please help me to have a Semi-Protection the Angel Locsin, Regine Velasquez and Lobo (TV series) pages because of unstoppable Vandalism.{Jennyandalizapurok4 (talk) 07:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)}

Sorry, at the time I don't see a reason to protect the latter two articles. Semi-protecting it only disallows those with IP addresses from editing; fully-protecting it disallows anyone but administrators from editing it. It seems to be content issues but it hasn't evolved to downright full edit warring yet. Let me know if it does. seicer | talk | contribs 18:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Keratoconus needs your help again

More questions from the belligerent IP editor at Talk:Keratoconus. I have given up trying to communicate with them and I suspect others who have dealt with their accusations have also. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Re edit war

The Cave Clan article has a ton of unsourced, unverifiable information - I'm trying to tidy it up - perhaps someone with more experience will do a better job? 60.241.170.200 (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Just about all the information is on the cc website. The page blankers of this article are cc members who are trying to hide the truth about their locations due to fears that they will become locked down. They should realise that Wikipedia is not censoured and does not comply with Cave Clan rules. Neither do they have owner ship over the cave clan article just because they are Cc members. Cheers. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 00:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

True - Wiki is not censored, but the information needs to be relevant and verifiable! If you can't cite an actual source with your additions, don't add them! 60.241.170.200 (talk) 09:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope. If you continue to remove cited materials from the Cave Clan web-site, then you will be warned and blocked. seicer | talk | contribs 14:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok I'll watch that.The article at Cave Clan has been under attack from sockpuppet accounts in case you weren't aware? I'm not the ISP address who did the last edits in case you were wondering. I'm not completely sure who that was? Also check that the reversion I was making was of edits done by a WP:SPA user. Didn't that tell you something? Or didn't you check out the revision history and who was actually doing what? The version you have protected is the version that has been gutted by the vandal. How do I take this to dispute resolution? Sting au Buzz Me... 23:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

When protecting an article, you are not necessarily endorsing one version over another. It's just to protect the article from further edit warring. If you want to resolve the issues, the first step is to open a line of discussion in the article's talk page, then seek Dispute Resolution if that fails. seicer | talk | contribs 00:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. In the mean time I will watch the 3R's. That has never happened to me before. Sting au Buzz Me... 01:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Curious About The Ip Sockpuppet Reverting

Was my reverting okay and appropriate? I tried carefully to not go TOO crazy. -WarthogDemon 02:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You were within reason to revert as it was obvious sock puppet abuse. For the open sock case, just add in the IP addresses that were blocked today. I've semi protected Gothic rock for 1 week as well. Thanks for your diligence! seicer | talk | contribs 02:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with the protocols at Wikipedia enough to not know how to respond to this comment left on my talk page about the recent IP edit war. So I am pointing it in your direction to see if you have any thoughts on the matter. 03:56, 13 March 2008 Theplanetsaturn (talk) 04:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems as if the attacks have stopped, so a range block is probably not necessary at the moment. If it starts back up, let me know. seicer | talk | contribs 04:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

New messages from Voyagerfan5761

Hello, Seicer. You have new messages at Voyagerfan5761's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 11:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Cave Clan and favoritism

I believe you protected the page Cave Clan in favor of people who think they have owner ship over the article because they are trying to protect their sacred site from being exposed. You did mention that you were into urban exploration and I believe you may be sympathetic to their cause. You protected the page and gave me a warning for adding a list of Wikipedia articles in which there was nothing wrong. The articles are related to the subject. They are relevant to Australian Military History and they are relevant to urban exploration. See the content I have placed on the talk page. This will give some explanation as to why (read the captions for the pictures that I have added) the list should be included. These are cave clan sites, this is where they take members and guests on guided tours, but not just that a lot of other groups and individuals visit these sites to explore the tunnels within. That is why the list that I added should be included in the article. I would like to have this small list reinserted as I went to a lot of trouble writing every single article, except for maybe one or two of them. I would either like to have it added now and re protected or I will wait and add it again, if this happens it will start the edit waring all over. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 22:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, sorry. Per WP:PPOL, applying page protection is to stop edit warring, which is undeniable at Cave Clan. As such, protecting a page does not necessarily endorse one version over another, and in the case of protection, efforts should be made among editors to come to a consensus through discussion regarding the disputed content. I feel that it is better than blocking for 3RR vios. which would have occurred if no protection was applied; three editors were notified regarding this. Even so, repeated revert warring was not constructive to the article, and you should know better than that.

In the future, instead of lobbing false accusations at other editors and administrators, you should open a line of discussion at Cave Clan and other pages. Don't bring up content issues with me; instead, do it on the discussion page of Cave Clan as I have little knowledge of this pseudo-organization outside of what I added from Cave Clan's web-site. seicer | talk | contribs 22:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The thing is sock puppets and ips were removing content from the article, the only thing that I wanted restored was the list of sites which was appropriate as I have stated above. Talking about this on the talk page for the article will serve no purpose as the people who removed the content in the first place think they have owner ship over the article. You protected the page after it was partially blanked. The other editors I am assuming were recent changes patrolers who were trying to stop vandalism. This ip address came along, moved photos and deleted content which could be considered vandalism or page blanking then you protected the vandalised version. The list that I wish to reinstate is appropriate and anyone with an interest in the topic of urb ex would appreciate being led to those articles. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 23:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you pinpoint out specifically (make a list) of the IPs and sock user accounts that you suspect? If there are numerous, I can send it over to checkuser or open up a suspected sock page regarding the user. I do know that not that long ago, Panic and a few others were edit warring over the article, so I suspect that it's related to that still. seicer | talk | contribs 23:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the sock puppets have been blocked indef. As for the ips, well they keep changing, quite often, so you block them one day and they come back the next with another. Also how do you know about Panic. I don't think he had account here.. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 00:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what happened with panic, it may have had something to do with the links that were being added a couple of months ago. No its not related, I have been contributing to wiki for quite some time, within this period I developed an interest in bunkers and forts. When I developed this interest I started to write articles, after this I found out about the cave clan article. When I had a brief look at their website I saw that it contained pictures of a similar nature to what I was writing about, and they explored these sites as well. All the sites that I have visited have there logo and graffiti spray painted on the walls. So the articles that I wrote and wish to include in the list are sites that many urb ex people visit, not just the cave clan. So these articles fall into the category of Urban exploration just like the cave clan article, even though they are not noted for this, but anyone interested in the subject would, like I may have said before, appreciate being led to those articles. If you ever come out here and want to do some urb ex in Sydney, use the info in the articles to locate these sites and you won't be disappointed. Cheers. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Here are some pics that I have taken whilst doing the rounds commons:User:Adam.J.W.C. . --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha. I restored the content and unprotected the page. It's been watchlisted for a while, so I'll monitor it for any suspected socks or proxies. seicer | talk | contribs 02:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The most important thing was the list for further reading. Cheers. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 03:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Initial edit for article on the gardener Alan Chadwick

I was in the middle of editing the article Alan Chadwick when you deleted it. I lost all my edits. Is it necessary to jump on a new article like this so negatively? I have asked for an alan chadwick article for a long time and no one has started one. I have quite a bit more I could say on this matter but dont know you and will defer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberplasm (talk • contribs) 23:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Your rationale for keeping the page was:

Your robot has marked this for deletion, or else someone is not a gardener. This is a badly needed article, I don't know why it's not already on wikipedia. Just the list of links alone is worth keeping the article. Alan Chadwick is linked on other wikipedia articles, but so far there has been no entry.

Keeping an article based on the links alone does not assert notability, and there was no real content outside of spam links. An article is not based solely upon links to other web-sites with no substantial content. If you wish, write up the article on your userpage or on your user:Cyberplasm/sandbox and inform me if you decide to create the article. I'd be happy to review it. seicer | talk | contribs 23:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

New article

Here is the somewhat more complete article in my sandbox. I would like to publish it. What do you think? I've never edited a new article before, and didn't realize how tricky navigating the editorial review is here.

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Cyberplasm/sandbox —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberplasm (talk • contribs) 23:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support!

Hello, and thanks for your support in my recent RFA! The final result was 61/0/3, so I've been issued the mop! I'm extremely grateful for your confidence in me and will strive to live up to it. Thanks again! —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Sarithrainstorm block

Hi. Thanks for clobbering this monkey. He's still at it on the talk page; could I impose on you to protect it? Thanks yet again. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Which user is it? seicer | talk | contribs 05:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Returning sock/Cave Clan

Hi. It looks as though the sock has returned making similar edits. Maybe the page should be semi protected for a short while to avoid disruption. Cheers. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 06:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Thanks!

So, yeah, you know how these work... »»»»
Thank you very much for your support in my recent RfA, which closed with a final tally of (75/1/0). Your trust in me is greatly appreciated, and I can assure you it has not been misplaced. I shall use these tools to the best of my ability, and will do my best not to let you down. Thank you once again, and happy editing as always! *Hersfold* ^(t/a/c) 20:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedily Deleted Page reposted in French

Dear Seicer,

A few weeks ago you speedily deleted this. User:Cult Free World has re-posted another the same article in French. This page has exactly the same information as earlier versions of the article. (He has tried previously to circumvent the system below by posting on other talk subpages, and now he has done it again here.)

Previous deletions are here:

A condition for re-posting was secondary materials required (this was the reason it was deleted, because no secondary sources).

In this version there are no sources, misc court cases that were not covered in newspapers (some are lower case, some are just writs, some are not even on the group itself, but on jurisdictional questions). Recently, User:Willbeback confirmed that secondary sources were needed for the article to survive deletion review here.

Thank you for looking at this. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Marathi Mulgaa

What is the current article's name? I also cannot find any record of Cult Free World (talk · contribs) contributing ... is this the same user? seicer | talk | contribs 00:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I was just preparing something like the above and saw someone beat me to it. To answer your question here is the re-posted article and here is the user. It appears he has no edits on the deleted pages because all one's contribs are apparently deleted when pages are deleted -- was that your question? Renee (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

(EC) I would guess that Marathi is talking about User:Cult free world/Proposed Sahaj Marg India, which is a copy of fr:Sahaj Marg. Since this is a brand new user page, possibly in preparation for a deletion review, it seems likely that the exception in the last sentence of Wikipedia:CSD#G4 applies, at least for a while. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay, so this is like a sandbox? I thought they had to provide evidence of secondary sources first because otherwise we're just engaging in the same endless conversations over primary and other types of sources (like tabloids). It seems it would be easier to first ask Cult Free to produce secondary sources and discuss those and then work on a draft of an article. Otherwise, it's no different than an article in the mainspace (with all of its edits and reversions, given the history and multiple deletions outlined above, of this particular article topic). My question, why even do this if he can't produce secondary sources? Thanks for the feedback. Renee (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I shouldn't be discussing this because I wasn't addressed and I am not even an admin. I merely had the impression that vaguely similar things are often OK, so this looks like a borderline case to me. Since the same text is already on the French Wikipedia it can't do much harm, so it's probably best to give the user a warning that they have no chance without sources, and a bit of rope. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

My point was, unless there's NEW material from a VALID reliable and verifiable source, this is just a meaningless exercise. I mean, that was the cause of the page being deleted in the first place. I agree with Renee that this is a complete waste of time UNLESS cult_free can prove there is valid new material. As far as I can tell, there isn't anything new here. Shouldn't an invalid article in English also be invalid in all other languages? Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 01:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to wait and see what the user does with the article in his userspace. If it is transposed over, let me know and I'll flatten both articles. I hold out on hope on just a small grain of rice. seicer | talk | contribs 16:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Seicer,

Does User:Cult free world/Proposed Sahaj Marg India now qualify for speedy deletion? It is exactly the same unsourced, mis-represented text as in the previous deletions (see above). This user is circumventing the deletion review process and has failed to produce a single new reference or piece of material despite repeated requests on this talk page by multiple editors.

Can we please, please follow proper Wiki procedure and hold all editors to those guidelines? In this case, the guideline was that new material and reliable/verifiable secondary sources would have to appear in order to justify the posting of a new article.

As background, the now-deleted talk pages to the former articles all discuss these items in depth. For instance, the court case labels are totally mis-represented. For instance, the last case listed on this article says, "sexual abuse," but the case actually found these accusations untrue, unfounded, and libelous. Further, if this really happened there would be loads of secondary sources reporting on it (and there were none).

Specifically, in this case, the judge rules, YES -- the complainant is an aggrieved party, page 1: "Cr.P.C. Section 482-Quashing of complaint-aggrieved person-complainant being member of Ram Chandra Mission filed complaint against the accused for publishing an article amounts of defamation-whether such complainant is an aggrieved party? Held’ Yes’."

AND, more importantly the judge says (p.4 #5), "The news item extracted above and also the allegations made in the complaints are prima facie libelous and defamatory."

Why would an article ruled defamatory and libelous, by definition made-up and false, appear in a Wiki article? It should be deleted immediately from Wiki as it violated WP:BLP as well as WP:R and WP:V.

If anyone finds reliable and verifiable secondary sources, then great, let's review them and go through a proper deletion review. But this current tactic is simple circumvention Wiki policies and should be grounds for blocking. I'm hopeful you can help here. Thank you, Renee Renee (talk) 17:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Steel deletion

"21:16, March 10, 2008 Seicer (Talk | contribs) deleted "Doctor Steel" ‎ (A7 (group): Group/band/club/company/etc; doesn't indicate importance/significance)".

I had listed two national television appearances, including an appearance on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, and two released CD albums. Google results in 23,200 for "Doctor Steel" and 49,000 for "Dr. Steel".

I was in the middle of listing clubs and areas he plays in regularly, more details regarding the band, are other notable facts when you deleted the article. Can I ask how you felt it was not notable? Coolgamer (talk) 19:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 3


The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 2, Issue 3 • 22 March 2008 • About the Newsletter
Departments Project news Deletion debates Featured member From the editors Coming and going	Features Scope debate causes issues A-class review sets new rule Three editors get triple crown award	State and national updates Leaderboard California Connecticut Kansas Michigan Nevada New Jersey New York Oklahoma Texas Utah Vermont Washington
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Want to change your method of delivery? – It's all here. —О бот (т • ц) 21:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No more cold fusion arb for me, thanks.

Just a brief note to let you know that I won't be spending any more time on Cold_Fusion. It's looking like a hopeless task right now, and I think my limited Wikipedia time is better spent on other things. Perhaps I'll write How_To_Identify_Bogus_Science_In_Wikipedia_Articles :-). Thank you for your efforts in moderation.JohnAspinall (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Outside of one section that remains to be clarified, it's all set. No one user will be pleased with the entire results; that's expected. Mediation is not to bring about a happy solution for all, but a solution that is workable and can be positively worked on in collaboration in the future. Thank you for remaining civil throughout the process and for engaging in healthy discussions. seicer | talk | contribs 14:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Crimethinc edits

Your suggestion is an excellent one, except these links were up for two years before an organized group of anarchists, connected with Crimethinc, waged a sustained edit war to remove them (along with anythink except promotional materials in the entry itself). Seeking to avoid an edit war over the content with motivated minders, I took what I thought would be an easier path to include links to the only published criticism of crimethinc. Within a week or so, they re-did the entire entry, while seeking to remove and all published criticism of this grouping. So, in short – they actively subverted consensus on the issue by simply removing it, archiving prior discussion and then acting like it's some new issue. Please review the archives for some idea.In the Stacks (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

User:In the Stacks and Crimethinc.

Hey there, It's starting to get really frustrating trying to deal with this user constantly adding these redundant links, against the wishes of every other editor that has been even peripherally involved in the issue. I don't know what to do, as I don't feel comfortable having to constantly revert the user's actions, and arguing in edit summaries when he clearly won't bide by the will of the community. What do we do? Murderbike (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Cave Clan

Hi Seicer.
Do you think it would be possible for the Cave Clan article to be semi protected for a while. The people who are removing content are Cave Clan Member/s, who don't want their locations being exposed and will continue to remove content consistently while the information is their. What do you think. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 07:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked IP for 24h for edit warring and for removal of content with invalid or no stated reason. seicer | talk | contribs 12:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I have just removed personal attacks from the cave clan talk page. Cheers. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 06:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Community service

You are receiving this notice because you have had previous dealings with the above user, in, so far as I could tell, a less-than-positive fashion. Community service recently emailed another user, User:Tiddly Tom, expressing a desire to return to Wikipedia to constructively contribute. In an effort to assume good faith, but still respect the reasons for the block, I have set Community service a series of tasks for him to complete on his now-unprotected talk page so that he may demonstrate this willingness to contribute to us. These tasks are listed here, and the full discussion of this situation, including an email I sent to Community service just now, may be found on my talk page at User talk:Hersfold#User:Community service. I would encourage you to review these tasks, and offer any advice to the user he may need. Thank you for your time and understanding in this matter. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Universities Newsletter: Issue VII (March 2008)

The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Universities newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! —Delivered on 18:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

Children's rights

Hello Seicer, and thank you for getting involved in the children's rights article. I asked for assistance regarding this situation at editor assistance, but to no avail thus far, so let me ask you: Edits made by S-MorrisVP, and, as acknowledged by the user, those made before a user account was created, are clearly being done to prove a point, and have clearly been POV, to say the least. Is there anyway out of this morass? How would you suggest I conduct myself with this user? Any advice is appreciated. • Freechild'sup? 00:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Seicer. Since you appear to be familiar with the issue, you are welcome to join the discussion there and give your own opinion. The COI finding appears strong, but the question (for me) is whether admins are empowered to place any needed restrictions. The editors involved seem to be quite far from understanding each other, and a compromise between them seems too much to hope for. EdJohnston (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply

With regard to your warning [46], I decided not to edit Alexander Litvinenko article for a while. But edit warring there continues, and it is worth noticing that User:Krawndawg just came back from a block for RR waring. I have no idea if that requires your action, but I do appreciate your critical comment about me. Thanks, Biophys (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

I agree with consensus, which is why I reverted a contested edit that wasn't made with consensus. It's hard to gain consensus when there's one or two tendentious editors who will not agree with anything that doesn't fit their biased point of view. Please note the hypocrisy of what Biophy is saying above, when he is the main culprit in all this edit warring (which is not limited to that one article) and has been warned many times on his talk page about edit warring, wikistalking and tendentious editing. Krawndawg (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

RFC

WP:AN#Cabals, part 2. There's an RFC in the making. Just notifying you in case you don't check AN, as I'd like to have the entire community (or at least a lot of opinions) in this. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 21:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to pipe in my two cents tomorrow after work. seicer | talk | contribs 04:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Protection of an IP's talk page?

See here. IP started on it after it realized it couldn't edit the rest of the website. Enigmaman (talk) 02:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Got it. seicer | talk | contribs 02:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the mediation on cold fusion ?

Seicer, could you update us on what you see as the next steps for the mediation on cold fusion ? Please respond here. Thanks in advance. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Comedian

I noticed a different IP address changed the template to comedian. He is not explaining why comedian would be better in his edit summaries and he hasn't posted on talk pages. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Then we keep reverting him. Maddox is not a comedian. He doesn't perform on stage or in front of a camera (basically he doesn't perform to an audience). He's a writer and satirist/ humorist at the most. Also, Seicer are you sure you want to remove the protection thing off of that article? There's always a lot of vandals that congregate around it. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 00:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering what the first comment was about... now I know :P I only removed the icon; protection expired earlier. If there is heavily vandalism over the next 24h, I'll reprotect. seicer | talk | contribs 00:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay, thanks. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 19:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:Community_service#Unblock (again)

Quick update - CS has emailed me to indicate he has finished the assigned tasks. I'll give you all a chance to review things before I take any action (unblock or decline - right now I'm kinda neutral on it) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up to my attention. seicer | talk | contribs 16:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks. I'm going to bed happy. :) -- Swerdnaneb 06:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a pain in the ass to revert all of those links. Have a good night :) seicer | talk | contribs 06:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my userpage. ^_^ Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 12:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

No prob :) seicer | talk | contribs 05:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

WHY

seicer, my old account (zoidberg.9208) was blocked INDEFINITLY by you because of ONE comment on your talk page, this seems a bit harsh, and I feel that you are abusing the power to block people--Zc1 (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me out to a new account. Blocked indef. seicer | talk | contribs 05:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

User:SandymcT

It appears that this user has not only repeated his disruptive edit but fake-relocked the page.[[47]] PhGustaf (talk) 15:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you authorise sandy to revert the page into her/his version and then lock the page untill the 10th?Coffeepusher (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope. And per my word left on the user's talk page, I've blocked the account for 24h for disruption. seicer | talk | contribs 02:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Strom Thurmond

Hi.

Everything I wrote in the Strom Thurmond article under "Views Regarding Race" was taken from and properly referenced to a newspaper article from the Globe and Mail, Canada's largest and oldest Canadian newspaper. You chose to delete it all, but left a bunch of uncited remarks that are heavily biased towards Thurmond. Care to elaborate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.8.75 (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The quotation, "...Thurmond was a notorious racist even in his own day..." was strictly POV. I do agree, however, that it needs to be added, but can it be worded in a way so that it can represent an equal viewpoint in that Thurmond began endorsing racial integration? The counterbalance is still uncited, but if you can find a cite on that, it would be great. seicer | talk | contribs 15:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

What does that mean?

Your post here confused my caveman brain. What were you saying, exactly? That all of the IPs are the same person? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was already admitted they are the one and the same, so yes. But if the IP addresses are being used to evade possible blocking because of disruptive editing, 3RR, etc., then it is fair to say that we can play whack-a-mole in the future. I haven't looked over the case fully yet. seicer | talk | contribs 17:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

So, in your opinion, would an SSP report be appropriate, or just a call for the anon to pick an account and stick with it? In fairness, they might be using a dynamic IP, so creating an account might be far easier for tracking purposes. The matter is trifling, but correcting a small problem before it becomes a larger problem would seem a case of 'an ounce of prevention equalling a pound of cure'. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a note - one person, me, has claimed those IP's. No one believes that there is more than a single editor. Indeed I find it a little odd to keep pointing out that I am one. There is no "pretense that the puppet is a third party who is not affiliated with the puppeteer." There is also NO evidence of the specific charges: "Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism involving dozens of incidents" and "3RR violation using socks".75.57.165.180 (talk) 17:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

So, in your opinion, would an SSP report be appropriate, or just a call for the anon to pick an account and stick with it? In fairness, they might be using a dynamic IP, so creating an account might be far easier for tracking purposes. The matter is trifling, but correcting a small problem before it becomes a larger problem would seem a case of 'an ounce of prevention equalling a pound of cure'. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

As per your tagging(1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6) of the pages, are you saying that Kapowow's IP is in fact parallel to the anons, according to the WhoIs search?

I don't have the authority to check the IP address of the user (leaving that to the RFCU clerk). I only tagged as being from the same IP address. If you suspect that they are a sock, then you can open up a SSP report. But I would wait for RFCU to come back first. seicer | talk | contribs 18:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ahh. Okay. Will do. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Pyrope just suggested that i contact you in regards to the addition of Kapowow after th filing. I did not add the account-holding user until after I had filed the RfCU, noticing similarities between the editing styles them and the anons.Does this complicate matters? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

♠Does the attempt to ban me also require that the attacker cite evidence, as per the formal accusation, of "Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism involving dozens of incidents" and "3RR violation using socks"?75.57.165.180 (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you Kapowow? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

♠I think the most interesting thing about this is Arcaynes ability to tie up so many resources and manpower over something he has NEVER supported. NO diffs. Nothing. Is it not reasonable that when one accuses another of a crime - that a crime exist? Having spent numerous hours in multiple forums having to stand up and shout "It's me!" "I'm one!" while Arcayne ignores the written words on the screen is wasteful for us all. The basic right of all Wikipedians, public editor or anonymous wiki account holder is the same - a reasonable request for citation must be respected. Arcayne has failed to support his allegations of "Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism involving dozens of incidents" and "3RR violation using socks" and has abused the system in an attempt to harass and ban a public editor.

What becomes of me is no issue - it's your Wiki, it will become whatever your community chooses it to be. 75.57.165.180 (talk) 17:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Seicer

I am extremely sorry for vandalizing your talk page multiple times and for using multiple sockpuppets I will no longer be using any user account other than this one. I am also sorry for insulting you, this will never happen again, nor will I edit war without discussion of the topic. Thanks -Cbennett0811 (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem :) I hope you enjoy your future editing at WP. seicer | talk | contribs 01:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

ERR!

UNBLOCK KIRBYLEVEL4 ME(ROBOT666) and shoqmanx think kirbylevel4 is unfairly blocked... please unblock him,, i know how to unblock him but somehow I can't!! unblock kirbylevel4 NOW!!!!--Robot666 (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It can't get any easier than this... seicer | talk | contribs 01:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)