User talk:Socafan

Welcome!

Hello, Socafan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

You may also be interested in the Wikipedia:Caribbean Wikipedians' notice board. Guettarda 18:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was when I was a noob in regards to userfying stuff. The original page was a random page created by the user and it appeared to be user page stuff. Also, it was late at night and I am sorry if it disturbed you. If there is anything I can do leave a message, Yanksox 18:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: block

As I said on AN/I, if he will just promise to stop evading the block, I will reduce it back to a week. So far he hasn't contacted me. I think my offer is reasonable, and as someone else pointed out on his talk, he can open an RFC against me or anyone else after the week is up. He was causing a lot of disruption before and especially after his block, so I think he needs some time to cool off. Of course if he said he'd stop the disruption and I thought he was being serious, I'd unblock him entirely. But again, he hasn't contacted me. --W.marsh 01:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was unappologetically evading a block and causing disruption. There's simply no excuse for that. If he's not mature enough to realize that, I'm sorry, but there's nothing I can do about it. I think I'm being reasonable. --W.marsh 02:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, and in fact, it's all I'm asking for... if he says he will stop evading the block, I will take it back down to the 1 week. Anything beyond that he'll need to talk to the admin who gave the 1 week block, not me. --W.marsh 02:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

You need to contact the blocking admin. --pgk^(talk) 06:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How am I supposed to contact him if he blocks me? Furthermore, I do not trust him and think other admins should handle this case. He blocked without any basis, apparently as he tries to censor me because he disagrees with me in the case of another user whose original block was unfair: Dabljuh. Socafan 10:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Through the email this user link on his user page, or via the mailing list. Since the user has check user ability and most other admins don't I cannot review the same information as he has, so I cannot fully review. --pgk^(talk) 17:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The email option is only available if you provide an email address yourself. I have not as I already get enough spam. I know of no mailing list and do not want to participate in any. Furthermore, as I wrote, I do not trust this user. He has not provided any evidence for his claim, thus the block should be undone until he does so - which he cannot because his claim is false. Please stop undoing my unblock request unless you have reason to decide upon it, thank you. Socafan 23:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not re-add the unblock template. You've been told how to resolve the problem, please do so. If you continue re-adding the template without taking any other steps, we may be forced to block your talk page from editing. Shell ^babelfish 04:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot force me to rely on an abusive admin. And as I explained already I could not do that anyways. Socafan 10:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After talking with the blocking admin, I've unblocked you. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A request for unblock is not a request to get told to email the blocking admin. The above comment by Shell Kinney is entirely inappropriate. Zocky | picture popups 10:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please apologize for revealing users' location without their approval

and promise not to ever do this again. Socafan 23:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You apparently have no idea what you're talking about. The Foundation's privacy policy allows information on the general location of an individual to be released; saying "He's coming from ---" or "He's editing from ---" is perfectly within policy. I suggest that the next time you call someone out, you get your facts straight before you make a total fool of yourself. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 02:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was absolutely no need to infringe on other users' privacy. Checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases. Please show me where in the policy it is indicated you are allowed to reveal where users edit from. Privacy policy says: Therefore if you are very concerned about privacy, you may wish to log in and publish under a pseudonym. When using a pseudonym, your IP address will not be available to the public. Socafan 10:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's technically in the Checkuser policy, though I think you are correct that it is contradictory to the privacy policy, which is probably more important. I reccomend taking it up on the Checkuser talk page, not with Essjay. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 11:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot access that page as another admin blocked me without any basis. The policy you cite reads: Even if the user is committing abuse, it's best not to reveal personal information if possible. - I did not commit any abuse.

If you're in any doubt, give no detail. Both these principles were violated. Socafan 23:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It also states, Revealing the country is generally not personally identifiable (e.g. "User:Querulous is coming in from the UK, User:Sockpuppet is coming in from Canada"). So the Wikimedia Foundation does not feel that revealing what country you are coming from is a revelation of personal information. (Or, at least they didn't when they wrote the Checkuser policy.) I am sorry you felt that my above comment implied that I believe you had committed an abuse - I meant no such thing, only that this is something you should take up with the Wikimedia community as a whole, who made the policy, rather than one person who carried it out. I am sorry you are banned, though reading your talk page led me to believe that the ban was lifted. Also note that Meta Mediawiki accounts are separate, so even if you are blocked on the English Wikipedia, I doubt that extends beyond the English Wikipedia. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 13:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the ban was lifted, and no, I did not think you thought I had committed abuse, I had only pointed out that I had not committed any abuse in order to show emphasize that no personal information should have been revealed. Based on the two lines I pointed out I still think that the policy was violated. Even if revealing the country might be ok in some cases, there was no abuse, there was no need to reveal it, and two statements in the policy support my view. Socafan 13:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

There's nothing wrong with being offended if you are wrongly accused. It's perfectly natural. But the best thing to do is to let the matter drop. I'm sure Jayjg acted without malice. People make mistakes. But the best thing to do is to let the matter drop and move on. I realise that's highly unsatisfying advice, but it's the best thing to do. You could drop Jayjg a note saying that you are unhappy about what happened, you could ask for an apology - but to be honest, the more you do to keep this matter alive, the more people will identify you with this issue. Best thing you could do is to forget about it and move on. People will judge you by what you do and how you interact with people. Find something that interests you, make some contributions to articles. Get to know people.

On the other hand, the more you pursue this, the more you are likely to be defined by this. You won't have fun. It isn't worth it. As for the email address - you don't get spam by adding an email address. I have gotten lots of email from other editors, but never any spam (I use an email specifically for Wikipedia). Also, if you use the [Email this user] link your email address isn't revealed to the recipient, just your Wikipedia user name. Guettarda 13:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I back up everything Guettarda just said. Let the matter drop. Also the wikipedia email facility prevents you from getting spam because it does not reveal your email address to anyone. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 14:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, but everyone can email me then, even without knowing my address.? Socafan 14:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, people will only know your address if you reply to the e-mail. Yanksox ^(talk) 14:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, I know, but still they can bug me by sending mails. Furthermore, irrespective of this specific case, is it ok to block a user without presenting any evidence for the accusation? Socafan 14:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of. I don't want to say it's never OK to block someone without presenting evidence because in many cases sockpuppets are obvious and evidence is clear to anyone who looks. Obviously in this case I feel that a mistake was made, which is why i undid the block. But I am sure it was down to error rather than malice. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 14:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Following your advice I do not want to pursue this endlessly, but I frankly cannot see anything that is even slightly indicating that an honest mistake was made. Socafan 14:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, if the issue is not resolved, bad feelings may remain. It is better for both sides to explain their views, mutually apologize, and continue editing Wikipedia with a renewed spirit of understanding and trust. (See Wikipedia's banning policy, which supports this view.) For example, if you haven't already, consider writing Jayjg a polite explanation of why you couldn't be a sockpuppet, and, if you do not understand, encourage him or her to explain why he or she thought you were. You should also apologize for assuming Jayjg had ill intent (was trying to censor you), and hopefully Jayjg will also apologize for believing you were a sockpuppet. This would hopefully help everyone feel better about the situation. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 15:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for the advice. I am writing him a message right now. Socafan 15:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also see another response on my talk page. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 14:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Socafan, Yikes! I just read your comment to Essjay. IMO, much too harsh. Essjay is a trusted member of Wikipedia community. Please reconsider your harsh comments to our hard working volunteers. Guettarda is giving you good advice. Put this incident behind you as quickly as possible. Regards, FloNight talk 17:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice. I already decided not to file a complaint. I however suggested a couple of changes to the policies to avoid such trouble in the future. [1] [2] As to Essjay, it is ok to make a mistake, we all do so, and regularly. Refusing to admit a mistake is bad taste, and the general attitude of refusing to give the benefit of the doubt by someone who has privileges in such a sensitive field as checkuser does disturb me. Socafan 17:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The more polite you are (which I believe to be a scale, not binary), the more likely you are to be listened to. For example, being the first to apologize may actually be a highly effective way of getting an apology in return (regardless of whether or not you were the first to err). I am glad you recognize that making a mistake is alright, and encourage you to forgive. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 18:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He already has a nice message from me on his talk page. I am unaware of anything I need to apologize for. Someone saw it as a personal attack that I wrote Essjay ignored the benefit of the doubt and has a history of blocks. Both is factual, so I cannot see how it could be seen as an attack. You argued I should have assumed good faith with Jayjg. However, all I had said was that I had the impression he was trying to censor me. I did not say he censored me, and, the possibility that he was trying to censor me, judging from what he wrote up to now, is the most reasonable explanation for what he did that I can see. Socafan 18:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put it this way: there are many borderline cases of personal attacks / impoliteness, where the writer means no offense, but others take offense. I believe that the people who take offense ought to be respected, and hopefully apologized to. However, I also believe that the person who meant no offense ought to be respected, and hopefully forgiven. The fact that someone takes offense, regardless of the intent of the message, is reason enough to apologize (and also say you didn't mean it to be taken that way). When I said you should try to assume good faith, I meant that you should try to avoid that suspicion, and try to accept other possible explanations (e.g. he was busy and didn't fully investigate the situation). Even if you think the negative explanation is the most reasonable one, it is not worth believing so long as there are other reasonable explanations (even if you consider said other reasonable explanations to be less likely). Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 18:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He missed his chance to give a reasonable explanation and in fact revealed that he has none: [3] Socafan 21:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since when did people only get one chance? Actually, he did mention a reason (although may not seem particularly substantial), but probably to him it did seem substantial at the time. Just explain it is not possible that you are a sockpuppet, apologise for suspecting he was trying to censor you (really, apologising won't hurt you - you may even feel better afterwards), and hope that opens the doors of understanding. (By the way, your edit on his talk page did seem reasonable to me, the "happy editing" part was a particularly nice touch - however, I am trying to encourage forgiveness, which, based on your comment above, seems like it is still in progress.) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 00:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He had quite some time to present a reason for his block. He did not, and when he answered, his explanation was quite revealing. Sorry, I cannot see anything indicating he might have made an honest mistake. If he wants to present an explanation for what he did now I will be glad to examine it with an open mind. As long as he does not although I think it should be taken for granted, my impression persists. Socafan 00:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To me, he seems busy, which increases likelyhood of mistakes. Why don't you email me, and I'll try to help you draft something, okay? Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 01:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is too busy to work properly he should not block others. Sorry, I do not use email related to wikipedia unless some admin blocks me again. I already get more messages than I want to handle. Socafan 01:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I have stated before, busyness is part of being an admin. There are a *lot* of disruptive edits on Wikipedia (ill-intentioned or not) - more than the admins can handle, even with the help of an anti-vandalism bot. More admins could help. Anyways, I gave you my email address earlier, so that you would not have to activate your email function on Wikipedia. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 01:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I already wrote, if you are too busy to work properly you should not do anything that likely harms others. I repeat that I do not want to receive or write emails related to wikipedia. Socafan 01:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. This is probably something else you should take up with policy, not with the user. But not today - think about the best way to express yourself, and try to write abstractly, not bringing up personal examples. (Your view seems to go against the present consensus, but take your time to write something positive and convincing, and maybe something will be changed.) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 01:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this should be taken for granted. Second, the policies I suggested would allow to deal with any possible erroneous block due to overwork. Socafan 01:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not mean to say that your suggestions are wrong - I try to respect the viewpoints of all Wikipedians who have the best interest of Wikipedia at their heart. (If you feel I fail at this, please accept my sincere apologies, and reccomend that I not become a mediator.) I am merely interested in the way you present your views in a way that minimises Wikistress, Wikihate, and other bad things, and maximises Wikilove, your chances of being listened to, and other good things. Also, policy changes take time, requiring consensus, so patience helps. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 01:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Socafan, okay, I hear you. Many of the people leaving you comments are looking out for the best interest of all parties involved. We can see all sides of the issue. Happy editing. take care, FloNight talk 17:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock requests

"You find" that I was wrong and Zocky agrees. Sorry did I miss the memo which made you and Zocky the final word on such matters. The block page itself recommends users email the blocking admin for complex blocks where all the information isn't readily available it is really bad form to unblock without consulting the blocking admin. In short in situations like yours you contacting the blocking admin is the appropriate course of action. --pgk^(talk) 16:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find your wording "Sorry did I miss the memo which made you and Zocky the final word on such matters" rather impolite. Two others agree that you should not just remove an unblock request if you cannot present anything indicating that the block was ok. If you disagree, ok, no need to talk down on others. You could have contacted the admin who blocked, and the blocking policy suggests so. Socafan 16:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find your inital suggestion that you and one other agree means I must be wrong and mustn't do it again to be far from polite, condescending in fact. --pgk^(talk) 16:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retaliation has never helped anyone. Telling someone that two others agree on something where you disagree is not impolite. I stand to my opinion that you mustn't do it again, but if you disagree you disagree. Socafan 16:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to remind both of you that this is a sensitive topic, and simply becuase you do not consider what you typed to be offensive does not mean the recipient will find it unoffensive (which is what counts). Pgk is reminded that being blocked can be very stressful, and Socafan is reminded that Pgk's actions were well-intended, and that Pgk did seek to provide advice. You are also encouraged to provide links to policies, not to what individual users think. In any case, the ban was lifted. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 16:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested some changes to the policies and asked to enforce those we already have: [4] [5] Socafan 17:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not remember saying Pgk was wrong or even mentioning him/her. What was wrong, as I explicitely said, was Shell's threat to protect a blocked user's talk page because the user is trying to find a way to deal with the block without emailing the blocking admin. Zocky | picture popups 13:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Essjay's talk page

As long as the back and forth bickering by other people and about other people happens some place else, I'll leave it alone and he can decide how to respond to you. Thatcher131 18:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Socafan 18:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

policy

Got your message. Thank you. I am interested in this area of policy which I feel can be abused, and is done so when bad faith assumptions are made. I note that it can be easy for an "enemy" to simply create a new account and follow you around, and support you to make it look as if he is your socketpupet. Then, when this other editor who you know is not your socketpupet violates the 3RR, is it fair for you to be blocked as a result of an assumption that you two are the same? Such an assumption is not warrented. I feel a user check has to prove it. The same goes for accusations of socketpuppetry anyplace else other than an admin board making a user check request or the talk page, but even then civility and an assumption of good faith should always be kept intact.Giovanni33 22:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

stop being disrespectful

I have already asked you to stop writing on my talk page. Thanks for respecting my wishes. Tom e r ^talk 00:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are not entitled to ask not to get warned for disrespecting the policy. Socafan 00:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to suffer from an abject failure to understand the policy, and instead seem to think of it as your personal club to try to intimidate users with whom you disagree. I am entitled to ask you not to write on my talk page, and now I'm doing it again again. Your continued failure to respect my request is quickly becoming harassment. Please stop. Thanks, Tom e r ^talk 00:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are not entitled to ask not to get warned for breaking the policy. As I already brought it to where it can be handled best, I see no need to further post on your page which seems fruitless anyways. Note that your latest post was incivil again. Socafan 00:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion Both of you stay off each others talk page. For now, nothiing more can be gained from further communication. --FloNight talk 00:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enough already

Copied from my user talk page.

Falsely claiming someone had posted "has already posted this issue on an insane amount of user's pages today" is a personal attack. The case he alluded to is different from the one that occurred now as he could have easily verified if he had taken the time before posting unsubstantiated allegations where they mislead others. Socafan 00:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Socafan, Stop! Take a break. You have done enough today. No more warning are needed on other users talk pages, today. No more need to rewrite policy, today. No more need to post messages on AN/I, today. No more more need to post on NPA noticeboard. FloNight talk 00:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you just tell those who attack me without any reason to stop, than no warnings will be needed, no complaints filed. The policy however needs to be improved to stop arbitrary blocks. Socafan 01:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could just edit some articles? That's why you are here isn't it? I'm off to follow my own advice and edit an article right now. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 18:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you may see from my contributions I did focus on editing articles before I got blocked. After that I try to improve the policy in order to help all editors to focus on what they are for. Socafan 16:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my recent revert

My apologies, I should've used an appropriate edit summary. I was in the process of writing a message here, on your talk page. At second glance, however, I realise I may have misunderstood the intent of your edits. My main concern was in relation to users banned by the Arbitration committee who begin to edit constructively, but the best place to discuss this would be on Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy. Jude (talk) 01:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. Socafan 01:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armstrong

Your edits are problematic. First, the "guilt by association" innuendo is entirely inappropriate. Second, the book has been widely discussed and largely dismissed. Third, UCI have absolutely no problem with suspending or banning riders however prominent if there is any credible basis for doing so (Basso and Ullrich included). If you can formulate a properly neutral and correctly spelled form of words then please feel free to suggest it on Talk but if you continue to make tendentious edits to the article you may be blocked from editing. Just zis Guy you know? 10:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know what you are talking about. If you associate guilt, that is your judgment. I only provide information as an encyclopedia should do. If a book has been widely discussed it should be noted. I do not know anything about UCI's problems or not problems with banning riders, I only know what WADA claims. Please feel free to correct typos and please stop making ridiculous block threats. Socafan 10:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know perfectly well what I mean. The "block threat" is (a) real and (b) a warning, not a threat. Do not remove administrators' warnings from your talk page. And do not reinsert the content without first achieving consensus on Talk. Just zis Guy you know? 11:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you block someone because he gives factual information you do not like about someone you should get blocked yourself. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, and if there is anything you can provide legitimate doubts for feel free to bring it up on talk. So far, you have only made unfounded and aggressive allegations. Socafan 11:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I neither like it nor dislike it - I hold no particular brief for Armstrong (as is well enough known in the cycling newsgroups I frequent). I do, on the other hand, have a strong aversion to repeating as fact allegations which are discredited and have no evident factual basis; I am also strongly opposed to including guilt by association, especially where there is no data for how commmon a certain result might be among those who aren't taking drugs (if any such exist in the world of pro cycling, which frankly I doubt). As I said, take it to Talk. That's what the Talk pages are for. WP:BLP] demands particular care where living individials are concerned. If you revert again you will be blocked. Take it to Talk. Just zis Guy you know? 11:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your behaviour is unacceptable. If there is any problem you have to bring it up at talk. Deleting factual information without any explanation is a gross violation of wiki policy and you should get blocked yourself. Socafan 11:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bzzt! Wrong. My behaviour is not only acceptable, it is what is required of me as an admin. Read WP:BLP and the various cases currently being debated around the project. Just zis Guy you know? 11:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were reported for 3RR violation. Deleting factual information without discussion, accompanied with unfounded allegations and block threats is unacceptable, and if you do not see this you need to step down as an admin. Socafan 11:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the deal: I don't give a toss about Armstrong, I do give a toss about WP:BLP. You seem determined to expand the criticism section come what may, and it's already POV tagged. What you should do is to follow normal editing guidelines, which state that controversial content should be discussed first. If you put more criticism into the Armstrong article without first achieving consensus on Talk, then you will be blocked. Just zis Guy you know? 12:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not give a toss about him either, I just noted that the section in the English version lacks quite a bit of information and is thus tendentious. I guess the same happens with most controversial sportsmen in the version of their mother tongue. If you have any particular concerns, please note them at talk, without racist comments, stop deleting factual information and making ridiculous block threats. Socafan 12:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bl;ocked for 15 minutes. Step back a while, consider. The criticism section is already POV tagged and is full of innuendo and carp. Adding more innuendo does not improve this. I would fully support a rewrite of that section stating all the allegations with sources and how those sources are generally viewed. Just zis Guy you know? 12:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

Please note that the blocking admin did not provide any legitimation for his block, was in a conflict of interest, was reported for 5 reverts deleting factual information he did not like, first refused to use talk and then even made a racist comment. Socafan 12:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring is legitimate enough reason for a block. You don't have to fly off the handle when someone tells you a certain set of edits is problematic and why, you are allowed to talk about them in a calm and rational manner. I've told you how to fix the problem, I encourage you to do a porper job rather than merely edit-warring over innuendo and unsubstantiated rumour. Just zis Guy you know? 12:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Socafan, JzG is right. Please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living people. Such negative material has to be very well established. (→Netscott) 12:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not edit war. He reverted 5 times when I added factual information from other articles or versions in other languages, he refused to substantiate his claims at talk and instead made condescending remarks and even a racist comment. I did not revert more than twice, and the allegations do not come from my imagination. We should not suppress information about a book. Even if it is crap - maybe it is, I have not read it - it was still published and is notable. Socafan 12:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your block is for 15 minutes. You've not been blocked for 3RR. See this particular section of WP:BLP as far as removing negative material is concerned. (→Netscott) 12:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He claims above I did edit-war event though he reverted 5 times. This is a conflict of interest and a violation of wikipedia rules. You should never block anyone for providing information. If there is any problem you can bring it up at talk. It is not libel at all to report about a book written by others or statements made by others. Socafan 12:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're repeatedly reverting to information that is counter to WP:BLP guidelines then obviously there's a problem. (→Netscott) 12:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not revert to information that is counter to WP:BLP guidelines, I added factual information about well-known and often reported allegations made by others such as Greg LeMond or David Walsh. Suppressing information about published books and making racist comments as JzG did is counter to wikipedia policy. Socafan 12:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That information is on the talk page now... I suggest you not bring it to the article space until there's a consensus about the reliability of the information and its merit for inclusion in the Lance Armstrong article. (→Netscott) 12:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous, the book was published, you find information about it on thousands of internet pages, our own Greg LeMond article has the other piece of information, but the Lance Armstrong article is restricted to JzG's fan stuff? Socafan 12:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Suppressing information" is the standard accusation made by POV-pushers. You might want to reconsider your language. You might also wish to consider calming down and actually discussing a properly neutral treatment of the subject rather than screaming "censorship!", which will, I guarantee you, do absolutely nothign to endear you to the admin commuity. Just zis Guy you know? 12:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are the POV-pusher by removing information we have in our own Greg LeMond article and by removing information about a published book. Socafan 12:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you this argumentative in real life? I am an admin, part of what I do (free, gratis and for nothing) is to watch for people making tendentiuous edits, especially to biographies of living individuals, a particuarly hot topic post-Seigenthaler. I have suggested a resolution to you. You are free to ignore that and return to edit-warring, just be aware that you will likely be blocked if you do. Just zis Guy you know? 12:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I told you already, you removed factual information about a published book and well-known statements made by Greg LeMond, already listed at wikipedia. This has nothing to do with unsubstantiated claims like those against Seigenthaler, and your comments at talk show you are not neutral. Socafan 12:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I told you already, you added innuendo and criticism to a WP:BLP and show massive resistance to the idea of debating it; as with so many similar cases you are allowing your determination to tell The Truth^TM that you are completely ignoring well-founded comments regarding the policy problems that raises. I have offered you a solution - to negotiate a properly neutral statement of this and indeed the other content of that POV-tagged section; you appear to prefer to wave your arms and shout. If that's your style, then I will stop wasting my time trying to talk to you and siply block you if you add any critical content to the article without first achieving consensus on Talk. The edict from above - in this case the very top - is that critical material in biographies of living people should be removed immediately and not reinserted until it is properly neutral in tone. Your absolute refusal to accept this will not, I'm afraid, change the fact. So, the choice is yours: debate and rewrite, or edit war and get blocked. I don't much care which. Just zis Guy you know? 13:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to you at the article talk page. Your claims are completely unfounded, and you violated several policies (5 reverts, illegitimate block while in a conflict of interest, NPOV, racism, condescending language, talk and signature at page where it is not allowed). Keep off my talk page. Socafan 13:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3rd opinion

My wording at WP:3O was somewhat imprecise and underinformed. The overall activity did not follow the spirit of the page, if you follow me. I can give details if you like.

Either Disagreement about including drug abuse allegations against Lance Armstrong or Disagreement about application of [[WP:BLP|Wikipedia rules on biographies of living people] would be better.

I believe that your original listing was made in good faith and that it was relatively short and neutral. But the reply did not; that's not your fault. The reversions aren't helpful any which way. It appears that you two have a larger problem. I have some doubt that a third opinion will resolve the situation.

Also, I just noticed the above discussion. It looks like someone else is already involved. Maurreen 13:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just took a couple glimpses above, and you guys need more than a third opinion. Maurreen 13:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, maybe if someone calm helps out at the Lance Armstrong talk page? Socafan 13:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

You are in danger of violating WP:NPA. [6], [7], [8]. And for the record it's not "unfounded allegations as I see them", it's a non-neutral statement of controversy in a biography of a livng person. That is the problem. As I said, I find it humorous that you used the word "neutral" in this edit summary, when the entire tone of your request was the precise opposite. Just zis Guy you know? 14:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You make unfounded allegations about me making unfounded allegations. I do not make any allegations, I just report what others said. Your warning is ridiculous, restrict your talk to appropriate pages and keep off here. Socafan 14:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. You need to read for comprehension, not just looking for an argument. Just zis Guy you know? 14:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for 24 hours for tendentious editing at Lance Armstrong. Just zis Guy you know? 14:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page is locked

And here's why.

First: a few people have told you now why we have a particular problem with biographies of living persons. In this case, the overall tone of the section must reflect the fact that Armstrong has never had a positive dope test, has never been banne dor suspended for doping, and has either won or had dropped every court case which even tangentially relates to doping. He is an international figure, very rich, has superb lawyers, and is a friend of the most powerful man on the planet. If we say a single word about him which is not impeccably sourced and stated in the most studiously neutral terms, this project could be wiped out overnight. That is why I care about this, even though I don't care much about the subject. Your agitation is wholly misplaced. What you need to do is not keep saying the same thing only louder, you need to say it better, and that means going to the Talk page of the article and discussing a properly neutral form of words, and in particular showing how reliable that book is (or rather, isn't) as a source. Your claim to be pursuing "factual content" is weak - for example, you don't appear to have included the fact that LeMond apologised to Armstrong and said his remarks had been taken out of context something I'd have considered relevant. How hard did you try to verify the neutrality of what you were inserting?

Second: as I've pointed out more than once, this Talk page does not belong to you. Nobody WP:OWNs any page on Wikipedia. We cut people a lot of slack in respect of User and Talk pages, but that does not include removing active discussions in respect of content, and interactions with at least one admin. You're removing replies to aggressive statements you've made, sometimes correcting errors or asking directly pertinent questions. This is disruptive. You have turned what should have been a two-minute job - telling you to rewrite the content in more neutral terms - into several hours of battling your singleminded determination to have things put your way. You seem very determined to start a fight you can't possibly win, in order to push your preferred wording. Why? What on earth do you hope to gain?

I'll unlock the page when the block expires. Just zis Guy you know? 15:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page has been unlocked for a while. Block is expired. I hope you will now follow the usual advice for the passionate and take the time to word your edits in line with WP:NPOV and especially WP:BLP. Never foret that Lance Armstrong has been officially cleared fo every allegation, and the balance must reflect that. Just zis Guy you know? 13:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An ArbCom case has been filed because I think JzG abuses admin power to push his POV: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#JzG. Socafan 00:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurrah! My first. Now I can be a proper rouge admin. Just zis Guy you know? 09:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your tone shows you have no interest whatsoever to find a solution for the conflict. Socafan 16:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Please try to be more civil with other Wikipedians, and to assume good faith. JzG and others are raising valid concerns about your edits, and you are dismissing them with great hostility, in a way that makes civil discussion all but impossible. In order to move forward with the article, compromise is an important skill on both sides. When you make clear that you are unwilling to engage in it, you are also making clear that you are unwilling to work toward any version of the article other than one that flatters your own views. This is unacceptable. Phil Sandifer 17:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you see incivility? JzG makes incivil comment on and on, [9] [10] I do not. The only thing you may see as incivil is removing comments here, but what shall I do if they insist to repeat unfounded allegations over and over, refusing to discuss the content at the article talk page? If they wanted to raise valid concerns they would go there. What they do instead is just harrassment. Socafan 17:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your assumption that JzG is harassment is a large part of why the situation is at a deadlock. Consider going and looking at the points being raised - there are some very valid concerns about your phrasings on things - for example, [11] is problematic - it suggests that Carmichael is prima faciae a bad egg, and offers no real context for the accusations - were they investigated, by who, etc. Repeating accusations with no hint of response is not a neutral presentation of facts, even if they are sourced. Phil Sandifer 17:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for bringing up a specific point. This is the way how things can be discussed and we can do it at the article talk page. JzG never chose it. He instead spammed my talk page with unubstantiated allegations, refused to discuss specific points at the article talk page, made derogatory comments here and elsewhere, revert warred here and elsewhere, broke several rules and blocked me twice and my talk page and the article each once while in a conflict of interest. If you have a better suggestion how to call this I am interested. To me it is harrassment. Socafan 17:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And it may well be. The question is what the better goal is - causing JzG to be reprimanded, or fixing the article. Because the two are, in this case, mutually exclusive. Phil Sandifer 18:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JzG abused admin powers and harrasses me. He deserves to be reprimanded. Doing so improves the chances to fix the article as his attempts to boycott this have already cost a lot of time. Socafan 19:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Socafan, I apologise for being somewhat obnoxious over the Armstrong issue. Having reviewed it, I did not give nearly as much explanation as I normally would of the paramount need to maintain a very carefully neutral stance regarding the doping allegations, per WP:BLP, Jimbo's edict and WP:NPOV#Undue weight. It appears from later exchanges that our usage of English may well be somewhat different, perhaps causing comments to be misinterpreted, and there is no doubt that my awareness of Armstrong's several lawsuits coloured my interpretation of the urgency of the matter. I note that there are now sufficient eyes on the article to give good gorunds to believe that an appropriately neutral treatment of the issue can be found. I have learned from this episode. I hope you have as well. Just zis Guy you know? 16:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, I had not expected that. I am impressed, honestly. Can we start discussing at the article talk pages now? Socafan 16:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already there, and have been for some time. Just zis Guy you know? 18:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 10:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

YOu have reverted Lance Armstrong four times in under 24 hours and show no signs of doing what you urge others to do, namely take it to Talk. Just zis Guy you know? 14:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were already told that you should not block others in a content dispute you are involved in. This is abusive and you were warned already. [12] [13] [14] protecting a page to deal with a user who has recently brought an arbcom case against you is TERRIBLE practice Furthermore, you counted wrong, I only reverted 3 times, so I did not break a rule. Socafan 14:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I count four times ([15] [16] [17] [18]) in which you reverted "an approved cream" to "a cream." The first three were more substantial; the last only changed this one point, but it's clearly a point that's in contention and you shouldn't be reverting it so much. When you return, bring it to the talk page and stop edit warring. Mango juice^talk 18:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of the fact that a tiny fraction of a version that had been wholesalely reverted three times by others would qualify as a fourth revert. I had explained why the wording was factually wrong. I however see that I should not have done that.

The admin broke an even more important rule: Block policy#When blocking may not be used: Use of blocks to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. That is, sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute.

Generally, caution should be exercised before blocking users who may be acting in good faith.

As I outlined above, the admin has a history of abuse of his powers. As arbitration failed [19] and no one even made a suggestion how to resolve the dispute that has been ongoing for quite some time now, even after I asked on all administrators' talk page, I ask for help. Socafan 23:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations like this don't really help. The 3RR rule is to prevent edit wars. From one perspective, you technically violated it by reverting a certain change 4 times; from another view you assert that you did not technically violated it because you reverted progressively less. Regardless, you did repeatedly switch back between revisions of text when you should have just let it be and discussed it on the talk page. Doing that does not result in the text you think is right being included; these were contentious edits and you need to discuss the matter before making changes. —Centrx→talk • 00:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your help. As you would have noted had you carefully read, this is not the question I was asking help for. I acknowledge that what I did was wrong. But what the admin did was wrong, too, there is a rule for it, and he broke it after being warned for similar abuses before. We have longlasting content disputes. Please help with this, what means are there to resolve such conflicts after arbitration was rejected? Socafan 04:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try WP:AN —— Eagle (ask me for help) 04:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I have not much hope as we had already discussed there without any result but I will try again when the block expires. Socafan 04:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bother to post to WP:AN since I already did that at the time. We do not have "longlasting content disputes", we have one dispute, of a few days' duration, which centres on your determination to spin the allegations against Lance Armstrong (a subject on which I previously had no significant edit history) in the most damaging way possible, contrary to WP:BLP. You reverted edits by three separate admins back to your preferred text, and you appear from your edit summaries to believe that your version must stay until we persuade you otherwise - which looks very much like a case of MPOV and is completely the wrong way round. Per WP:BLP and long-standing practice the onus is on you to persuade other editors of the merit of your edits, your reversal of this to a point where you edit and then insist that others justify any change is unacceptable. Your views are at odds with those of other editors, the time has come to talk before you edit rather than editing and then reverting and invoking Talk if anybody reverts your changes. Just zis Guy you know? 12:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have longlasting content disputes over the Armstrong article, you abused administrative powers to get an advantage even after having been warned for doing it in the past. Thus I go to the administrator's noticeboard. Socafan 11:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have a short-lasting content dispute with several other editors, including three admins, on that article. I gained precisely no advantage by blocking you; the main advantage was to give Steve Hart time to rework the disputed section to make it much more readable and reduce the appearance of sly innuendo and guilt-by-association. Per Jimbo's latest comment on this type of thing: The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia, of ALL KINDS, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim. [20]; this is a premise you have consistently failed to accept. Just zis Guy you know? 15:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You violated several rules. There is no excuse for that. Socafan 23:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I enforced one very important rule: WP:BLP. Thus far there appear to be no takers for your novel interpretation otherwise. Just zis Guy you know? 07:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR violation

I do not think I can be accused of being involved in your current dispute over the Lance Armstrong article. I regard your recent edits as violating the 3RR--A Y Arktos\^talk 01:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing vandalism does not break 3RR. Removing POV-tags and requests for citations without consensus is vandalism. Socafan 01:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The edits involved were not vandalism in my view but content warring. Content warring is covered by the Three-revert rule which is policy. If others feel your way, then as the policy states Any reversions beyond this limit should be performed by somebody else, to serve the vital purpose of showing that the community at large is in agreement over which of two (or more) competing versions is correct.--A Y Arktos\^talk 01:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a content dispute. The "undoing vandalism" excuse is so old it has whiskers, and it never works. --Calton | Talk 01:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My fourth edit was solely restoring a POV-tag and requests for citations of unsourced quotes, that is no content, it is undoing vandalism and thus not breaking 3RR. Socafan 01:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, tags aren't content? Man, that's a new excuse -- no, wait it isn't. Tags are content, your interesting take on them notwithstanding.--Calton | Talk 02:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our comments on respective talk pages overlapped. My comments about the 3RR apply to all editors. I am somewhat interested in Armstrong, also Landis and enjoy watching the TdF. I don't have a strong view though whether or not the section is POV or otherwise - thus in the case of the Armstrong article I am not interested in the content - only the behaviour. The other user presently involved seems well aware of the 3RR. If you want tags restored, please use the talk page to state and another editor can make the edit for you if they agree with your request and rationale.--A Y Arktos\^talk 01:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I have reviewed again the 3RR page and don't find anything to support your point. However, I am happy to be corrected if you can point me to a guidleine that supports your assertion. In the absence of a guideline that states restoring POV tags is not covered by the 3RR, please use the talk page before you breach the number of reverts in a 24 hour period. Regards--A Y Arktos\^talk 02:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please just think about it: What is the sense of a POV-tag if it can just be removed by someone without any discussion, claiming there is nothing controversial? The very fact that there is someone who reinserts the tag shows there is a dispute. Of course this someone can be a nerd who sees a dispute where no one else does. This is not the case here, as can be easily seen at the talk page where Calton did not even bother to participate in the discussion. Removing a POV-tag without consensus is vandalism, as is removing requests for citations of unsourced quotes, there is nothing controversial about the fact that a quote in a quote section needs to be sourced. Socafan 02:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try a straw poll on the talk page. I note that another user supported the revert of the POV tags. Did the tags get there initially by concensus?--A Y Arktos\^talk 02:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for evading my point again

Nope, precisely the point. What you're peddling, no one's buying -- especially your lame, overused, and long-rejected excuse of redefining "vandalism" to suit your side of a content dispute. Your attempt to drag in fascism is particularly amusing, though. --Calton | Talk 02:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC) Note: making a comment that you solicited is not trolling, and calling it that is plain dishonest. --Calton | Talk 13:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will restore the tags once but not more than that. The next stage is definitely a straw poll - this is a collaborative encyclopaedia. I am not buying into the JzG issue at this time, plenty of others are there expressing their opinions and I have only x amount of energy and now need to go and do the dishes!--A Y Arktos\^talk 02:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping to resolve the conflict. I however find it sad that apparently there's honour among ~~thieves~~ admins. Normal editors easily get blocked by discretion of them, but if an admin breaks several rules rarely do the other ones do anything about it. This undermines the credibility of adminship and thus undermines the whole project. Socafan 02:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I really am terribly sorry about that. I'm not quite sure how I did it. Since you were looking at the page anyway, though, would you do me a favor and look at the First Family of the United States article, in particular the Ford and Nixon sections? A malicious administrator has listed it as a hoax, but a cursory reading of this reveals that this is not so. Please look at it and give me your honest opinion. Please also leave a comment on its talk page.

History21 04:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)History21[reply]

Lance Armstrong

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Take the work week off to chill out a little and come back refreshed on Friday. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC) I had made a 4th revert in good faith as explained at the talk page of the admin AYArktos who had pointed out that it should not have been done. He accepted this. Good faith reverts do not fall under the rule. As removing a POV-tag without consensus is vandalism, blocking me and not the other editor who did it three times even though the rules explicitly say it should not been done more than once is double standards and just another example of abuse to push POV at the Lance Armstrong article.[reply]

You returned to edit warring immediately after your previous block expired. Enough. I'm surprised you weren't blocked for longer. Mango juice^talk 06:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)}}[reply]

My post on the talk page of admin AYArktos:

I am sorry, I was wrong. WP:Vandalism explains that dispute tags should not be removed twice during a 24 h period. However, it does not count as "simple vandalism", and apparently "complicated vandalism" is not exempt from the 3RR:

Improper use of dispute tags

Dispute tags are an important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that the dispute is settled. As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period. Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus. Instead, follow WP:CON and accept that some edits will not meet consensus. Please note that placing or removal of dispute tags does not count as simple vandalism, and therefore the reverting of such edits is not exempt from the three-revert rule.

I apologize and will not do it again. However, I ask you to restore the tag, as there is a content dispute. Furthermore, I ask you to think over your question. Can a POV-tag be placed consensually? If there was consensus, no POV-tag would be needed.

I ask you for a third time to review the actions of both sides. JzG clearly violated several rules, even after having been warned by another administrator. Will you take care of that, too? Socafan 02:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He She did restore the tag as it is vandalism to remove it. The block policy says Generally, caution should be exercised before blocking users who may be acting in good faith. Not even the other admin knew the rules about tag removal and vandalism, how should I? Interestingly, vandal Calton was not blocked nor was JzG who violated several rules as pointed out at the administrator's noticeboard. Socafan 11:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You state Not even the other admin knew the rules about tag removal and vandalism - but I did know the rules; I suggested you were in breach of them and challenged you to find a policy or guideline that showed otherwise. I did not block you though, only warned you at which point you ceased the behaviour. I am somewhat disappointed to find someone else blocking you after the discussion and after the behaviour had ceased. I do not propose however to undo another admin's block. Please note that other users' behaviour is not strictly relevant in discussing whether or not you have breached policies and/or guidelines.--A Y Arktos\^talk 11:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking someone who acted in good faith violates the rules and needs to be undone. Had you been aware of the fact how tag removal is treated you had showed me the rules, it is quite explicit. And you would have warned the vandal, would you not? Using double standards is bad taste. Socafan 12:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having just been blocked for WP:3RR, your first action on returning was to repeat the offence. It has been made abundantly clear to you that per WP:BLP the burden is firmly on you to justify your edits, and revert-warring is not part of that process. Per WP:CON, on Wikipedia at least, consensus does not mean unanimity. How many times is it going to be necessary to point out WP:BLP before you begin to follow the proper process, of achieving consensus on Talk before adding problematic content? Your current practice of adding problematic content and then demanding that any reversion be justified to your satisfaction is very clearly against policy and guidelines. WP:NOT a soapbox. Just zis Guy you know? 11:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You violated several rules and even again you take advantage of my block to make an article into a redirect against consensus: Pierre_Ballester. The last edit I made was correcting a severe example of POV-pushing - falsification of his UCI rank in 1996. Socafan 12:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying that, but there are remarkably few takers for your complaint. As I have explained more than once, there was no consensus to merge to Lance Armnstrong, but no consensus is needed to merge two articles the majority of whose text is identical and relates to a co-authored book by the two subjects, which is what I did. As I made clear at the time, there is no prejudice against turning them back into articles once some substantive biographical data becomes available, no admin tools were used in the process and nothing is unavailable to non-admin users. The major beneficiary of your block was Steve, who substantially revised the disputed section, very much for the better. Characterising something which might be a genuine error as "POV pushing" (let alone severe POV-pushing) is also problematic. It appears that as far as you are concerned anything which is not critical is severe POV-pushing; perhaps that explains why you are having such difficulty with that article. Just zis Guy you know? 12:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the POV tag, while in my view inappropriate, is not the basis of the four reverts I reported. Three times you changed "an approved cream" to "a cream", and then you reverted to re-add the paragraph involving 'because of his cancer treatment'. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is two different things. There is no rule forbidding four different edits at one page, in fact many users do so. What you write just shows again the harrassment of users who do not accept an wikipedia article of an athlete who is from the same country as most editors of the English version to become a fanzine. Socafan 10:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Intent of the policy. Any time you want to stop wikilawyering is fine. Just zis Guy you know? 11:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intent of the policy is not harrassing editors who want to write encyclopedia articles rather than fanzines. Socafan 11:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intent of the policy is stopping people who refuse to accept the views of others from disrupting Wikipedia. Just zis Guy you know? 15:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is neither chilling out nor taking the week off. Really, go do something else for a while. Practice your other hobbies. Wikipedia will still be here when you get back.- A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shame on you, reply on your talk page. Socafan 11:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your behaviour is frustrating - please reflect how you could resolve the dispute better--A Y Arktos\^talk 12:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not called anybody a troll--A Y Arktos\^talk 12:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove warnings from your talk page or replace them with offensive content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. If you continue to remove or vandalize warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. --A Y Arktos\^talk 12:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I mistook Calton's "enabling a troll" comment as yours.

You call me frustrating without pointing out anything specific and then threaten to block me because I reply on your talk page rather than here? I call that frustrating. May I place a warning on your talk page now? Hilarious. Socafan 12:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely

I believe you have exhausted the community's patience with your continual edit warring in violation of WP:BLP and WP:3RR, in addition to harrassment of anyone who calls you on it, and consequently have blocked you from editing indefinitely. I have asked for review on WP:ANI. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Socafan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have not broken any rule and complain about the continued harrassment by admins over their POV at the Lance Armstrong article

Decline reason:

You have not been "harrassed" by admins. You have repeatedly broken various Wikipedia rules and guidelines and been repeatedly warned for doing so and given small blocks. You have now exhausted the patience of the Wikipedia community due to your disruption and therefore have been correctly blocked permanently. Your response is not contrition or an offer of changed behaviour; instead you go on the attack. For that reason, I decline to unblock you. --➨ ЯEDVERS 14:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Since when shall editors be blocked for "not having been harrassed"? There is a content dispute, the admin who blocked me three times violated several rules, I have the right to complain about this. The last admin who had blocked did it even though I had acted in good faith reverting vandalism. I have not broken any rule since but showed that at least four other editors showed concerns about POV at the Lance Armstrong article, too, so there is nothing to apologize for. What you do is a disservice to the project. Socafan 20:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support community ban

Copied from AN/I

IMO, Socafan is a purely a disruptive editor here to challenge Wikipedia policy and administrators. Socafan's early edits show a familarity with Wikipedia policy leading me to think the user is a sockpuppet. Why are we continuing to tolerate this users continued disruptive behavior? Socafan is adding nothing of value to the project. I think a community ban or RFAr is needed ASAP. --FloNight ^talk 14:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse (obviously). The above unblock request makes perfectly plain Socafan's continued belief that only his POV is neutral, which has been the problem all along. That and his refusal to accept that WP:BLP absolutely requires a small-c conservative approach to biographies of living individuals. Just zis Guy you know? 14:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you might have noted, there are wikipedia versions in many languages, and as English is not my first language, yes I was familiar with wikipedia before I created this account. Claiming sockpuppetry for this without even asking violates the policy to assume good faith. As does blocking users who have not violated any policy. And it is hardly surprising that the admin who got warned for abuse of adminship when he used his powers against me in a content dispute supports my block. And surprise, surprise, I had filed an ArbCom case quite some time ago. It got rejected, no one bothered to make a suggestion how to resolve the conflict. When I asked for a third opinion the articles were made redirects without discussion. Socafan 20:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that I had claimed sockpuppetry (although more than one admin does think you are a sock). The way to resolve the conflict was always simple: you have to recognise that the problem lies with you. Your consistent failure to acknowledge even the slightest hint of fault makes this perfectly clear. Just zis Guy you know? 22:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is FloNigh above who speculated about sockpuppetry. I could not reply directly as you are the most frequent visitor of my page, especially when it comes to getting an advantage in perverting the Lance Armstrong into a fanzine. You violated many rules and continue to push POV. Several users complained. Stop your ad nauseam trolling here. Socafan 22:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you repeat your mantra without acknowledging, let alone addressng, the point. The major changes to the Armstrong article were not made by me, I have no significant history on that article other than enforcing WP:BLP, a policy which you seem determined to ignore. As far as I can tell, looking back through your many edits to Talk, you have never once acknowledged even the possibility that there might be any validity whatsoever in any criticism of you or your edits. It appears to em that it is this refusal, more than anythign else, including your tendentious editing of a living person biography, which has resulted in your present block. Just zis Guy you know? 23:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JZG says that he is 'not aware of claiming sockpuppetry'. socafan never claimed that JZG said it. Most puzzling indeed.

You blocked a wrong user

I am not 84.56.29.199 who got blocked for allegedly being me and evading a block. Socafan 22:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your sudden concern for others is touching. Now log out and post again so we can see for ourselves. --Calton | Talk 07:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following this case

As far as I can tell, socafan has been blocked for trying to stop a cabal of users from imprinting their own views onto an article.

He's probably been blocked to prevent him from complaining about the cabal who done so.

= my £0.02

Actually no, Socafan has been blocked because he refused to acknowledge that the responsibility for justifying potentially defamatory edits to a biographical article lies entirely with the editor proposing the changes, and such changes may be removed unless and until said editor is able to achieve consensus to include them. Just zis Guy you know? 16:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I thought wikipedia went on verifiability, not a majority decision.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.9.55.184 (talk • contribs) .

Review Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Users who exhaust the community's patience which states Community bans must be supported by a strong consensus - this ban was.--A Y Arktos\^talk 00:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fakhriya Taha Muhasen

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Fakhriya Taha Muhasen, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. Ryan4314 (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi

I have nominated Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 00:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Socafan! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to these articles, it would greatly help us with the current 272 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

Corey R. Clagett - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Juston R. Graber - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]