User talk:Crimsone/Archive 2

Userpage • Userboxes • Talk page • Contributions • Edit count

This is an

archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page

.

Transphobia

This summarisation has been placed here because it doesn't really belong on the articles talk page. I have written it purely to explain my actions in the unlikely event that it should be nessecary.

I've just realised how long the discussion is on the transphobia talk page, and so feel it prudent to repeat the policies I am responding to -

WP:NPA in light of the many personal attacks made against myself. As such, while I regret becoming involved in anything that remotely resembles a revert war, I have simply gritted my teeth and remained civil throughout the discussion and calmly removed the vandalism each time it has been inserted. Details of warnings are littered throughout the discussion and listed on the IPs talk page. Crimsone 20:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I posted with a warning about possible admin intervention, but an admin stepped in and blocked Lewisranja without leaving a reminder on the Incidents board. If it becomes an issue again, leave a message and I'll try to head things off before the blocking stick needs to be wielded. Captainktainer * Talk 20:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Captainktainer. I most certainly appreciate your time and effort. While I certainly disagree with your initial analysis, and have replied as such to the incident board, I certainly appreciate your efforts in investigating the situation, and respect your right to hold to whatever conclusion you reasonably arrive at. Should this dispute flare up again, I will most certainly request your help. I didn't really want to be this involved in the first place, but sadly over the course of a number of days I was unable to aquire any assistance, leaving me to deal with the situation alone. Once again, my eternal grattitude and kindest regards, Crimsone 21:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At this point it's getting ridiculous. I've reverted his edit and left a very strong warning. Just remember not to get too worked up about things; it's just a darned free encyclopedia, and people come and go. For that matter, sometimes problem users become helpful contributors. My dream scenario would be for the user in question to settle down and become a good contributor, at which point we could all give each other olive branches. In the meantime, however, continued... trouble from this user should be treated firmly. Captainktainer * Talk 22:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Captainktainer. For what it's worth, I completely agree with your above message. I did try the olive branch originally, but sadly couldn't hold it any longer. This time around, I think it best to perhaps simply observe and report where nessecary, rather than to become once more too engaged and involved. Besides, I don't really have either the health or the heart for it :)

Thanks again, Crimsone 22:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

El Gringo

Cheers, I tried to message you before but my itnernet was being slow and I had to get off for

Macedonia. --Robdurbar 21:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

No problem. I'm not one for football, but I know how importantit is to those who are :) Incidentally, I've moved the comments that were posted on the RfCs talk page to the discussion area of the project page to go alongside yours. Crimsone 08:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New userpage!

Well, I've finally done it - I've finished re-creating my userpage. It's actually my first real userpage, and one I quite like at that ;) lol. Now, one thing I do know is that my tastes are sometimes completely oddball to other people, so if anybody has any constructive criticism or positive comments on it, I'd welcome your messages in this section heading. A background colour maybe? Crimsone 08:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

If I came back a bit snide over at AN/I...it's been a crummy day overall, but no reason for me to be rude. Best wishes.--MONGO 22:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Not at all Mongo. It was a sharp and concise answer, but certainly not snide. I understand feeling crummy perfectly, and you especially have my respect for even stopping by to say as much and apologise. I can only apologise for needing to ask you to clarify your meaning, and assure you that your comment was perfectly fine, and that perhaps I could have phrased my question a little better. Kindest regards, --Crimsone 22:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem!

If there's one thing I can't stand on WP, it's mindless POV-revert warriors who lash out with personal attacks when they don't get their way. Sadly, they're quite common. Cheers, Kasreyn 00:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't see your diff request till now

Didn't see your diff request for Dasondas on the personal attacks page, put diffs up there now. He's also vandalizing circumcision now and i'm tired of reverting him Lordkazan 21:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have visited the report. Details to be found there. --Crimsone

Contesting personal attack warning

Hello Crimsone. I don't believe that saying that someone "sympathizes with intolerant fringe groups" constitutes a personal attack when their sympathies towards certain groups have been published extensively on Wikipedia and the "intolerant" and "fringe" nature of such groups is widely (although clearly not universally) recognized. It does cut close to the bone, no doubt about it, but IMO it does not cross the line. I appreciate that you may feel differently. "Bigot" is clearly a personal attack, and perhaps it would have been best had I avoided that, however you apparently failed to consider lordkazan's immediately prior post to me on my personal talk page calling my views intolerant and bigoted -- and then viciously attacking deeply-held religious beliefs. That is what I call a personal attack, and it provoked a response. Please have a look. Also, I don't appreciate being attacked personally towards the bottom of the Talk:Circumcision page; it is in connection with this rather heated exchange, and since you have chosen to become involved I'd sincerely appreciate it if you would have a look there as well. Sorry we are meeting under disagreeable circumstances, but thanks for your attention all the same. Dasondas 21:54, 8 September 2006(UTC)

In that first diff I provided on your talk page in particular, you were commenting on the contributor instead of the contribution (see

WP:NPA

), and doing so in a negative way. At the end of the edit you also added the short sentence "You are a bigot", which is a direct and personal attack. I will happily assume if you allow me to that you were not aware that such conduct constitutes a personal attack on wiki, and you could demonstrate this by removing/rewording the offensive content of those diffs and making no further attacks if you wish to. Besides, it was only a second level warning - if it was truly unintentional it's nothing to worry about. If you continue to make the mistake though, it may escalate. As per your request, I will indeed check the page, but I would appreciate it if you could provide me some diffs that show your perspective on it, as my time is at a premium right now with other issues both on and off wiki :)

Please be aware though, that I may be a little while in getting back to you, and I have no bias on the issue. I will involve myself only in the capacity of trying to diffuse the situation as I feel appropriate, and my conclusions may not side with yourself, depending on what I find. --Crimsone 22:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're not the only one whose time is at a premium. I don't really appreciate the patronizing tone I'm detecting in your interaction with me, and it's not making me feel like continuing the dialogue much further. I think that since you chose to jump in without looking around first you're the one with the obligation to investigate the circumstances without making me jump through hoops. You claim on your user page that "professionalism" is an ideal you strive for here; IMO being professional would mean taking some of your time to finish a job you voluntarily accepted. Lordkazan made a vicious personal attack against me on talk:Dasondas immediately prior to the incident with which you are concerning yourself. If you don't want to be considered unfair, it would be best for you to find something to say on that score. Furthermore, at very nearly the same time he was dragging you into this, lordkazan was busy making a personal attack against me at Talk:circumcision which I now want you to delete since you have taken the initiative. IMO you are letting yourself be used by a highly irresponsible editor; you would probably be doing yourself a favor if you spent a little time researching the recent edits and comments of the person you have chosen to defend. You want me to think you are not biased, Crimsone; well we all have our responsibilities here. Please finish what you have begun. Thanks. Dasondas 22:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't consider me an ideal person to offer you an outside opinion, then that's fine and by all means please say so. I'm afraid that here was no patronising tone present in my message. I merely sought to state my position, explain why, and explain also that I am very busy and may take time to get back to you (giving the reasons why).

I don't need to investigate a whole situation to decide if a diff I'm provided with constitutes a personal attack as it either violates WP:NPA or it doesn't. Being attacked isn't an excuse for attacking. As I say, it was only a second level warning. All I tried to do was to assume good faith.

You asked that I investigate, and that's fine, but in doing so it's not too far removed of me to ask that you provide an example of what I'm looking for. I didn't volunteer to investigate an entire dispute - merely a WP:PAIN report. Provide me with a diff on the WP:PAIN report regarding yourself, and if it does violate NPA, I will indeed have a word about that too. I apreciate your right to your opinion of what I'm letting myself in for, but I would like to assure you on this basis that I am not allowing myself to be used.

As my sole voluntary role is in WP:PAIN in this instance I don't have to go any further, though if you want me to investigate I shall do so if you first provide the examples. If there's anything I can do I'll do it, and if I feel it would be better passed to a higher form of dispute resolution I will recommend that instead. I'm sorry if my message in any way offended you, but there was no intention to do so. --Crimsone 22:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries (though you did message just as I was about to go to bed!) As far as I'm concerned, Crimsone, you have acted entirely properly. You replied to the report and that is all that you are 'obliged' to do. Dasondas - Crimsone has no obligation to look further into any dispute, and you can always ask for help elsewhere. However, you will find that many pages - such as the requests for comment or the three revert report page - ask for the complaining editor to provide diffs etc. Remember that users who help mediate disoutes will have to deal with many at a time, whilst the complaining user need only report one. --Robdurbar 23:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the dispute

Crimsone,

The amount of time and thought you have now given to this dispute is greatly appreciated and has made me comfortable that you are indeed giving this issue the attention that it unfortunately requires. I have read your comments in their entirety, as well as those of the other party to this dispute. It may take me some time to formulate a complete response, since, as you can now see clearly, the mere attempt to diffuse this and move on is generating a substantial number of new attacks against me that violate WP:NA and WP:CIV among others. However in the interest of trying my best to close this issue so we can all move on to more productive activities I will outline the following:

I notice that I myself admitted on your talk page that using "bigot" was a personal attack. However now having had a chance to study WP:NA closely I believe that if this case were to move towards arbitration I would be able to mount a competitive defense that the use of that term in this context did not in fact violate WP:NA. I fully understand how you may have come to that preliminary conclusion based on the information you were originally given and the time constraint you felt yourself under, so my above contention is not a personal reflection on you in any way even though I disagree with your conclusion. My proposal is that I apologize to you, as the responsible administrative authority for the Wiki community in this instance, for having made an ill-considered statement that I should have known would have created controversy and placed and unnecessary burden on the resources of the community. Furthermore, as part of this proposed settlement and as a demonstration of good faith, I will agree to not pursue any of the various administrative avenues open to me under WP:NA WP:CIV, WP:BLOCK and others for any action taken by user:lordkazan up to this point; although I will retain my full rights to do so for any action that may be taken after the publishing of this proposal. In exchange for the above, you will agree to remove the npa2 from the record (to the full extent that Wiki technology allows) and agree to not post any other type of warning or further statement about this case; my intent is that the suggested apology to the Wiki community stand on its own and that in light of the further information now at your dispoal you will do your best to undo the effects on me of the administrative decision you made yesterday. For reasons that I hope you can see now, I cannot agree to apologize to user:lordkazan for anything I have said or done up to this point; I would prefer to leave the Wiki community, although I would be saddened to have to do so. He is obviously free himself to remove any or all of my comments placed on his talk page at his complete discretion. My apology would be to the community, through your good office, for the reasons stated above. Finally, I note that this proposal would not require the acquiescence of user:lordkazan as he would not be required to do anything; my agreement to not pursue administrative actions as noted above is an agreement I would be making with you, not with user:lordkazan.

Anyhow, that's what I've got, Crimsone; I want to sincerely thank you again for the hard thought and work that you put into this since we last communicated. I confess that I thought you had washed your hands of the situation, and it gratifies me to see how wrong I was. Dasondas 22:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thankyou dasondas. I will refrain from accepting or rejecting the above proposal for the moment pending some thought on the matter (not to opposing party - this does not indicate bias. I must first understand the proposal fully.)

However, the npa warning is a distinct issue that is definable on it's own grounds. Any removal of it by myself without good reason in accordance to WP:NPA would be counter to policy, and counter to my own stated conclusion at this time. As preliminary to your proposal, you will need to demonstrate to my why it should be removed before I am able to do so, especially with the warning having been agreed as fair under the WP:NPA policy. I sincerely hope you can understand this position. --Crimsone 22:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this, I must also make mention of the fact that local time is 12:08 AM, and I have been dealing with this issue for the last 9 hours, not to mention the couple of hours I spent researching it last night - I need a little bit of a break for the moment. --Crimsone 23:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA gives a wide variety of categories and examples of what are considered personal attacks under the policy. The most appropriate category, based upon the Wiki-given examples is the following: Accusatory comments such as "George is a troll", or "Laura is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom. I have not made any comment repeatedly nor in bad faith, so the question comes down to what constitutes sufficient venom. Given the unrelentless attacks against me, many of which violate WP:NPA and WP:CIV, many others of which are simply lies (and many of which are now spread in so many places throughout Wiki-land that I don't know if I would be able to track them all down and defend myself if that's how I chose to use my time) and given this user's many derogatory comments regarding, and repeated denigration of, what he thinks are my religious beliefs I don't believe that my comment contained nearly sufficient venom to constitute a policy violation. If I ran around in public yelling that I thought atheists should be criminally prosecuted for their beliefs and practices, I would indeed be committing bigotted behavior. Wouldn't I? It may or may not be appropriate in such a case then to publically call me a bigot, depending on the specific situation and the attendant "venom" of the charge. This case is the same. I believe that what I said was true and did not violate Wiki policy, but I am seeking this solution because it is preferable to me than spending all of that time in various administrative and mediation forums defending myself against this person, and I sincerely do not want to tax the limited DR and Admin resources of the community with a furtherance of this dispute. Arbitration is time consuming for everybody involved and the number of admin complaints I am now contemplating filing against user:lordkaza is substantial. I note that user:lordkazan has continued to make numerous insulting and policy-violating statements against me even though I ceased communicating with or responding to him many hours ago and despite his being engaged simultaneously by two administrators while he is making these attacks. I think my proposal is both very generous and more than fair, and I will take this opportunity to state that I am somewhat disappointed with the Wiki-organization for not yet having found a way to stifle the substantial fraction of user:lordkazan's commentary that is so vile, out of control and does nothing to contribute to the bettering of the encyclopedia. Evenhandedness is the only appropriate starting point, but it can become a form of bias when the merits of the case are shown to favor one side over another. Anyhow I regret that I won't be able to continue this dialogue today, but barring unforseen circumstances I'll be taking a look tomorrow. Dasondas 23:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:NPA policy has this to say...

Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks. Stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack — it is a statement regarding the actions of the user, not a statement about the user. There is a subtle difference between "You are a troll" and "You are acting like a troll", but "You seem to be making statements to provoke people" is even better, as it means the same without descending to name-calling.

The above policy section makes it clear that such statements as You are a troll constitute a personal attack, while you are acting like a troll is not ideal (and is likely incivil), but does not constitue a personal attack. The policy section is specifically written to account for just this kind of behaviour, and makes no distinction over whether the given statement is factual or untrue. It is given as a specific example of what would constitute sufficient venom - if it is intended, it is considered venomous. Besides this, there can indeed be personal attacks outside of the stated description. The description is a guide to what a personal attack is, and may not nessecarily be comprehensive. The reason for this is that the policy against personal attacks is there to maintain a wall against disruptive incivility - it's spirit is such that it makes no distiction on whether offence is intended from comments that are quite likely to cause is, and is indeed is intended to be all the stronger if offence was intended. It's purpose is to ensure that comments such as those it cites are not made in order to avoid causing offence to another user whether intended or not.

Further, the policy cites specific examples over what does and does not constitute a personal attack, including negative comments about other users - "You are a bigot" is indeed a very personal comment, and is covered as if it were the same sort of statement as "you are a troll" - whether the statement is factual or not makes no difference.

Having actually discussed this issue over at ANI recently, where the same conclusions were reached, it is unlikely that even the ArbCom will take a different view of this It is indeed a personal attack as defined by WP:NPA. If no offence was intended by the statement, then you should indeed apologise for any offence intended, and if offence was indeed the goal (though I shall assume good faith and assume that it was not), then you should indeed apologise for it.

My interpretation of your statement is in perfect line with WP:NPA, as has been confirmed. I would suggest that you obtain yet another opinion of this interpretation should you disagree with it, as you would clearly prefer not to go to arbitration if you can help it, and as above, I very much doubt that ArbCom would disagree with this view, and I believe they would most likely consider any attempt to use the policy in disagreement to be WP:Wikilawyering.

With regards to Lordkazans recent actions, you will note that I and others have spent a great deal of time on the issue, and I personally have even issued an npa2 (much to his disagreement). If I am to follow the "letter of the law" in Lordkazans case, I must do so with yourself also.

As Robdurbar has stated, and myself also, what is important now is that both yourself and Lordkazan, even if you can't see each others perspectives, must assume good faith in each other. In this situation, it appears that you have the ability to break the stalemate by following my advice on your talk page. It's a way out of the dispute that will resolve the edit war AND remove the npa warning from your page. It certainly isn't very much effort, especially considering what you would otherwise need to do to resolve this dispute. It should be noted also that niether yourself or Lordkazan are likely to get through arbcom without a scratch - one will undoubtedly come out of it worse off than the other, but you will both suffer from it, even if only through stress. At least this way, an article can be improved in the process, and you will demonstrate (both of you) that you are capable of resolving disputes amicably, which will earn you far more respect than needing an ArbCom decision to settle it for you, and will unlock an article so that those other people who are trying to improve it won't be affected by this. The important thing here is to put this in the past, and to continue amicably in the wiki spirit and enjoy doing so, as this is surely the reason for participating in the first place. --Crimsone 00:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You like lordkazan, you can have him

Based on your recent disgusting defense of lordkazan's indefensible positions in an unsolicited response to CrazyRussians comments on lordkazan's talkpage, my proposal to you as to how to resolve our dispute is off the table. Your continued suggestion that I actually apologize for my very mild response to the incessant stream of vile, degenerate, intolerant trash that pollutes every page that lordkazan visits is laughable. Please go away; you are making things worse.Dasondas 02:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, no, I did not defend lord kazakstan - I pointed out the factual accuracy of the statement. A mild response it certainly was, but it was never the less a personal attack under the rules You don't have to apologise - that was a means to demonstrate good faith - you could find another way I'm sure. As to the rest of the proposal, there's nothing wrong with it that anybody else has seen, and it's something that Lordkazan has agreed to. I proposed the a solution to stop the edit war on the article, and to resolve a dispute beween the two of you.

You can take or leave the proposal you have before you, and I did indeed warn you that I wouldn't be biased (and haven't been). If you want to take it to ArbCom, then that's fine, but you will have caused the solution to fail - nobody else.

And as somebody that has given you a truly rediculous amount of my time, please do not accuse me of anything when I have in fact done nothing to be accused of. You can see from the discussion that I have had all afternoon with Lordkazan that I do not defend him. I didn't say that Lordkazan's position was defensible - I said that it wasn't anti-semetic, and CrazyRussian agreed that he himself was not being anti-semetic. Personally, I find Lordkazans position on the specific question he was given quite disagreeable, but it is his right to hold that position - especially in his own userpages. --Crimsone 03:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, I have already sincerely thanked you for the time you are spending -- but I need to remind you that it is not me to whom you are giving this time; it is lordkazan because he initiated the administrative procedure. I think this is a huge waste of time, but unfortunately it has become necessary. Second it is possible to advance anti-Semitic and Islamophobic POVs on some issues without necessarily being an anti-Semite or Islamophobe. There is no doubt that lordkazan harbors and loudly expresses some anti-Semitic and Islamophobic positions. Whether or not he is an anti-Semite or Islamophobe is another question. I have my opinion; you have a right to yours. I don`t believe that CrazyRussian agreed that lordkazan was not being anti-Semitic; he didn`t commit himself one way or the other on this point. Third, if the solution fails, it fails. I will be no more to blame for rejecting it than you will be for formulating it. It is unfortunate that you chose to reject my generous counter-proposal while it was still on the table, because it may well have avoided an exceedingly time consuming process for all of us. Dasondas 03:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, much of the time I spent on it was in research. More of the time was in an attempt to calm Lordkazan down and get him to realise the mistakes of his conduct in the dispute, and was successful to a degree. This was for your direct benefit. This doesn't stem from the WP:PAIN report - that was a seperate and distinct issue.

I could not accept your couter proposal for one reason - I could not remove the NPA2 because it was given for good reason in accordance with the policy.

For reference, Crazy russians exact quote was While I am not suggesting that you personally are motivated by anti-semitic animus Crimsone 03:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

advocating the criminalization of circumcision is both anti-Semitic and Islamophobic

In your own words over at another talkpage, you state that anti-Semitism is hatred of or discrimination against Jewish people for being Jewish. Well, Crimsone, circumcision is very much about being Jewish and Muslim, and relentelessly advocating for the criminalization of this fundamental practice is discrimination. It does not matter that the advocate discusses human rights or anything else he thinks or believes might aid the cause. It does not matter whether he sincerely believes in the arguments he is advancing; the position is anti-Semitic and Islamophobic, and it is a highly relevant and legitimate to examine whether the purveyor of such sentiments are anti-Semites and/or Islamophobes, or just plain bigots, to use a term that has been under discussion lately. You are being extremely naive on this point, and it may be time that you woke up. Unfortunately not everybody is going to be able to get along if we just try hard enough. Sorry for the bad news. Dasondas 03:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A person cannot really be declared anti-semetic if that person is fervently anti-religious. Anti semitism is a hatred for jews in particular. This user seems to hold all religious people under the same light. To the best of my knowledge, while judaism gennerally advocates the 8 day rule (as is the most medically suitable time) it does not preclude having it done as an adult, when that person can make their own choice. This is his argument. It's one of choice, that's all (and it's a situation that I still have no POV on by the way). No doubt he equally dislikes christians for the unwise things that they do to - he is completely anti-religious and I would not defend that position in a month of Sundays. I said what I did in the interests of accuracy, not in the interests of defence. Crazyrussian even agreed that Lordkazan was not himself antisemetic - but that there was indeed a degree of anti-semitism in some of the causes that he supports. This is something I agree with and have no cause to say anything to the contrary - nor would I have anything to say to the contrary. Crimsone 03:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want Crimsone to know i have said this.

BTW Jewish circumcision was not foreskin amputation until about the 3rd century CE, and there are many jews that this day do not practice foreskin amputation.

This is your final warning Dasondas. The next time you attempt to mischaracterize my statements as antisemitic or islamophobic I will report you to WP:PAIN. Being anticircumcision is not being either of those things you claim. I hold your position to be in violation of the human rights of the children you victimize with genital mutilation. That is a specific grievence with a specific behavior you have engaged in. That is not a bigoted statement against your person or your religion. Just because your religion engages in the practice is irrelevant. And contrary to CrazyRussian's assertion, the first ammendment will not protect this exercise once it is recognized for what it is. Once upon a time female circumcision was also occasionally practiced in the united states for religious purposes as well. I know a woman who is the victim of it (born 1954 in Kansas). The FGM Ban has survived a first ammendment challenge without even getting a scratch.

This is your final warning. I will not tolerate false accusations of me being a bigot simply because I oppose a practice I see in violation of the rights of the persons it is visisted upon. Your statements constitute bigotry against anyone not holding your position. I have previously suggested an alternative way for you to proactice your religion the renders all circumcisions perofmred under it's auspices voluntary.

and BTW - while I am

antireligious in that I oppose the existance of religion, I am pro-religious freedom. I'll argue with you till we're both blue in the face and ready to kill each other, but I will also defend your religious freedom to the death. HOWEVER that defense of your freedom does NOT include allowing you to violate the rights of others in the name of your religion Lordkazan 03:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Erm, lordkazan - you can report dasondas to WP:PAIN if you like, but don't expect anything to happen from it. Dasondas has NOT violated WP:NPA since the npa2 was issued. Please do not bring the argument for or against circumcision to my talk page again, as it is not one that I have an opinion on, nor am I likely to form one. --Crimsone 03:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And why pray tell would it not result in anything - him accusing me of antisemitism is undeniably a personal attack. I would like to hear the mental hoops one must jump through to say that it is not (And i'm sorry you got dragged into the middle of this argument) Lordkazan 03:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for the apology :). I'm afraid that it wasn't really a personal attack as such was not his intention. He is saying that some of the policies you report are anti-semetic, and arguing that by proxy, this makes some of your views anti-semetic. He was really referring to the content at hand, which in fairness should really be being discussed on talk pages anyway which would place you both at fault if anybody at all. Beides, given the dispute we have here, I doubt there would be an admin in the world inclined to get involved at this stage - it's all too complicated. If you both can't find common ground, or both cannot come together and decide to work according the the proposal (regarding the edit war in particular), then I'm afraid that it's time for arbitration and there's little I can do. Crimsone 03:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crimsone, your understanding of Jewish law is limited, as is mine; however I know enough to know that the "wait until you're an adult" solution is grossly incompatible with that law, and to my knowledge would be considered a deeply offensive suggestion to most Jews everywhere. Muslims as well. The Wiki article on religious circumcision (yes, the number of separate wiki circumcision articles is shocking; I'm sure I haven`t seen them all yet) most likely has a good explanation. As to anti-religionists, my opinion is that someone who is anti-religious is anti-Christian, anti-Islam, anti-Hindu, anti-Semitic, etc. It is an intolerant position hostile to all religions. Period. That`s my view.

On the npa2 thing, it is a shame that you did not give my argument it`s due consideration. The concept of "sufficient level of venom" is clearly stated in the policy, and it is not Wikilawyering to point that out. You will have to admit that your own view of the level of venom in my statemetn has undergone a significant change during the past 24 hours. I do urge you to think again on this and get back in touch with me if you think we can work something out that: a) avoids arbitration b) removes the npa2, and c) does not involve me apologizing to lordkazan. Dasondas 03:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm anti-all-religions. I'm also anticircumcision, and that position has nothing to do with the fact that I am antireligious. Lordkazan 03:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough Lordkazan. Your position is yours to keep and now understood by all. This is now progress in resolving this dispute :D

That is possible Dasondas, and as you say, it could be found offensive. Again I malke no qualification on the argument, and I only stated what the argument actually was. Your position on anti-religious viewpoints is indeed yours to have. That is fair enough. I would probably recommend not phrasing it as you just have though only in the interests of civility and/or purely for sake of avoiding arguments - logically it is quite credible, especially in light of Lorrdkzans own words above. This is actually common ground - if you think about it, you've both just agreed on something :D

On the NPA thing, I believe it is pretty clear that I did indeed give it much consideration - even seeking a second opinion on it. As said, "sufficient level of venom" isn't a requirement - it is on part of a description that is not intended to be comprehensive. The rest of the policy states the qualificationsof a personal attack, and define the policies "spirit". The NPA2 remains. I do note there is a change in your tone since then, and that is indeed the purpose of giving a warning. However, the NPA policy does caall the reason for it a personal attack. If you could apologise to th wiki community in general, admitting that making the statement was a mistake, and give an assurance that it won't happen again, I could remove the warning as it would be in the interests of the community. Of course, you should still avoid a repetition of a similar statement (just friendly advice ;)). I say it would be in the benefit of the wiki community because it would then mean that we could move forward in resolving this dispute. This of course would require agreement to end the editwar, and the best way of doing this (due to the NPOV produced), would be to follow the given proposal on the subject of the article. (please see an external source I provided in that post for this - it would be useful in citing the religious perspective ;) ).

Would you agree to this? --Crimsone 03:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposal has some positive points, and I may be interested. To move forward I need to understand what the removal of the warning means if the npa2 stays. Also, it`s not clear to me what you mean by "it won`t happen again". If we come to agreement on these two points, we may have accomplished something useful here. Btw, and fyi, it does look like this thing with lordkazan is going to go to another round, and maybe beyond; but I don`t see why this has to involve you unless you choose to be involved. I would feel bad if you had to spend any more time on this than you have already; of course if you want to, that`s another story. Dasondas 04:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of the warning is actually removal of the NPA2 - it is in the interests of the wiki community to move forward, and this would be sufficient reason to remove it if you can apologise to the wiki community as a whole, and simply give assurances that you won't make a similar mistake in the future (ie, saying "you are a troll/bigot/whatever" instead of saying "your comments seem provocative, intolerant/whatever"), and also of course that you never intend to make personal attacks at any tme in the future (Note that the absense of 'again' in that wording).

Crimsone, independent of anything else, I do apologize to you as representative of the Wiki community for making an ill-considered statement that did not serve the purposes of furthering the common good of the community. After extensive review and reflection I sincerely believe that I have not violated any Wiki policies, nevertheless I should have realized that my statement would have led to the involvement of other Wiki members (as it turns out in this case, you and Robdurbar) in a volatile situation, the dynamics of which they couldn´t possibly have been expected to be aware until after involving themselves in good faith and the result of which was the diversion of valuable Wiki resources into a complicated, protracted, and minimally productive process. Beyond this, I am personally sorry to you as you have proven yourself to be a mediator of exemplary character and patience and your manifest Wiki-skills could have been much more productively applied during these past several days. To the best of my knowledge I have never violated a Wiki policy, and to you, on behalf of the entire community, I give my word that I will never intentionally do so. Signed, Dasondas 18:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to agreement or another round, Lordkazan has just stated that he will completely ignore you from now on. I have informed him that this includes allowing others to revert you where he may otherwise feel it nessecary, and that it means not saying anything to you. Whether he follows this is up to him. As such, I feel it probably the best if you could possibly see your way to doing the same - just each pretend the other doesn't exist, and if an edit by one of you needs reverting, somebody else will do it. Follow the proposed solution to the edit war that I gave you, and barring any issues involving precise content (not a problem if it's sourced ;) ), you cannot be at fault for anything that happens afterwards - if anything happens that is :)

Is this ok by yourself? Crimsone 05:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record - I am antireligious in that I oppose the existance of all religions and strive tword their eradication. However I am also pro-religious freedom (So long as the exercise of religion doesn't violate the rights of others) and will fight to defend ones religious freedom. That hardly makes me intolerant, just morally and philosophical opposed to the existance of religion. Lordkazan 04:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that's fine. This is what Desondas is saying - that he considers you opposed to all religions. The way in which Dasondas describes this to himself is for him to decide. If he wishes to see this as opposition to all individual religions, this is indeed what you are saying. :) Crimsone 04:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was stating that it's intolerance. While being antireligious CAN be intolerance (see the one guy who outlawed religion), it isn't always, and in my case is not. Lordkazan 04:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to reason with him, and give him a chance to apologize for his insults, he chose to simply reiterate them. He is in violation of NPA and is being reported for it Lordkazan 04:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See his talk for my message for that one. You are telling him how to practice his religion (if he has one) and are indeed telling everyone that the normal practice of their religion is wrong. Accusations of intolerance on that basis are not to be unexpected for obvious reasons. This is not an area where you will change his mind, nor is it an area that's doing you any good either. In the interests of Wikipedia (the reason you are here), please please please agree to disagree, and never mention it to each other again. It won't stop you for editing articles - even the one on religious circumcision, provided you do it in the way wiki requires (as per the proposal). Crimsone 04:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm telling him not the violate the rights of others, the fact that affects his religion is irrelevant - though in the sake of thoughtfulness I gave him an option for satisfying both his religion and respect for human rights. I'm not responding to him anymore, I've added his claims of me being an antisemite and islamophobe to my entry on him in WP:PAIN, and I'm going to be soon as I read this new message on my talk page I have a notification up for. Lordkazan 04:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I've replied to that message. His religion (if he has one) IS relevant due to the fact that circumcision is an accepted practice overall, even if contraversial. You are telling him that if he were jewish or muslim, then he would be a human rights abuser if he followed the law of his religion. That does indeed constitute intolerance.

One more time, please agree to disagree. Crimsone 04:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing to disagree is not going to happen with someone I consider a criminal. I will simply ignore him on wikipedia. I am the victim of non-voluntary genital mutilation. Asking me to agree to disagree with a perpetrator of that is like asking the victim of femal genital mutilation to agree to disagree with the perpetrator of her mutilation, or asking a rape victim to agree to disagree about the definition of rape with the person who raped them. IT isn't going to happen. I will however ignore him entirely Lordkazan 04:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The please be awware that this means not talking to him or directing any comments his way, and not reverting his edits - if you feel one of his edits needs reverting, another editor will undoubtedly get around to doing so if you are correcft about it. Crimsone 04:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I consider an edit of his vandalism, I'll find another editor to revert it. Lordkazan 04:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dasondas is posting comments on my talk page Lordkazan 15:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't this constitute vandalism

Doesn't this edit constitute vandalism http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACircumcision&diff=74832724&oldid=74827910 Lordkazan 03:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. He's already been given administrative permission to remove the vandalism warnings against him due to the fact that he had committed no vandalism. --Crimsone 03:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was an edit on talk:circumcision, not his user page Lordkazan 03:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter - it was still an invalid warning. Besides - user talk pages are the place for warnings, not article talk pages. It didn't actually belong there in the first place. Crimsone 04:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Law (for the record)

All boys must be circumcised on the eighth day, or, if medically impossible, ASAP thereafter. This is an absolute commandment in the Torah. It is obligatory on the parents when the child is a minor. If the parents fail to fulfill their obligation, the person can do it once he is an adult (bar mitzvah - 13). The punishment for willful failure to do so is "karet" - early death and childlessness, meted out by Heaven, and kicks in the person's 20's.

Fair enough CrazyRussian. I shall take your word for it. It's not really of much use to myself personally, but it's interesting to note never the less :D Thanks --Crimsone 04:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more idea that might work

Crimsone,

I just came back from the WP:PAIN page and noticed that in lordkazan`s original complaint (the one that got all of this started) he stated He Also asserts that he will push his pov in the article, referring to me. This is a blatant lie. I never said any such thing, or anything close to it. It is 100% contrary to what I am trying to do at Wikipedia. So, my new idea is the following: you should be free to cancel the npa2 because it was partially based on a blatant misrepresentation by the person complaining. This is not just Wikilawyering because it shows a contempt for the process that should not be rewarded with the desired result. Of course I would like to have the npa2 removed, but there is also a higher principle at work here that gives you chance to kill two birds with one stone. You could cancel the npa2 and advise lordkazan that he is free to refile it with accurate information; that would seem like an all-around fair solution at this point. Dasondas 05:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

)

Well, it does stand in it's own right, as I issued NPA2 on the diff itself, not on the reason for it. To remove it, it still requires an apology to the community. If you offer an apology along the lines that you originally proposed, and simply give an assurance that "it will not happen again" (exact wording for you there), I shall remove it - it's now in the interests of everybody :) It doesn't have to be an apology to LordKazan as from this point forward, you don't talk to each other :) An apology and an assurance to the community would be needed though. You should probably do this somewhere such as WP:PAIN or better still, the AIN entry for yourself (as lordkazan filed), but an apology here would be acceptable. If you can do this now, I will immediately respond (if you do so later, I shall respond asap, or I ask that any other admin reading this remove the npa2 warning in my absence). To summarise, I quote from above...

My proposal is that I apologize to you, as the responsible administrative authority for the Wiki community in this instance, for having made an ill-considered statement that I should have known would have created controversy and placed and unnecessary burden on the resources of the community. Furthermore, as part of this proposed settlement and as a demonstration of good faith, I will agree to not pursue any of the various administrative avenues open to me under WP:NA WP:CIV, WP:BLOCK and others for any action taken by user:lordkazan up to this point;

Besides, the problem with your solution here is with the involvement of Lordkazan, after an agreement to completely ignore each other. Note that the inclusion of the bit at the end is purely because at this point, you are agreeing to not aknowledge him (as he has agreed not to aknowledge yourself) This of course means ignoring anything up and to this point, though for anything that might happen afterwards, you reserve full rights, as does he. If something truly intolerbale happens by either yourself or Lordkazan after this point (and it shouldn't if you stick to the non-aknowledgement agreement, the other party is perfectly within thir rights to complain about it. :)

With regards to the proposal, it also provides a framework for the given issue, and so should avoid a recurrance of the editwar. For as long as the proposal is relevant to the editing of the article, you could consider it as a measure by which the editing of any given party can be judged, and it gives an explanation to any other editors on the article as to what is going on. (of course, if you agree to follow it, I shall Post a copy on the articles talk page if desired)Crimsone 05:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Crimsone, I haven`t decided yet what to do next (follow your proposal, seek arbitration, leave Wiki, etc.), but you should know that the latest episode that drew in Nandesuka began when I saw this at the very top of lordkazan`s talk page: The following users can expect me to ignore their posts on my talk page (I will update this as users get added): Dasondas, for insulting me and stating that I am a bigot/antisemite/islamophobe for opposing non-voluntary circumcision, and refusing to apologize. I added a note there (that he subsequently moved to a much less prominent location on his talk page) that I had never referred to him as an anti-Semite or Islamophobe and requesting that the charge be removed due to violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIV. The rest is documented at usertalk:lordkazan. Crimsone, I want these untrue statements removed not just from his talk page but from the other areas, such as WP:PAIN, where they appear. I have explained a couple of times the differences between expressing some anti-(fill in the blank) views and actually being an anti-(fill in the blank), and I`m tired of it. I am also extremely distressed that I have been called a "criminal" and "dishonest" on numerous instances without any response whatsoever by the several administrators who must have seen those posts. There have been many, many other instances of personal attacks and uncivil behavior directed at me since you became involved in this, and I really need to seem some administrative action taken to rectify the damage. The original dispute leading to your initial involvement in no way whatsoever justifies or mitigates the numerous subsequent attacks which include as well legal threats and religious denigration. I am writing this note now not to prove any particular point or highlight any new issue, but simply because I am upset at the lack of administrative actions against these serious violations of policy that have been directed at me personally by another Wiki user. You have been working extraordinarily hard for a settlement, and I trust that many of your colleagues and fellow Wikipedians along with me admire you for your Herculean efforts, but I really can`t go further on this whole issue until I know what you, or some other administrator, intends to do about the specific complaints listed above. Thanks for understanding. Dasondas 18:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand

I have decided it would be best if I left Wikipedia alone. I thank you for your patience with the situation. 69.167.100.155 06:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and thanks for the understanding. It's always a shame when editors opt to leave wikipedia, but I wish you well with your life off-wiki :) _{(Note to others - to the best of my knowledge, this is regarding an incident unrelated to the section above.)} Crimsone 07:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I award User:Crimsone the random acts' of kindess barnstar, as she tirelesly and patiently helps users caught in rather angry fights and predicements. Robdurbar 20:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree with Robdurbar on that one! (forgot my sig) Lordkazan 18:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou - all three of you. It's very much apreciated, and is in fact my very first barnstar here at wiki :D Crimsone 19:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latin

latin is proper nomenclature for most logical fallacies. Lordkazan 18:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, it seems to be the "in thing" online these days. Most people don't speak latin, and English tends to be more easily understood. Not that it matters - it wasn't intended as anything but a passing remark on the current web-wide fad of using latin terms in debates, as I'm sure you understand. --Crimsone 19:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, i use them outside the web :P Lordkazan 20:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, where are we?

I was going to wait awhile longer, but given what has been happening today (please see my note on Robdurbar`s talk page), I need to ask you now when do you plan to follow-through on your end of our understanding? Dasondas 20:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I have been a little distracted. The npa2 has been rescinded as per the agreed resolution to the dispute. --Crimsone 21:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Dasondas 21:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. -Crimsone 21:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Dear Crimsone,

Is a user ever able to clear thier discussion page and past edit history, I honestly want nothing more to do with Wikipedia, I am rather disgusted with my whole experience.

Thanks -69.167.100.155 04:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have this page on my watchlist, so I'll answer, quickly: ~~Your talk page can be blanked (unless you've had official notices posted on it)~~, but your contribution history stays forever. It has to, by the requirements of the

GFDL, which you licensed your contributions under. If we deleted your contribution history we would be breaking the license and possibly the law. Captainktainer * Talk 11:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks Captainktainer. Much appreciated :)

My advice to you (further to Captainktainers summaryof the policy), 69.167.100.155, can only be to see the m:Right to vanish policy. --Crimsone 20:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have discovered that I was incorrect about being able to blank your talk page; apparently that is possible for registered users but against policy for people editing under an IP. I truly regret any trouble I have caused by passing on misleading information and apologize to all concerned. Captainktainer * Talk 14:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]