User talk:STEALTH RANGER

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 CONTACTING STEALTH RANGER 2 Regarding my Philosophy 3 Jury rig 4 Most recent comment 5 Trivia 6 Hello :) 7 Thank you... 8 July 2007 9 Your userspace 10 My edits 11 THE WATCHMAN 12 Comments after edit reviews 13 chapter two

CONTACTING STEALTH RANGER

ANYONE WISHING TO MAKE CONTACT IS MORE THAN WELCOME TO DO SO

Regarding my Philosophy

I've moved your comment about my philosophy v. the deletion of the list of superhero captains to my Talk page and responded there. Looking at both pages, I can't see where the disconnect is, but if you'd like to clarify on my Talk page I'm sure we can work this out. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Jury rig

Hello there... I just responded to your comments at Talk:Jury rig. Sorry if my original edits came across as dismissive or overly critical, I should have made clearer that I thought your additions were both informative and potentially useful. But please also remember to assume good faith. I'll admit that my comments may have sounded like I was not assuming good faith, so for that my apologies... --Dfred (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Most recent comment

I've responded on my Talk page. I can't quite remember the details of our previous interaction, so if I'm not making much sense then feel free to clarify what you're asking. It was, after all, about three months ago that we last had anything to do with each other. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, I'm going to archive my talk page shortly. I'll leave your most recent comment out of the archive as an "active" discussion to make responding easier. I'm sure we can work this problem out, but you'll need to communicate with me about it, rather than just leaving a message in the hope that I know what you're after. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Trivia sections should be removed from Wikipedia per WP:TRIVIA. --Maitch 13:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello :)

Thanks for nice welcomes :) --Alexia Death 08:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for your comments / compliments. LOVE the apostrophes. ;)

DigitylGoddess 15:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh...just saw your addition - "Punch-You-ation" - *grin* very clever! I admire that in people, because I'm allergic to stupidity; it makes me break out in insults.

Digitylgoddess 16:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

July 2007

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as in User talk:Wafulz, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. Dillard421 10:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I know; had a system problem before i'd completed the work and had to rush things. Thanks for the coms.

STEALTH RANGER 10:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Your userspace

For copyright reasons, you can't have fair-use images in your userspace. I've removed the image again.-Wafulz 12:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

My edits

You seem to get the impression that I'm bullying you. I'm not. I've only fixed up some of your older edits because they had inappropriate tone, awkward grammar, or required citations. It's also getting to the point that you're trying to bully me- you've been insulting me and making all sorts of insulting conjectures on another user's talk page[1]. Being uncivil and making personal attacks can result in a block (though as far as I'm concerned, an insult made in Klingon is an insult lost).-Wafulz 16:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm also going to cross-post this from my talk page:

Actually, if you take a look at the page's history, you'll see I've been monitoring it for weeks, and all I did was get rid of what I felt was needless detail and redundant links. I cleaned it up and provided what is (so far) its only reliable reference. If you want to "complain", you could try Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, although I guarantee no action will be taken since my edits are legitimate, and they did not involve the use of administrative tools.-Wafulz 16:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It's evident that your clean up campaign has consisted of zeroing in on my edits with an undue fervour. Get off my back and we won't have a problem. Just take a step back and look at the impression you're giving. If you need to make edits, be professional enough to give reasons. You aren't Judge Dredd. STEALTH RANGER 09:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You used inappropriate tone, awkward grammar, redundant links, and didn't provide sources or inline citations. I gave these reasons clearly in my edit summaries- do you disagree with them? Incidentally, you have never used an edit summary, so you should probably start using them.

You don't own what you work on, and neither do I; provided that you have appropriate editorial reasons, you may edit my contributions as much as I edit yours. Regardless, you have no right to go around making assumptions about me, or insulting me.-Wafulz 12:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

As I say, look at how you present yourself. This ends now. Honi Soit Que Mal Y Pense. STEALTH RANGER 13:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've never denied following you around- like I said on your talk page, lots of your contributions needed fixing. If you guys want to continue with your awkward online flirting, take it somewhere else. But yes, you have caught me in your clever trap. I am Big Brother. I am Judge Dredd. I am on an Unholy Power Trip fully endorsed by The Cabal. Whatever.-Wafulz 15:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)_{Note: This comment was placed here by STEALTH RANGER from here-Wafulz 16:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)}

This time you really have gone too far, Adolph. You have offended myself and my friend. This is unacceptable. The only reason for you to be on Digitylgoddess' personal space is to follow me. Why ? What possible reason could you have ?. Notice this, written on my own space, and not yours; THE ONLY REASON YOU CAN READ THIS AT ALL, IS BECAUSE YOU HAVE DECIDED TO HAUNT MY SPACE AS WELL ! IF YOU WERE NOT GUILTY OF FOLLOWING ME ABOUT FOR STANDING UP TO YOU BULLY-BOY, YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SEE THIS AT ALL. SLING YOUR HOOK SOMEWHERE ELSE, JUDGE- IF YOU THINK I NEED TO BE "MONITORED" THEN GET ANOTHER ADMINISTRATOR TO DO IT; YOU NEED PSYCHIATRIC HELP (Please trust me on this). Go away and get a life, live it in peace, and don't let me find your offensive behaviour spoiling Wikipedia again. Complaints are being lodged. Begone. I have no further use for you.

STEALTH RANGER 15:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've made a report about you on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:STEALTH RANGER being disruptive and uncivil.-Wafulz 16:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm looking into this report and I see some behavior that is disconcerting here. For starters, don't selectively edit other editors' comments, even on your own talkpage. If you want to delete Wafulz's comments as a whole or respond to them, that is fine; changing them or the headers is not, especially when your edit is so pointy. That also applies to cuting and pasting other editors comments around. It's disruptive pure and simple. Characterizing other editors as "Adolph" isn't just incivil... it's just proving Godwin's Law correct again. Comment on edits, not on editors. Furthermore, you seem to have a problem with editors (or perhaps just Wafulz) editing your contributions. To that all I can say is "get used to it". None of us own our contributions and you should expect that your contributions will be edited mercilessly. That's how it goes.

At this point I will simply leave it at "stop being disruptive". Continued behavior of this sort will likely end up with you being blocked.--Isotope23 17:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and this is a wholly unacceptable personal attack. I expect to see no more of this sort of thing as well.--Isotope23 17:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You should also stop responding with "Who watches the watchmen?" every single time someone disagrees with you. It does not assume good faith, it's a hostile message to send, and it's just plain annoying.-Wafulz 18:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Always trying to have the last word, eh, Ken ?

STEALTH RANGER 07:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You've been blocked for a week for repeated disruption. The relevant thread on the noticeboard is here.-Wafulz 13:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Kindly stop changing my UserSpace. I will title the sections as I see fit, not you, Bully Boy.

STEALTH RANGER 13:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You are changing my edits. I approached you politely. You compared me to Hitler and changed the title of my comment to something obviously disruptive. Stop it.-Wafulz 13:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Stealth, please take some time to read WP:USER#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space and WP:OWN your userspace does not belong to you, it belongs to the community and thus can be edited by others; you have no inherent right to title sections how you see fit. Generally, editors are given a wide latitude to format and change their userpage/talkpage as they see fit, but changing the headers or text that someone else has written on a talkpage is not going to be seen as acceptable behavior. If you don't like what Wafulz is writing, remove the whole text from your page, but don't selectively edit it.

I'll be taking some time today and tomorrow to sift through edit histories per your message on my talkpage.--Isotope23 13:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Since there is currently a thread up on WP:ANI, you should probably leave this up for a few hours so other administrators can take a look at the history behind my actions and review them accordingly.-Wafulz 13:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

THE WATCHMAN

The interested parties monitoring this debacle are now in a position to see from the edits and the E-mail contacts we've shared just how an editor can be permitted to abuse his perceived authority; Despite the evidence to the contrary, the "Stealth Ranger" persona has been deemed to be the guilty party, not the agreived. As promised, those following this activity will be able to access the Newspaper report Re-Wikipedia as well as the website. Thank you for the suppoert which makes this possible,

STEALTH RANGER 13:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Assuming someone is actually monitoring this, feel free to contact me at wafulz (dot) wikipedia (at) gmail (dot) com. You can ask me about anything related to this.-Wafulz 13:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your co-operation, Ken. Do you think you could move your business to your own page, though ? Not follow us about so much ?

STEALTH RANGER 13:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

ALL INTERESTED PARTIES, WITH ISSUES ON BOTH SIDES OF THE DEBATE, FEEL FREE TO CONTACT wafulz (dot)wikipedia(at)gmail(dot)com., AND/OR STEALTH-RANGER@HOTMAIL.COM. CONTACTING THE LATER WILL ENABLE THE INTERESTED TO GAIN UPDATES ON THE WEBSITE.

Stop calling me Ken- it's not my name, and if it's a reference to something, I'm not following. I'm not sure what you want me to move seeing as "my business" on this talk page is entirely your business. I've also changed the format of my e-mail because 1) capitals can screw up the address and 2) I don't want advertising bots farming it.-Wafulz 13:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Why wafulz by the way, I mean apart from the obvious ? Mine's an anagram of why i'm here. You can call me Richard.

STEALTH RANGER 13:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments after edit reviews

Stealth, after reviewing your and Wafulz edits from the past 8 days, from the looks of it this all started when Wafulz (talk · contribs) removed an image from your userpage [2]. This image is clearly tagged as "non-free fair use" and can't be used in your userspace, something Wafulz pointed out to you. After which you asked him to stay off your userpage. It then appears you made an edit to Excalibur, which was reverted by Wafulz. It then appears you tried to prove a point by editing Wafulz userpage. I then note the exchange at Talk:Sexual roleplaying; I'm not sure what this is about exactly as I don't see any edits from your account to that article, but it is clear from that exchange that you have a problem with Wafulz editing your article additions and have characterized this individual as a bully who is abusing their authority. Now today I see that you have been blocked by Wafulz.
From an outsider perspective, I see a situation that never needed to happen. The fact is that all edits you make to articles are subject to be changed by other editors... that is simply how it works here. We have contribution histories specifically so it is possible to see another editor's contributions. It's my opinion that Wafulz was simply reviewing your additions and editing them per Wikipedia:Manual of Style. It doesn't appear to me at least that Wafulz was maliciously stalking you and was clear about how and why he was finding and modifying your edits. There was no administrator abuse in any of those edits; Wafulz was editing like any other individual and never used (or threatened to use) the admin tools at that point. In fact the only action Wafulz has taken that I don't agree with is the block; Preferably he would have left a second ANI report and let another admin deal with it... but that is just my own personal opinion and I given some of your statements directed at Wafulz you would have most likely been blocked anyway. To me it appears that you were the one who started ratcheting up the rhetoric here and making comments that were at best incivil and at worst personal attacks. Probably the more appropriate thing to do from the start would have been to simply let the removal of that image go or simply indicate that you were not aware that fair use images were not allowed in the userspace. If you have issues with article edits, discuss them calmly with other editors minus the name calling and disparaging characterizations. You'll find this a much less contentious place if you do that. As I said previously, I'd suggest you refrain from editing other's comments on your talkpage other than wholesale removal. I noticed that you did remove them and they were restored (though I point out that archiving your page is preferable). In my opinion at least, if you want to blank this page now, that blanking should not be undone.
When your block ends because it has run out or because you've requested and been granted an unblock, I hope you take some of my comments seriously; I'm not saying this as an admin, I'm saying this as someone who has been around here for a while, who has seen more than one editor get hung up on an incident that they can't let go and has ended up getting blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia because they refuse to give up soapboxing about it. My suggestion is to come back and move on to article editing. If you want to tilt at windmills though and keep focusing on these perceived slights I forsee a short future for you here.--Isotope23 16:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much as we expected. It does not seem to take into account that Wafulz has affected edits we have made on a wide diversity of subjects that there was no evidence he was ever interested in to begin with. That's obviously a moot point. however, what cannot be overlooked is the speed with which his edits have taken effect. Given the size of the Wikiscape, the chances of his accidentally being on the same pages as ourselves border on infinity times itself. This is clear evidence that he is actively following us about; further to this the fact that in almost every case, he has seen fit to alter the edit, many times simply deleting the changes. He has cited "poor grammar" as the reason- amongst others- although deletion rather than correction has been his Modus Operandi. His 'Final Solution' is also his 'First Response'. The Sexual Rolplay edit we made, for example, practically doubled the size of the article. Swept away. He has even followed us onto the personal space of a friend and colleague, where he was clearly seen to have taken the bait. We would suggest you re-examine this material and ask what his motives are. Why does he appear immediately The Ranger makes an edit ? Forget why he alters it- Why does he appear so quickly every time our guy adds to Wiki ? A question worth asking.—Preceding unsigned comment added by STEALTH RANGER (talk • contribs)

Who is "we" , and why are you ignoring pretty much everything Isotope and I have said?-Wafulz 13:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Wait... you claim he's always deleting your stuff no matter what but how about edits like this. Any good edits you made like this have been left. Perhaps you just need to take a harder look at why we blocked you in the first place: stuff like this, showing off your caps lock skills here, that, showing off your ability to threaten others. You're calling the other party vindictive? Take a hard look in the mirror. If he didn't block you, I'm sure I would have for continuing on this silly behavior. Did you simply expect us to roll over when you do stuff like that? If you want a flamewar go to some other forum. This isn't the place for it. Sasquatch t|c 16:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

We'd Much rather speak to the other Gentleman, Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by STEALTH RANGER (talk • contribs)

Well, I'm assuming this is just a bluff then.-Wafulz 13:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably. I've heard that bullies do that a lot. Pure coincidence, though, I'm sure. -Ebyabe 13:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Please refer back to what I wrote above Stealth. There is no chance he was "accidentally being on the same pages as ourselves..." as I pointed out in a diff above, Wafulz fully and readily admitted to reviewing your contributions via your contribution log. There is nothing sinister or wrong about this; we have logs so it is possible to see what everyone else is doing. It is called transparency. Many of his modifications to text you added were in line with our Manual of Style. In regards to your specific example of Sexual roleplaying, Wafulz was editing there before you made your changes (unless you were previously editing with another account), and he didn't sweep away the edit you made, he reworked the section. That is what happens here; Wikipedia is a collaborative project and we all edit each others' contributions on a daily basis. If you were baiting him in that other editor's talk space, do you expect him to be chastised for taking that bait? I don't need to re-examine his motives. I've never encountered Wafulz before the WP:ANI report a few days ago so I can't speak at all to what his motives are, but it certainly appears to me that he is trying to build an encyclopedia. By the way, is your usage of "we" as in the royal "we" or am I speaking to more than one person here?--Isotope23 13:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The Stealth Ranger is the editor currently assisting us in the creation of a publication article we have been commisioned to complete concerning the nature of Wikipedia and it's application as an literary or educational tool. He is not the only person to have assisted us, neither is this his first user account; a previous one was abandoned because another user had a name too similar to it, and there was a perception that possible confusion might arise. Incidentally, the legal department took a look at these events. All we can say is, it's lucky Wiki falls under the "Private Club, Our Rules" blanket, as fairness is something of a flexible commodity. Is it not possible that somebody other that Wafulz be assigned to monitor Stealth Ranger's posts, or is this going to accelerate his apparently impending total ban ? It seems in standing up for himself against an abrasive character has ensured his 'face doesn't fit'

So this is a role account. This is something that isn't allowed per policy here. Wikipedia has a strict 1 account/1 person policy. That is grounds for an indefinite block of this account. I'd ask that you make individual accounts and do not share the passwords.

Let me see if I can clarify something here. Wafulz wasn't "assigned to monitor" STEALTH RANGER (talk · contribs); Wikipedia is a volunteer situation. If an editor notices an edit that doesn't meet our standards, they are perfectly free to go through the rest of that editor's contributions and modify them. As long as they are not harassing that editor, there is nothing wrong with reviewing a contribution log. In this specific incident, Wafulz was rather polite to STEALTH RANGER up until the point where it seems pretty clear that STEALTH RANGER was pushing Wafulz buttons. I don't really see the ground for calling Wafulz abrasive.

While I am going to extend the block of this particular account as a role account (and as I said above you are invited to make individual accounts), had this been a "1 person account", there is no reason STEALTH RANGER would have necessarily ended up banned, though I note that this account's first edit ruffled some feathers and continuing along these lines probably would not have endeared the editor to the community; disparaging fellow editors and soapboxing usually don't. Wikipedia can be a very forgiving place though and I've seen a number of blocked/banned editors come back and be allowed to edit.--Isotope23 14:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You clearly misunderstand. Stealth Ranger is a single user account. 'Nobody else has his password or access to the system without his allowing us to watch him at work. He is a serious editor who believes in Wikipedia, as we did. He Logs on to work, and we watch his progress. Others of the staff hold their own accounts, through which we garner further information, in several languages. The Ranger is his own man, and makes his own decisions. Nothing is posted in this fashion without us presenting it to him, and his writing it for us. We are currently interested in the function of administrators, and the total power they apparently wield. To ban the Ranger completly for assisting us seems an act of absolute petulence, altered only, If we understand this correctly, by his begging to be allowed to return ? Please clarify this situation.

• Again, your usage of the term "we" and your above posts indicate that more than one individual is using this account right now, making it a Role Account. I didn't in any way block this account because the individual who is primarily making edits from it is assisting you and as I said above, you are free to create new accounts that are not being shared (and while I note your statement above that this account isn't being shared, you are referring to the primary account holder in the third person). There is no reason for anyone to beg or apologize. If you disagree with this action, you are free to post an unblock request here, or email the unblock emailing list and request a review of the block. Despite your contention that admins wield total power, that isn't the case and my actions are absolutely open to review by other admins. On a side note, I'd think at this point you'd want to make a new account if you are attempting some undercover journalism, strictly to see if the user experience of the individual is the same under a new account...--Isotope23 15:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This is Richard. So, if I read you right you're blocking me for helping them ? You appear to just not be reading what is written ! They have their own accounts, for the most part. I've been posting their comments on my experience. This is not, never has been, a group account; Rather a group of people around this system watching these events unfold. Incidentally, your belief that this is "undercover journalism" ? This isn't the White House, or some inviolable sanctuary; It's the equivalent of public access TV, and they are writing an article about it, which was stated in conversation some time ago. You've been told twicwe that I'm not a group account, and twice you've totally disregarded this ! It's incredible. As to their suggestion they try the experience under a new account, did you not read that thias is what they are doing ? Most of the accounts in use have been in play for a very long time; It's only recently the integrity of Wiki as a whole has been raised as a question for the public forum. I see what's happening here. You are using their article as an excuse to ban somebody who does not fit, and dare question an Administrator. Amazing.

STEALTH RANGER 15:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I read what was written above and as I replied above, it appears to me that more than one editor is editing from this account (evidenced by the usage of "we"), which is why I extended the block; had it not been for this your block would have run out in a week and you would have been free to edit. I'm not "banning you because you do not fit", nor because you "dare question me". The way I enacted your block was specifically done so you free to create a new account to edit from if you so choose rather than a more restrictive block that could have been enacted had I intended to stop you from editing here at all. If you choose to contest the block extension, please follow the instructions on the block message for contacting the unblock mailing list, or post an unblock request template here and another admin will review the block.--Isotope23 15:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the article below... This is a copyright violation as this article is a text dump of this.--Isotope23 16:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

chapter two

Understood. Nevertheless, the articles, freely avilable to all who care to examine them, raise the salient question of how dependable Wikipedia actually is. Even Wales-San makes the statement that his creation is flawed. It is this very topic upon which a small group of journalists, 90% of which use their own User accounts are looking into. Further, it is the politics and structure, rather that the flawed educational content they wish tio call into question. It has been suggested by sources within and without the community that it has largely been hijacked by a percentage of Log-Jocks who, using the "Fan-boy" mentality often mentioned, creating an elitist state of mind, in which Wiki has become their own private debating chamber, with certain sites regardless of the stated intention to remain public domain becoming akin to MySpace creations, with which no interference will be tolerated. To this end, please understand the following.

• Stealth Ranger is Richard Cohen. It is a private citizen user.

• It is not a group account.

• Having a special interest in the Journal in question, I agreed to allow them to watch my progress.

• NOBODY other than myself has access to this account, unless you are able to countermand the password protocol.

• This account, along with the previous two, over the past couple of years, have been made for Wiki access, in order to make intellectual contributions via edits. I have done so quite peacfully in that time.

• The other accounts are no longer used- only ever one at a time- and may not be classed as sockpuppets.

• Despite this being explained, the ban is being enforced,

• There has never been a complaint about another editor or Administrator altering edits; merely in how he (infallibly a he, I note)chooses to go about it, and that he know something about the subject he chooses to involve himself with.

• Further, in how he chooses to present himself to his fellow wikipedians; The phrase "assume good faith" asks a great deal of those at whom this default weapon is levelled. Nothing may be assumed, and for some, Good faith is not very forthcoming.

• In clarity. wafulz has shown very little 'good faith', rather assuming that if he wasn't always right, he wouldn't be an administrator.

• Let it be noted that Wafulz has follwed me around, which he freely admits. During this time he has revealed himself. He has made pointed personal comments of the type he complains about, and seems always to need the last word on any given subject.

• This perjoritive action was enacted upon me only when I tired of his bullying, and stated that I wished to make a complaint. He suggested I do so, stateing that nothing would happen to him.

• Only after this was such a ban enforced on me. I am now the villain. Most interesting.

• Since that point, the ban has been enforced.

• Despite having the situation explained in the simplest of terms, the Two Prime Movers in this affair, have chosen to openly disregard what is being said to them. Stealth Ranger is not a group. By the same token, no other group to which I belong, is stealth ranger either, despite these events being openly discussed with fellows within each group.

• I formally request this ban be lifted.

• I formally request contact with a person of higher status that yourselves. Further up the chain of command, as it were.

• I formally wish to apply for administrator status.

STEALTH RANGER 09:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I formally request contact with a person of higher status that yourselves. Further up the chain of command, as it were. The only place higher to appeal a ban is to the Arbitration Committee. You can do that by emailing one of the members listed on that page, who will forward it to their private mailing list. Given your desire to speak with someone "higher" means that you must divert from this user talk page, I have protected it from editing. Daniel 10:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)