Welcome to my talk page.If you've come to complain, whine, moan, question my judgment, my intelligence, my sanity, or tell me off in any way, that's fine. I'm a big girl who can take it. If you've come to chat, compliment me, have a laugh, or discuss articles that's even better.
Hello, sorry if this is the wrong place, but you said to talk to you here and I didn't see an email address. Anyways, I'm starting a Wiki site and had some questions about a few things. My email is bucklerchad@comcast.net I think the wiki site I'm starting is pretty cool and if you're the wrong person to speak with, cold you let me know who I could speak with regarding this issue? Thanks SOO much ! :)
Esperanza made less bureaucratic
Hello again, I have (unilatterly) taken away the 'assembly' idea, as per my reasons at that edit summary and per Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Charter. I have left the admin general, as some leadership is good. Now, all you have to do is be a member to establish consensus, the whole assembly idea is gone. Also, I have added an advisory committee, of four members, with limited power besides watching over the admin general and making sure he doesn't do anything stupid. Please look at the ammended charter, and I would love a comment. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The last time I'm spamming you all with Esperanza stuff
Hello Theresa knott. As you may or may not know, there have been some troubles with Esperanza. So now, as a last ditch to save the community, please vote at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Reform on all neccisary polls. P.S. I'm very sorry for spamming you all with these messages, and this will be the last time. I recommend putting ESP on your watchlist. Cheers and please look at that, let's stop the civil war then. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unacceptable deleting tactics
User:Ted Wilkes has repeatedly deleted paragraphs from talk and article pages. See [1], [2], [3], [4]. He even falsely claimed to have moved content from the Talk:Elvis Presley/Homosexuality page to the Talk:Elvis Presley/Sexuality page, but the content has been totally deleted. See [5].
I believe User:Ehrlich might (I'm not sure) be a sockpuppet of injoined user Adrigo/DotSix (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DotSix). He has the same peculiar theses, is a very recent user who nevertheless knows wikipedia policies well and edits the same pages as the injoined user did. Are you the one I should ask IP check to? Thanks. Jules LT18:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I recommend a change of vote to Merge and redirect to anonymous matching. That article will sum up the history, development, and current state of these systems. DoYouDo was one of the first, and holds the patent on the process; however, eCRUSH and some others that were already operating when the patent was registered in 1999 were apparently grandfathered in and thus are able to continue operating without being licensed by DoYouDo. 205.217.105.221:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your effort in getting rid of skyring, but do you really think blocking all of bigpond is worth it? He's pretty easy to spot and revert, and I suspect that block is making a lot of australian wikiaddicts very unhappy right now. --fvw*22:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but still... Oh well, 15 minutes of quiet is nice, and with your new block I think you've effectively blocked an entire continent, which is kind of nice for novelty-value. --fvw*22:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please help, please undo what DreamGuy reinserted in the Otherkin article, he does tihs without discussion, which cannot be allowed, and pursues a defamitory adgenda in the article, which is one of the main points of his arbitration. please remove what he inserted. i do not wish to get me into trouble, or to deal with him any more, so i ask you really nicely to make his defamitory adgenda come to an end...Gimmiet04:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I won't remove the see also link, because I think it should be there. Also he didn't do it without discussion, the discussion is on the talk page. I don't know what you mean by "defamitory adgenda" :-( Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke)06:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Theresa knott/archive13. In case you haven't noticed, I'm writing a special series on the upcoming 2005 ArbCom elections for The Wikipedia Signpost. In the October 17 issue, we will be profiling the current ArbCom members. Note that this should not be a platform for re-election; rather, it should serve as an insight into what you feel about the ArbCom, and your opinions of it are. Thus, I hope you don't mind answering a few questions. Many thanks!
1. Are up for re-election this year? 2. If so, do you plan to run for re-election? 3. How do you feel about serving on the ArbCom? 4. What do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom? 5. Weaknesses? 6. If you could change anything, what would you change? Why? 7. Do you regret accepting your position? Why or why not? 8. If you could say one thing to the current ArbCom candidates, what would you say, and why? 9. Do you think your job is easy? Hard? Explain. 10. Looking in retrospective, is there anything you would have done differently? 11. Do you feel that the ArbCom is appreciated by the community? If not, how do you think that could be changed? 12. What is the most frustrating thing about being on the ArbCom? Enjoyable?
I hope you didn't mind me bombarding with you with questions; by no means feel obligated to answer all (or any) of them. Thanks for serving Wikipedia, and for taking your time to help a Signpost reporter! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS14:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
1.No next year
2.NA
3.I feel proud to be trusted by the community.
4. I don't know, i'm too close to it to be able to judge.
5. Still to slow for most cases.
6. I'd make it less formal and less legalistic.
7. A bit. Most of my time on wikipedia used to be spend editing, drawing diagrams and socialing. Now much of my times is spending reading endless talk pages and trying to fathom out what to do about disruptive/nasty POV pushing nutcases. It's soul destroying. But someone's gotta do it.
8. You have no idea the amount of time this will suck up.
9. Ocassionally easy (some cases are straightforward but not many), but usually hard.
Thanks for the responses so far! If you would like to add more to your answers, feel free to do so. However, in order to give me time to write for Monday's issue, I would appreciate it if you could have the rest of your answers by either Thurday or Friday. Many thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS19:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that some are quite busy and may have missed recent discussion and questions regarding my Arbcom matter. Ive taken the liberty of posting here to remedy any inadvertent oversight regarding my case. Sinreg, St|eve22:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Theresa Knott! I just wanted to deliver this week's issue of The Wikipedia Signpost, which features the current ArbCom, directly to your front door. :-) Also, if you wish to read your fellow Arbitrators' full and unabridged responses, you can find them here. Thanks again for all your help! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS21:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's a massive block! I've been chastised for much smaller rangeblocks than this. I think reverting is the best way to go for now. It's bothersome but has little or no collateral damage. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke)01:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I agree, I was thinking a 15 minute just to curb the vandalism, maybe make them think they can't edit anymore. Otherwise I wouldn't have suggested it, sorry I didn't specify earlier. «»Who?¿?meta01:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Holy crap! DON'T block that subnet!!! That's quite literally the biggest ISP in Australia!!! Block an individual IP address, but for heavens sake don't block the entire subnet! - Ta bu shi da yu14:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Some help for image needed
Hello. I came across an image of you at Image:Transit_diagram_angles.png as I want to use a german translated version of this image (de:Bild:Venuskonstellation.png) for a free book about the solar system (based on Wikipedia articles; books out of Wikipedia article collections are currently the next wiki evolution step in german language Wikipedia). However you did not provide a license but this was added by a third person, see [13]. As the German version also gives another license there is a bit confusion about the right license, so I would be happy if you can indicate the right free license for this image so that I can reuse it according to what you intended. Many thanks in advance, Arnomane01:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see you unblocked User:Jredmond. Was I out of line to apply this block, in your view? Should I handle such a situation differently another time? If so, how. I am a fairly new admin, and this is my first case of blocking for 3RR. DES(talk)20:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You did certainly did exactly the right thing by posting you actions to the AN for review. So I wouldn't sweat it. The reason that I undid the block was because I felt that this was not really an edit war as such. One person was inserting their own POV into an article, being incivil about it, ignoring requests for a cite,and ignoring attempts at dialogue on their talk page. The other person was being civil, was removing POV material, and attempting dialogue. There is no need to treat these two equally because they were not behaving equally. Edit wars (in my book anyway) are when two people choose to revert rather than discuss. Slap them both with blocks when that is the situation. Actually I'm not a big fan of blocking for edit warring unless it's really bad. In this case protecting the page was another option that may have worked to calm things down and force a discussion. Anyway, don't assume that just because you are a new admin that my disagreeing with the block means you were wrong to block. I have been known to be wrong many times before. You did what you thought was right, so did I. The community will judge us both. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke)22:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there,
I notice you removed the speedy tag that I had applied from this page. I'd be grateful to know why you removed it, and in particular the claim to notability that you identified. This is so I can apply A7 notices with more prudence in the future!
Many thanks,
Sliggy14:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it was my bad i think. I was going through candidates for speedy deletion last night deleting or not as the case merited when I came across the article and noticed that it had a vfd template on it as well as the speedy template. I had a quick read through, figured - well the author seemed to think that receiving a commendation from Blair was notable so thought it best to let vfd sort it out. I must confess I didn't read the vfd debate. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke)21:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. I will continue to do so I'm afraid. I'm all for a bit of a laugh myself, but some people get all het up about trolling, so I just remove it whenever i see it. Have you fun somewhere else. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke)21:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted your edits on this RfA because they were made after User:Durin closed it. Feel free to add them to the talk page if you would still like your view to be seen, however as of now that page is meant to be an archive of sentiment at the time of closing and not continuously update. grenグレン12:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the Sharp Eye
I want to thank you for reverting the History of Palestine just now from its unwarranted anti-Semitic vandalism. I saw the change on the "Recent Changes" page, and I was about to change it, but I saw that you did it. I just want to tell you to keep up the good work, and thank you for seeing a bad edit immediately.--Seth Goldin01:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The user does not own all (or likely any) of the websites from which those pictures were taken; when one does a simple internet search for "nappy hair", "afro pick", etc, these images are among the first Google Images hits. I don't want to bite the newbies, but what should be done? He's already complaining about people editing "his" page. --FuriousFreddy08:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I would just like to point out that I added them after seeing that this had been done in other cases [14][15]. Possible other cases also. Ultramarine 17:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm discussing with my fellow arbitrators now if it's wise to allow involved parties to propose things on the workshop. Rest assured though, even if we decide not to allow you to do it, we won't hold it against you. The "impersonating an arbitrator" accusation is daft. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke)17:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for defending the article CIA leak grand jury investigation. I spent over 20 hours researching and verifying information about the attorneys, courts, and laws. So, as you can imagine, I was shocked and disappointed that some one could wipe away all this work.--FloNight01:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I will do it at my own pace. The ArbCom shouldn't have gotten things moving so early, considering I requested time at the outset. Everyking23:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to get started on it sometime this month. If it suits the ArbCom, I'll agree to not post anything on AN or AN/I until my defense has been prepared. That way I have little to gain by "stalling". Everyking23:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've decided to reject your offer, too. Why doesn't the ArbCom answer questions I pose to it on the discussion pages? Everyking06:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was aware of good edits, (I looked at Erotomania) while checking history. I was not aware it is a proxy, I do have a different blocking policy per proxies. On the flip side this vandal is particularly productive. At times I also employ bait and switch blocks for hard proxy cases (long block, which is then switched to short block to perhaps to put off the vandal, but limit collateral damage).
In the end if the block works according to the shortest block; then it ends up working out. Question, which is then displayed to the IP, the shortest block, or the first block? - RoyBoy80023:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Quackery, Fakery, and other forms of utter stupidity
Thanks Theresa for standing against the Both the zealots and the crackpots in trying to preserve a NPOV. If collobration is the Key, ( which I surly believe that it is...), then I am on your side. What is next to do?
The article [18] has been slashdotted, so after the smoke clears, we can get to work. I do believe that this mans work is therotically ok. But like the Wimper Theory of the universe, by Hoyle, its only a matter of simple persepctive. I think that Its impossible to derive energy from this, but that we can all benefit from the understanding. I have been wrong before. What is next to do? Artoftransformation00:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Whereas I think that it's probably junk. But there's the rub - probably leaves that little window of doubt - you never know! I'm not familiar with the wimper thoery. Is that the steady state theory by another name? Anyway as for the article - We need to leave it be for a few days until things settle after the slashdotting. Then hopefully we can work together on improving it. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke)15:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wimper is a variation of steady state, put forth by Hoyle, and this lovely Chap named 'Chandra Wickramasinghe'. I Love that last name. Professor of Astronomy at Cardiff. He is on the list of British Astronomers, which I seem to have lost, and is NOT on the list of Astronomers. Anyway, Wimper is Steady state with point of refrence - Universe is fixed size, and we are growing smaller. Quite a stir, Wickramasinghe showed that its consistant with Einsten's equations.
I have sufficently hacked up the article Hydrino theory, so that now there is enought food for thought, and I have grown my skill at NPOV! Whee! Im on my way to be a StickiWiki! Er... a side effect of all this NPOV stuff, is I have developed a bad habit of bad puns. Really bad Puns. like joke-warfair type puns. Anyway, Feel free to leave me some notes on my talk page. --69.181.232.11612:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Back to vandalizing as of October 21, 2005. Wasn't there going to be a long-term ban on this IP? Thanks for your help in any case! BeteNoir03:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not with my signature. The codes are perfect. The problem is that something has gone wrong on Wikipedia with its recognition of codes. It was probably a screw-up by some faulty bot. There is nothing I can do about it. A lot of people's signatures are being similarly screwed up. So is your talk page. It took nine attempts to get to it. I kept getting Parse error: parse error, unexpected $, expecting ')' in /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/includes/Parser.php on line 3743. The technical guys have been told they screwed up and need to fix it. Until they do there is nothing I can do. FearÉireann
What you can do in the meantime is is remove the html code from your sig altogether. This won't fix the old pages that are screwed up but will prevent any more screw ups until they get the the HTML validator fixed. Theresa Knott [[User talk:Theresa knott| (a tenth stroke)]] 06:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a good workaround for this. Put ~~~ in, Preview the page, copy the HTML that shows up, and paste that in followed by ~~~~~ (which just adds the timestamp). — PhilHibbs | talk17:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You probably know there's a list of orphaned fair use images to be deleted knocking about on the toolserver, and admins are deleting bunches of these - much-needed cleanup work. Anyway, point is, so far, it's turned up two of the diagrams you did for Wikipedia:How to draw a diagram with Microsoft Word, and I'm puzzling over their fair use status. Yes, they're "screenshots of copyrighted computer software" - can we use them outside of articles though, given the manner in which you're using them - which is educational, at least.
Theresa, back during the Ides of March you requested that Chadbryant not continue to add information into the Rec.sport.pro-wrestling entry that he was placing into the article which was causing numerous online disputes and several "edit wars" on the entry itself. You may go visit the site's talk page to verify this if you have forgotten by now (and I wish I were one of the lucky ones who had). Anyway, he's back, up to his old tricks, and putting the information in again. As soon as I (or anyone else for that matter) remove the information, he puts it back in claiming "vandalism" as a result of its removal. It's silly, it's stupid, it's petty, it's immature, and it's incorrect. There is no "vandalism," just some lonely, bitter, petty man somewhere out in Cyberspace trying to forget that he's alone for the holidays. Can you do me and everyone else a favor and remind him that while he makes a good turkey, nobody wants to see what sort of stuffing he has available? Thanks a bunch! -- RSPW Poster
Chad Bryant/Rec.sport.pro-wrestling
Theresa, back during the Ides of March you requested that Chadbryant not continue to add information into the Rec.sport.pro-wrestling entry that he was placing into the article which was causing numerous online disputes and several "edit wars" on the entry itself. You may go visit the site's talk page to verify this if you have forgotten by now (and I wish I were one of the lucky ones who had). Anyway, he's back, up to his old tricks, and putting the information in again. As soon as I (or anyone else for that matter) remove the information, he puts it back in claiming "vandalism" as a result of its removal. It's silly, it's stupid, it's petty, it's immature, and it's incorrect. There is no "vandalism," just some lonely, bitter, petty man somewhere out in Cyberspace trying to forget that he's alone for the holidays. Can you do me and everyone else a favor and remind him that while he makes a good turkey, nobody wants to see what sort of stuffing he has available? Thanks a bunch! -- RSPW Poster
complete failure of wikipedia NPOV policy
This article Talk:Palestinian_exodus is a complete failure of wikipedia NPOV policy.
Nearly 3 years ago it was anti-Palestinian. Now not a shred of that POV remaind and it is completely biased to the other side.
I have edited this article for a week, yet every single word i changed there got reverted by a coordinated revert gang which is able to circumvent in this way the 3RR rule. It seems that unless I am able to get a "gang" of my own:-) there is no point trying to get this article to be NPOV. slim and jayjg are involved yet they too do not make any contribution toward NPOV. This is not what Wikipedia is all about but it is what wikipedia has become.
I don't have the time or the organized manpower as the other side to go through the usual Wikipedia mechanism. These mechanisms have failed in this article. In 3 years not a single Wikipedia admin was able to make significant contribution to make this article NPOV. This is a symptom to other anti-Israel systematic bias that is spread all over wikipedia and I suggest you find a way to address it as I can't. Zeq18:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Auto independence
Found your comment from six months ago, nothing was followed up, and I coudltn get over the US centrism in it, then realised I should suggest to you it gets the chop seeing the person never responded! whatcha think? apart from my inability to hit keys in order? vcxlor08:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
LOL What a flattering picture of me. Thanks for your support - I'm sorry it's taken me so long to reply, real life has taken up rather too much of my time lately. Theresa Knott [[User talk:Theresa knott| (a tenth stroke)]] 23:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(--Georg Wrede:) IMHO, the laws of thermodynamics should not be brought up at all (!!!!!) in contexts where creationism, god, or some such are looming.
Why?? Well, the laws of thermodynamics say that there is only a [predetermined] amount of energy available. Energy [and matter combined] is a finite constant, that does not increase, nor decrease. We had the Big Bang, ok, and then there's been energy and matter around. Some of them are getting consumed in Black Holes. Recently (however) we've been told that energy can actually escape from those black holes, thanks to the Uncertainty Principle. Still, this does not help, because the Current Wisdom of Scientists dictates that the Universe will be expanding forever, and hence, (because of the same energy getting diluted into an ever expanding volume -- fridges, anyone?) the universe will eventually cool to zero degrees Absolute.
If that weren't bad enough for the scientists, the question of Where Did all the energy for the Big Bang come from?
Irrespectible of whether one believes in [a] god [or not], the laws of thermodynamics are like the Newtonian equations for Celestial Mechanics. In other words, (and sarcastically!) whatever happens in Nature, sooner or later there comes a Mathematician who's figured out formulas that "explain" what's going on. (Within the observable domain!! And only that!!)
The laws of thermodynamics hold for a Contained System. Naturally, one would be inclined to extend those laws to the entire universe, but then one does forget that there _never_ was anything linear _without_ bounds. (This holds for mechanical concepts, as well as theoretical, abstract models.)
To summarize:
A man sits on a pier, angling. Next to him sits his dog. The man is contemplating Plate Tectonics (which incidentally, were denied by the Scinetific Community for nearly a half Century).
The dog, sits there and ponders upon what the man might be thinking about.
Now, we sit here, pondering upon the Creation of the Universe, the Existence of god, (not to mention the collaterals -- which most of us either deny off hand, or later deny deliberately), without any of us really realizing that we're the Dog.
Do I really have to go on?????
Re-Publication of Your Images
I am in the process of revising a textbook on television criticism, Television: Critical Methods and Applications. I'm very interested in using your Image:Cathode ray Tube.PNG in my book. I've read through the GNU Free Documentation License under which it's published and I believe textbook use is an acceptable use--assuming that I do not claim to copyright the image myself. However, I thought it best to check with you about this and to receive your blessing (or not). Also, what would be appropriate acknowledgement in my book for your image? Thanks! --Jeremy Butler21:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's absolutly fine by me. I am delighted that you would want to use my image! As far as I am concerned appropriate acknowledgement would be my name and a mention of Wikipedia Theresa Knott [[User talk:Theresa knott| (a tenth stroke)]] 23:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, fellow Esperanzians! This is just a friendly reminder that elections for Administrator General and two advisory council positions have just begun. Voting will last until Friday, December 30, so make sure you exercise your right to vote! Also, I'm pleased to announce the creation of the Esperanza mailing list. I urge all members to join; see Wikipedia:Esperanza/Contact for more information. All you need to do is email me and I will activate your account. This will be a great way to relax, stay in touch, and hear important announcements. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?)
This message was delivered to all Esperanza members by our acting messenger, Redvers. If you do not wish to receive further messages, please list yourself at WP:ESP/S. Thanks.
It's been reverted: 12:57, 21 December 2005 JiFish (revert; as far as I am aware Jimbo considers himself sole founder and this is a userpage not an article)
Also, I didn't mean to say "vandalism", just revert. I just pasted what was on the clipboard, because I've been reverting vandalism.Macintosh User18:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't had a good argument like this since my K5 days. And when he gives you lines like "I'll type more slowly for Ta bu, and correct a typo or two in the process:", with which I can respond with "Yes, that's right. Typing more slowly will certainly help me read your comments better.", and his comment "I wonder if Wikipedia is harboring any other fugitives from justice?"... well, this is the sort of thing you only normally hear from George W. It's a rare pleasure to read such gems. - Ta bu shi da yu18:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then, I'll try to let you guys deal with it and try not to say "I told you so" too loudly when he goes back to doing this. I'd also suggest making part of his punishment mandatory Mentorship. I have little to no interest in getting chided for trying to save Wikipedia from itself anymore. I'll head back to my little corner of things. karmafist22:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
P.S-I don't have alot of respect for the arbcom system anymore, but I do for most of the individuals on it, especially with you, Mindspillage and David Gerard in particular.
I am very offended by your signature. I'll have you know I am not tasty (yes, I've tried) and even if I was I wouldn't let people try it. You are being monstrously insensitive to the feelings of all us Korns out here. 13:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC) Note to any American readers: this is a joke.
Out of interest, have you seen his contributions? This particular user is basically causing a considerable amount of bother on Wikipedia. His statement to the anon about tracking them down is just one thing I have a problem with. AustinKnight has, in my view, been harassing Jimbo Wales (though I know he can take care of himself), POV pushing and ad hominem attacks on the David R. Hawkins article and talk page. He did excessive reverts on the article also, though this may be explained by how new he is to the site. Perhaps the following might be interesting:
You mean, Willmcw? Oh yeah, he does that. He's an admin, and tends to delete content that he doesn't like, or disagrees with his point of view, rather than edit it as he is supposed to...usually with an off-subject/hyperbolic reference in the edit summary so as to throw others off as to what he's actually doing. As a Wiki fan, you should get used to this, as there is nothing that you can do about it. Maybe you should refer to the complaints page? Jimmy Wales said in the CNN transcript that Wikipedia is very responsive to complaints. Why don't you try that, as your complaint here was clearly otherwise ignored? "You should bring up these larger issues elsewhere." ;-) --AustinKnight 06:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
As you can see, not a pleasant comment, and quite unfounded if I may say so myself. Then AustinKnight decides that it would be appropriate to rant on about Wikipedia in the Dawkins article!
Or perhaps let's look at the following comment on Talk:Abercrombie & Fitch Co.:
You're an undergraduate at USC who seeks employment in the fashion/clothing industry. That's all well and good, and I very sincerely wish you good luck -- not least of which because I am a USC grad as well ('78) -- but at the same time your choice of major brings to mind the matter of "conflict of interest" with respect to structuring this article.
Yep he's certainly prone to making ad hominid attacks. I suggest people simply delete them. I'm a believer in Remove personal attacks half policy or whatever it is. I think we should just watch him for the time being. If he continues acting in the way he has been doing he's going to end up getting himself banned, but we should go through rfc first. He should be given every chance possible to stop it. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn17:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few complaints against me that I find...insane. My RFA(dminship) voting style is accused of being Boothyesque. Not only is this mysterious to me (no one has provided any reasonable diffs or any particular RFAs) but I hardly see how it violates any policy. Wasnt Boothy brought to an RFC/RFA(rbitration) for this? Didn't nothing happen? Have I somehow done something different than Radiant and Zordrac have been doing for quite some time? freestylefrappe22:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of complaints against you. I accepted the case based on the more serious ones. If you choose to vote in RFAs in a daft manner (and I didn't look into this particular accusation in detail so I don't know if you do or don't) then I expect your vote would simply be ignored by the beaurocrat. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn07:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
......So you're not going to answer my question? Thats fine. I dont appreciate your comment on my talkpage nor the above statement. As for using my admin powers, I reject your suggestion. I never abused my powers and I'm tired of getting harassed by belligerant users with vendettas against me because I voted against their RFAs. freestylefrappe19:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The nice thing about a wiki is everything is logged. It really doesn't matter who accuses you - your actions speak for yourself.I was trying to reassure you that I see how you vote on WP:RFA as a relatively trivial matter. I was certainly not angry (as you have suggested in your question to Mindspillage I'm sorry that you don't appreciate my comments on your talk page - there is nothing I can do about that unfortanately. You protected your own talk page. This is an abuse of admin powers I'm afraid, and you must expect a bit of a lecture if you do that. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn20:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
All I want is a yes or no to my above question. It's either nonsense or completely valid. I was under the impression that my RFA voting style was moot. freestylefrappe23:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Recently, Rbj (talk·contribs) attempted to open a vendetta rfar against me and Phroziac. Freestylefrappe saw this, as he has apparently had a vendetta against me since I blocked him for 3RR during the Kumanovo affair, and offered to assist/asked for help from Rbj in assualting my character.
I'd like to ask you to remove your comment from my comments, as I assume it was just a misunderstanding, i'll try to clarify better there. karmafist23:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I put my comment in your evidence because you were interpreting his motives rather than just stating what he did. The only diff you gave shows essentially an offer of help. It didn't say he was going to help assalt your character. If you have evidence otherwise add it in and I'll happily remove my comment. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn23:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, there we go. Thanks for making me be more specific in my description, hopefully that'll be able to help the entire committee. karmafist23:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the note. I've been wondering whether I wasn't annoying the arbitors (and complainants) by making the evidence sections longer / complicating otherwise largely one-sided cases. Complete angels don't need advocates and defending people who fall short of that standard is bound to result in some collateral annoyance. It is good to hear that someone appreciates it. I looked into the AMA, but it seemed largely defunct and there were some unspecific comments about arbitors finding it unhelpful. I'll try to keep an eye out for people who could use a hand, but I really have no idea how you all handle the workload. --CBD☎✉21:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Parys = Pedo?
Hello you asked about the Mandy Moore thing. Well look at the history, on many occasions they have blanked info, sometimes the entire pages, or they put in information that is damaging to me. for example
"THIS ARTICLE KEEPS BEING REVERTED TO IT'S ORIGINAL FORM BY PARYS, DESPITE THE FACT THAT HE HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT IT HAS WRONG INFORMATION. PARYS WAS ALSO PART OF THE CRYSTAL CHERRY HOAX ON WIKIPEDIA THAT WAS DELETED.
(even though i didnt create it but w/e)
PARYS HAS ALSO BEEN CHASTIZED ON MANDY'S OFFICIAL MESSAGE BOARD FOR DOING THIS BUT HE CONTINUES TO MALICIOUSLY PUT UP INFORMATION HERE THAT HE KNOWS IS WRONG. SOMEBODY PLEASE REPORT HIM TO ADMINISTRATORS.
(absolutely false!)
MANDY HAS GOOD LEGAL GROUNDS FOR SUING HIM FOR LIBEL. IF PARYS CONTINUES TO PUT UP WRONG INFORMATION HERE THAT IS HURTING HER CAREER FINANCIALLY I WILL REPORT PARYS TO MANDY'S MANAGER AND LAW FIRM. (which is upsurd! mandy is no way affected by this financially #1 and threats of legal action by some yahoo on the internet is tacky.)"
And this happen december 26, 2005
It get's worst.
In the Once Moore history she describes me as some perv who wrote a book on child porn. I pinpointed the very place where it comes from, UCLA, in their library and i am already in the process of legal action. This person, who is behind each one of those IP's should be banned. Wikipedia is not a place to threaten, insult, or attack people.
Parys
I removed it because you refused to provide any evidence. Without evidence it sure looks like trolling. I'm happy for you to post on the AN but please back up what you say with some diffs. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn15:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but do you realise that the last time when I posted I was blocked? I don't want this any more. Since when I am blocked nobody can speak for me, defend, etc. It's good not to be blocked. Now we should debate the principles. When the time comes I will confronte the results of this with the behaviour of that Admin. -- Bonaparte talk15:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's in theory. In practice it is not. For example, my case. I am the victim of certain Admin. From beginning he blocked me very harsh just because I had very strong arguments in order to take a better position in a debate. So, he kept blocking me, and nobody cares about it. He even called me in a very personal attack in different names. I have never called him like that, I always brought arguments but he brought arguments of power.
To proove that so-called Moldovan language is identical with Romanian I gave an example of the two costitutions. With this example we have the proof that they are identical. After all a constitution is written in the official language isn't it? But he constantly deleted my example. Why? Because in this way we proove that they are wrong! How many times they reverted my examples? at least 20 times! Do you find a good approach like his "so called neutral approach " or "third party"?
Rerverting is not an abuse of admin powers.
The identity is more than obvious. It is a self evidence.
Not to me it isn't. I know nothing of languages but I see no reason why constititions have to be written in a local language. In England many official documents were written in latin. Latin is not the same as English.
The main problem of this page is that one of the camps is composed of exactly two persons (User:Node ue and User:Mikkalai), so that blocking User:Node ue is perceived as creating a bias in the editing process. Therefore, the banning measure used quite often by User:Mikkalai on extreme users of the other side is not applied to User:Node ue, even when he largely transgresses the rules of civility (actually, it's me that he first labelled as "koncenii" which is a russian language obscenity).
Are you saying that User:Mikkalai blocked you and not him for exactly the same "crimes" ?
8. Actually he consider badmouthing everything which is against his beliefs. If I bring examples, he said that are just not good. If I bring neutral, strong arguments then he blocked me to cover up.
He blocked to because he disagreed with you? I need evidence that he did this?
9. He blocked me for the first time abusing his rights. Then for the second time again. And his reaction is just to make bias edits, blocking others.
Again evidence please. I have only your say so on this.
10. He just archiving the talk page so that other users no to see his bias edits. All the examples that they are wrong to be hidden from the rest of the world.
It's in the history. It's impossible to delete evidence on a wiki.
11. He said that my only contributions are shouting and badmouthing.
Give me evidence otherwise. Diffs of you adding good content that is kept in articles.
12. Here he makes another irony: Ah, "just this Guy", do you think I cannnot find a person who would happily block a person who is persistently badmouthing? Good luck with your new buddy. mikka (t) 21:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
He is threatening to get someone else to block you?
Yes he was. Date: 21:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
-Mark Williamson (User:Node ue) said:" Bonaparte, tu eshti koncenii!!! " (this is a personal attack and User:Node ue was never blocked for this! instead just look the way User:Mikkalai encourage this:)
-Mikka User:Mikkalai said: "That's a tough one for Bonaparte: if he recognizes this as an insult, then he will admit that Moldovan is not identical to Romanian, if he will not, then he does not know Moldavian. :-)" mikka (t) 00:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
-Mark Williamson (User:Node ue) said: "Indeed :) that was the intention..."--Node
You need to explain this one to me. I speak neither language
With this kind of support from Administrator User:Mikkalai is no wonder that the things are going in this way that he continues to labelling others as "koncenii" like User:Dpotop,
Mikka, you blocked Bonaparte (talk·contribs) for one week. In my opinion, that is a bit excessive and, as there is no firm policy backing to this block and the fact that you are in a content dispute with this user makes it, in my view, inappropriate. Bonaparte has already served 24 hours and that is the typical block vandals are given. Anyway, as Bonaparte has agreed to stop revert-warring over Cyrillic names (see User talk:Bonaparte#Unblocking) I have unblocked him. I just wanted to run this by you. Thanks. Izehar20:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am in content dispute with every vandal. I disagree with your unblocking without alking to me first. I am watching this user for a long time and I am doing what is right: eacalating punishment for persisiting in improper behavior. Your interference without knowing history is unwelcome. I am esetting the block for 48 hours as a trade-off. mikka(t)20:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mikka, for what it's worth I think it is bad form to use admin powers in a content dispute where you have previously taken sides. I'm not saying Bonaparte is right (you'll see from his and my talk pages that I have rpeeatedly urged him to calm down and use proper process). On the other hand, by blocking Bonaparte it seems to me that you are effectively giving an advantage to one side in a POV dispute - this is not to assume bad faith on your part (I quite agree that Bonaparte is very prone to flying off the handle and any other admin would probably do the same - but not necessarily only to Bonaparte, which is the point). I would suggest that the edit wars might be better sorted by a brief period of page protection, forcing both sides to the table to thrash things out on the talk page rather than edit warring. - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C]AfD?21:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't take sides. At these Moldovan pages I am solely dealing with vandalism and revert wars. You from your own experience must know that only blocks are effectively acting on Bonaparte. Not punishing him makes him feeling invincible. When you talk to him, he talks back. I will be blocking him as much as I think necessary, since no one else bothers to deal with his disrupting behavior. mikka(t)02:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, your blocks surely do the trick. Every time you block him, mysterious new IPs appear on posting. And how about Node? How come you ignore his vandalism and provokative postings? See my message below this one, or are you going to protend it's raining? If you deal with a problem, deal with all causes. --Anittas03:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mikka - like it or not, I think you have involved yourself in a content dispute with Bonaparte, at Tighina and Moldova. Yes, they're small things, but I think what you've done is blocked him for having a different point of view, and I don't think that conforms to policy. I think it's important to engage in much more active dialogue with Bonaparte, but I think his point of view can be argued as well - therefore, his edits are not simple vandalism or disruption. A one week block in this case is particularly unsuitable. From now on, please consult the community before a block - Bonaparte genuinely feels he is being wronged, and that's not good. Or, please tell another sysop to do the block, since it can be argued that you're in a conflict of interest regarding Bonaparte.
I've never accused you of not being impartial, and I do think that you are quite impartial, I think the conflict is more in terms of the approach. Your approach is very hard-line, in my opinion - it's like "I've blocked you now. Deal with it. There are no appeals". I think that's a very dangerous approach to justice, because it breeds alienation and therefore conflict and distrust. And that's never good! Ronline✉07:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is no content dispute here. The guy is repeatedly (even after explanations, hence deliberately) deletes pieces of information that bear to Moldovan language and Moldovans. I don't mess into the "content" where he tries to push his POV that such things do not exist, but his removal these terms wherever these are used in official language will not be tolerated, as well as removal other purely factual pieces aimed at elimitation of history. he also has a habit to meddle in things that has no knowledge, like "correction" of translation of Hungarian terms. As for "breeding conflict", please explain this to Bonaparte. He is the most belligerent and obnoxious editor I've ever met in wikipedia. Just look thru a couple of last archives of Talk:Moldovan language. Fortunately for him, he thrives in a narrow area where only a handful of people work.
My "harline" approach: I say: certain people become more arrogant seeing only soft talk. So far I've seen no evidence of change in his attitudes. You say: "I've blocked you now. Deal with it." Wrong. In the beginning I paroled him two times. Each time he dived headlong back into wordfight.
So, once more, this is not a kindergarten and he is not a timid newcomer, and I firmly believe that his behavior is disruptive, and each time he goes over board and I notice this, he will be punished. It is up to you to be a "good cop" with him in milder cases, like revert wars in Moldovan language. mikka(t)07:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Node removing text
Node keeps removing messages of Bonaparte, saying they are personal attacks against him. Here is what he removed:
Where is the personal attack? And don't give me the stuff about you not wanting to be involved in such disputes. You chose to involve yourself the day you used your tools on some of the involved parties. Also, you're not on vacation, so you can remove the disclaimer. --Anittas01:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for 1 week for persistent and fully aware distortion and deletion of official info, e.g., in Republic of Moldova, Tighina and in other places. This is considered persistent and malicious vandalism. Persistent removal of Cyrillic spelling of moldovan toponyms is an intolerable censorship of information. mikka(t)21:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Read here very careful mikka: I was just reverting Node's edits which are considered persistent and malicious vandalism. So you have to block Node, not me! And your persistent adding of Cyrillic spelling of Moldovans toponyms is also persistent and malicious vandalism. Moldovan (Romanian)'s official spelling is in LATIN ALPHABET. So, block yourself! Bonaparte talk08:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me - this is a content dispute not vandalism. Please do not use blocks when dealing with content disputes. Mikka is clearly has a conflict of interest, by blocking Bonaparte for edits to a page in which he is actively involved in editing, and he is also involved in a content dispute with Bonaparte at this same page. At Tighina, there seems to be a dispute between including the Moldovan Cyrillic version of the text. Again, this is a content dispute. Please take this to the talk page. Mikka has a very valid rationale for including this Cyrillic text, but Bonaparte can also make his argument. It is the same at Republic of Moldova. They are not cases of simple vandalism. If the 3RR is broken, the Bonaparte can be blocked, but not for one week. I hope he is unblocked now. Thanks, Ronline✉07:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are more than 5 times, but I don't want to fill out all your talk page. Now, do you think that you can help me? This was the n-time when he acted like this. Bonaparte talk16:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by comment: Mikka's behaviour reminds me of Stevertigo's on Vietnam War... perhaps an RfC is in order? Nothing harsh, just an opportunity to clarify some policy points on protection and blocking? Dan100 (Talk) 17:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Bonaparte
He complained to many. I will not waste my time discussing the issue with each 100 of you "personally". He knows the place where to complain. Cheers. mikka(t)17:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I did complain to Administrator's Noticeboard and you did not change afterwards, even if many Admins told you so. Remember that Jmabel told you that you were out of line. Jmabel is one of the most respectable contributor to Wikipedia. Bonaparte talk17:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My two cents
Hello Mrs Knott (sounds like I'm back at school). I see you've got involved in this little dispute. I would just like to deposit my two cents. A glance at Bonaparte's block log reveals that Mikka has blocked him for lengthy periods for what I view as unjustifiable (i.e. can't be found in the Wikipedia:Blocking policy) reasons. Once, I unblocked him after having extracted a promise that he would refrain from editing an article, but use the talk page. I also left a message on Mikka's talk page explaining my action, but Mikka disagreed and reinserted a lesser block.
In my opinion, Mikka is way too involved now to block Bonaparte and if he believes that Bonaparte should be blocked, should ask another administrator to issue it instead of him. I disagree with Bonaparte calling for his desysopment - I have great admiration for Mikka: he has started, written or participated in writing many articles with an extremely high quality (NPOV), and he, in my opinion, has never abused his privileges. I think that asking him, more as a personal favour, to refrain from blocking Bonaparte should do the trick. Mikka is very insightful and I'm sure he'd respond positively.
Anyway, I've explained things how I see them. I think that WP:AGF and the normal principles of fairness require Mikka's full side of the story to be heard as well, so I won't, and I advise everyone else to do the same, jump to conclusions.
Ah, you've obviously had the pleasure of NOT talking to as many women-hating American males as I have. It's an American slang term for "female who stands up to men", basically. -_-
well, if there wasn't rules I'd actually retaliate - it's not so much that I'm "offended" as angry, it's vulgar and a slur in the same way "slut" is used for a promiscuous female (when it's "good" to be a promiscuous male on the other hand) - but as it is I just list people like that with evidence on the board. -_- --Mistress Selina Kyle(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)20:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you are angry. And don't think that I am defending him making a personal attack because I am not. But you failed to assume good faith and accused him of vandalising a template, and i don't think he intended it as vandalism. Maybe he felt the same flash of anger at your vandalism slur as you feel now and relatilated. I'm not saying what he did was right, it wasn't. You are angry and you haven't resorted to personal attacks - he is clearly weaker than you are. Have a nice cup of tea (or whatever it takes), rise above it, and let us deal with things. He is being wtched bu admins. We will take appropriate action if he doesn't settle down. But I think he probably will. I always try to assume good faith. It serves me ans Wikipedia well. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn20:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine if one was worried about sand in one's vagina, having a thick vagina would be a more effective defense than "thick skin." KI22:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Andrea
HI! I would love to speak with you, you seem like a really smart woman.
I am a 20 year old psychology student in Perú, how can we talk throuhg something like msn messenger? without me having to post my email adress here? :)
I'm not stirring up trouble or playing, though it seems you are Ms. Bitchy Attitude. I am trying to resolve a violation and abuse which you admit you don't know why it happened. Stop your persistant hazing of n00bs and actually do your fucking job by making this a better place. Instead of taunting n00bs you could be helping us learn the ropes and punishing those that haze us.
It's not hazing to say "shut up already". The situation is resolved, and was resolved before you came to the AN. I have no intention of punishing anyone here, no one else will either. If you want to learn the ropes learn this - pick your fights.This one is over before it has even started.
You got off to a bad start here, it happens. We were all newbies once. Forgive and forget is my motto. My advice is to chalk this one up to experience. Remember that Wikipedia is a serious project. Everyone is here to write a proper encylopedia. You will find the atmosphere rather different that slashdot, or other wikis. That's not to say we can't have a laugh, because we do - I laugh all the time, I make jokes and sometimes do silly vandalisms - but not in the article namespace. The atmosphere here can be pretty friendly. Honest. You haven't experienced it yet because of the way you introduced yourself. As a newbie, you have some responsibility yourself to make sure you understand our culture. Lurking, going slowly, making small edits first that sort of thing. In order not to be treated like a dick it's best not to give the impression you are one. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn22:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Happy New Year 2006
Hello Theresa! I'v seen your picture on net. :) You are very cute :) I just want to wish you a happy new Year in 2006. Please look again here. This bias Admin has just deleted very neutral, NPOV info, then he blocked the page. How about that? Isn't this a little bit out of line? Again he makes only controversial edits. Bonaparte talk10:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
protecting page, edits and push POV of user:Mikkalai
Hello, please can you unblock Transnistria page? It seems that this bias Admin user:Mikkalai had some large edits there, then he blocked the page. I don't agree with him to removed so much refereces including very neutral from BBC.
Oleksandr Pavliuk, Ivanna Klympush-Tsintsadze, The Black Sea Region: Cooperation and Security Building, EastWest Institute, ISBN0765612259
and
James Hughes, Gwendolyn Sasse, Ethnicity and Territory in the Former Soviet Union, Regions in conflict. Routledge Ed. ISBN0714652261, page 114-115
As I noted before, the violations are not copied word-for-word, but rather replace the occasional word with a synonym which is, last time I checked, still a copyvio.
An entry which contains a few copied phrases from individual websites or other sources. Quotation, even without attribution, is specifically allowed in international copyright law, and single sentences are generally not protectable.
A digitized picture that may be copied from elsewhere, but has in fact been created hundreds of years ago. Sometimes, the companies who have digitized these pictures claim copyright on them, but I find such claims highly dubious.
Screenshots of free software applications, and small illustrative screenshots. It should generally be no problem if a screenshot is copied from the official product page.
Bonica, ACP is not a direct antidote to copyright policy. It does not give you a licence to go and insert copyrighted content everywhere. It is intended so that people are calm and rational with regards to claims of copyright infringement. Instead of saying "ohmigod ohmigod copyvio!!!! DELETE DELETE DELETE!!", people are thus encouraged to investigate claims, try to rework content so that it will no longer be in violation of copyrights, or even to find if it is possible to keep copyrighted content intact (for example, with permission for distribution under the GFDL, or various loopholes in international copyright laws) --70.58.114.23923:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your having reverted the nonsense left on my user page. Been happening a lot lately. Do you think it's because I'm ticking off the vandals...? Ah, sweet success. :) Happy new year! - Lucky 6.900:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Theresa, regardless of what you or anyone might think of this spat over userboxes, I would think that you could dismiss it in a somewhat more professional manner. Over a hundred users, including some of us who have been around for a long time and whose credibility (I hope) as contributors is above mention, thought that Kelly's deletions were out-of-process and worth looking in to. I found your manner of dismissal offensive and high-handed. Of course we're here to make an encyclopedia. No userbox ever stopped me from doing that--nor Kelly. Anyway, please don't take this the wrong, and please consider your comment. Thanks. Mackensen(talk)02:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I know. The truth of the matter is I'm sick of it all, and will be resigning as soon as elections are sorted out. This seems particulaly trivial, certanily not worth my attention. But I could have worded it better. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn02:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
brenneman has added a statement which I think sums up why you might want to reconsider your rejection of this. It's not about idiotic userboxes (of which I admit there are probably way too many cluttering up template-space), it's about respecting the community that helps to build this encyclopedia. I do hope you'll reconsider. —Locke Cole • t • c02:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a supplement to brenneman's statement, Ms. Knott, I ask you to read my outside view at the Martin RFC. I wish only for harmony in the community, and I recognize that the community exists solely to write the encyclopedia; but some respect must be given to those who seek redress here, or the community will fracture, and the 'pedia will be endangered. Best wishes, Xoloz08:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm watching the situation. I still believe it to be a storm in a teacup, and not something that the AC should be involved in, but I am slightly less resolved than I was yesterday. I hope that the new rfc will settle the matter without us having to deal with it. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn23:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
220.247.241.79 et al
Thanks for whatever you did, but being a bit of a newbie with this stuff, quite astonished that the junk could be applied to mulitple articles in such a short time! with a drifting IP whats more! Do hope whatever you did is enough to put somethin like this off, as it seemed too much spread over random pages to feel comfortable about.. Oh well thanks again SatuSuro08:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It will not put him off forever. He is a known vandal. He will come back later :-( But he never manages to get a vandal edit to last more the a few seconds or so. There are far more of us than him so we have a massive advantage. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn08:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, as the late Douglas Adams put in the mouth of the Vogon "death is too good" or words to that effect... Thanks again.SatuSuro08:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kelly/Snowspinner Rfar
You do realize that this isn't about userboxes, right? It's about some people thinking they're above all reproach towards doing whatever they want, to the point where editors stand in fear of summary retribution from above.[20]
The rule of law on Wikipedia has nearly collapsed, and likely the arbcom is the only force that can change that other than Jimbo or a mass revolt by rank and file editors. karmafist13:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The worst part about the editor's question "Will I get blocked for this?" is that, having been an admin and following the noticeboard carefully for the past 6 months, I can't confidently tell that editor "no." The essential complaint behind the RFC is not "Users are complaining that their precious userboxes disappeared" but "Some users believe that some admins are using their special buttons in capricious and chilling ways."
That arbcom is — in my opinion — dodging their responsibility to deal with this is only a bit troubling. But that they are doing so by framing the issue as simply being a tiff about userboxes is, simply, appalling. Nandesuka13:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen any evidence that is more than a tiff about userboxes.(Maybe it's there and I just haven't seen it, I'm not perfect) If you present it I will look into it. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn
Another $0.02, on sale today for half price. I don't doubt for a second that the arbitrators have the best of intentions. But, the dismissal of this issue as being about user boxes is way off the mark, as pointed out above. More importantly, it looks very bad to outside observers. If the arbcom wishes to give the appearance of being deaf to complaints against one of their own, they're doing it very effectively. Friday(talk)15:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hardly know Kelly Martin. If I did I would recuse. My attitude would be the same no matter who she is. I want to see hard evidence backing up claims of admin abuse. Kelly states that she only deleted boxes that violated the Wikipedia:User page guidlines. Now if this is true (And if you claim it's not I want to see the evidence)- I'm not going to have much sympathy for people whining about it. She was bold, rash even, but not abusing her admin powers IMO and not something serious enough for the AC.
Now as for blocking people. Abusive blocks are a much more serious matter. People should not be blocked for complaining about an admin's action. But I need to see evidence of this happening. You can put it on the RFAr page or if anyone is worried about doing that they can put it here on my talk page. I will not block anyone. Please keep it short and sweet. I like things to the point. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn21:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's well and good that Kelly says she deleted them because they violated the Wikipedia:User page guidelines, but that's also a red herring (and irrelevant, as the things she claimed violated it were not themselves in user-space). We have processes (the *fD areas, WP:AFD, WP:CFD, WP:MFD) to deal with deletions. As far as I know, there is no speedy deletion allowance for things that violate WP:UP (again noting these were not in user-space). Now, this could be user boxes, it could be articles, it could be anything, that's not really the question being raised at the RFAr. The question being raised is: Is it okay for an administrator to delete a massive number of pages outside of the available processes when they clearly don't meet the usual speedy-deletion criterium (vandalism, vanity, etc)? With regard to the blocks, I'll let someone else answer that. —Locke Cole • t • c21:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I don't buy the "They are not in the userspace" argument. You splitting hairs. I'll answer your second question though. I don't know if it's OK for an administrator to delete a massive number of pages outside of the deletion process. That's for the community to decide IMO. Sometimes being bold is good, sometimes not. It's not something that I would have done but it's not something I consider abuse if it's done once and not repeated if the communuty is against it. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn22:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if you believe they were in user-space and were to be handled per WP:UP, I'll quote this passage–
In excessive cases, your user subpage may be deleted, following a listing on Miscellany for deletion, subject to deletion policy. Please do not recreate content deleted in this way: doing so is grounds for immediate re-deletion (see candidates for speedy deletion). Instead, please respect our judgement about what is and is not appropriate.
And that's with regard to "user subpages", which I don't know how you'd classify userboxes, but I suspect they'd be about equal. (And as I've noted, I'd rather this wasn't considered to be about userboxes, because it trivializes the deletions themself).
In any event, the latter part of your response seems to indicate that you're not interested in hearing the issue if the problem is not ongoing. With that in mind, I just wanted to clarify that WP:UP doesn't seem to have provisions for summary deletion of user-space materials (and in fact encourages using WP:MFD to give the community an opportunity to be involved). Thanks for your time. —Locke Cole • t • c00:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's exactly right. The AC is for serious ongoing disputes that are not solved by other means. Kelly did something that caused a big stink. The big stink itself is the solution. Any other admin contemplating similar action will stop and think twice because they know the community will not support it. The user page guidline not providing for the unilateral deletion of userboxes that violate other policies is understandable because user boxes were not around when the guidline was mostly written. There is no precident for what Kelly did. The water has well and truly been tested now, and a new policy is being formed as we speak - not necessarily formally. Policies do not have to be written down. Well that's my take on it anyway. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn21:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Theresa knott, could I ask you to expand upon your reasoning for rejecting this arbitration request? I'm just interested in knowing your reasoning. Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 23:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Bumpusmills1 is a new user whom I have worked with in an attempt to teach him Wikipedia guidelines, manners, and so on. To his credit he is trying to learn. Unfortunately, he was a bit abrasive at first and stirred up some vandals and such, especially anonymous editors User:68.45.146.191, User:199.216.98.66 and User:216.13.219.229 who placed User:Bumpusmills1's personal contact info on User:Bumpusmills1's user page and threatened him. (Examples of these threats are [21] and [22], although there are more examples in the history.) It appears these anonymous users are sock puppets of one user. To cut to the chase, I was told to check with the people on the arbitration committee to see if one of you could do a checkuser on these ISPs and see if this is a Wikipedia editor making threats. Thanks for any help you can give.--Alabamaboy23:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm sure you're sick of this by now, but I'm happy you're being responsive, so thought I'd bring this up. I largely agree with your sentiments on the userbox controversy, and haven't touched the whole silly thing at all (best summed up here). But the recent, unrepentant wheel warring and very inappropriate blocks by Snowspinner really piqued my interest, and, I think, rise to the level of arbcom-worthy (where Kelly Martin doesn't really). I wonder if you could tell me what you thought of my statement? Dmcdevit·t00:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I as well fail to see the benefit of a case against Kelly Martin, I urge the arbitration committee to consider Snowspinner's administrative actions here. He has, and after the filing of his RFC by the way, engaged in multiple wheel wars at WP:RFC/KM
This is a trial stupid wheel war over a trvial stupid page. I fell like bashing their heads together and sending them to be without supper. However, I don't think it serious enough for the AC.
I actually agree with his actions there. This template was created to stir up trouble, not to inform.
been (rightly) blocked for 3RR at WP:RFC/KM, and then promptly blocked the admin who blocked him[23],
The block states that it was for wheel warring. Was the block invalid?
not to mention the original two punitive blocks that were a part of the RFC (each of which turning into wheel wars, in which he was reversed by three separate admins, and proceeded to reblock each reagrdless) [24][25],
No response yet. I need to look into this in more depth.
after which he proceeded to block another editor for the same reason [26].
Oh come now! You can't be serious?
After this, he unimaginably goes on to defend wheel warring, saying: "The only way to oppose it is to wheel war and push on with no regard for the consequences."[27] May as well include Karmafist in arbitration as well, as Snowspinner's partner in wheel warring. Dmcdevit·t08:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really following the argument above, but I'd like to clarify one thing. As the admin who blocked Snowspinner and was in turn blocked by him, I'd like to state emphatically that his block of me was invalid, and I was unblocked by a 3rd party admin within minutes. If you're curious about the incident, there is quite a lot of detail (including my request for comments about my actions, which several admins said they agreed with) at WP:AN/I#Karmafist and Snowspinner blocked for 3RR. -- SCZenz21:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
that Smurfs image
Per the discussion over at User talk:24.147.103.146: I dont know if images can be undeleted, but I really dont think deletion was warranted. The image as it was used in the article on Smurfs was totally kosher fair use and extremely relevant and informative. It should be removed from userspace but not from wikipedia. -Lanoitarus(talk).:.08:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There were two images. One is being used in the smurfs article. Another image derived from the first was being used in the userspace. That's why I was happy to just go ahead and delete it. We have not lost anything. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn15:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to ask you please to look again at the latest evolution on the page Transnistria. Your help is needed and is welcomed. I've also added a list of remaining issues you can add if you have also some. From my point of view the other issues are solved. Would be very fine if you can explain to Node the situation. He has done similar with other pages as well that now are blocked because of him. You may not know node but he is just 16 and he likes to play with this kind of approach. A lot of other users have invested a lot of time and work in it and simply don't accept his trolling. That's why many have left because of him. (at least 18 romanians by now). You know all by now I think. Thank you. Bonaparte talk18:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in his age or background. I'm not interested in people who have left. I am interested in unprotecting the page but will not do so until I'm sure the revert war over copyvio allegations will not start up again. I am watching the page and waiting for node ue's comments on any remaining copyvio problems. If he states that he is happy with the version that was placed on the talk page I wil;l unprotect. If he states that he is not I expect him to state the problem in full, and i expect you to work with him on the talk page and thrash it out. But for now I am taking a wait and see aproach. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn22:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a version placed on the talkpage. But if it still includes {{ref|pavliuk}} and {{ref|hughes}}, I'm betting it's got copyvio material (though obviously this isn't a for-sure, I somehow doubt anybody replaced the copyvio with real original writing simply using them as references). --Node01:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am perplexed at your continued restoration of the incorrect label of a photo of an uncircumcised penis with the foreskin retracted as a circumcised penis which it plainly is not. You will note that the source of the photo is a Russian article; doubtless the latter is considerably less well known there than in Western countries. There is a photo of a circumcised (albeit mis-spelled) penis at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Circumsized_penis.gif
and perhaps you would like to substitute that photo for the inappropriate one that appears in the article. It would be better to have a photo illustrating what the subsection of the article is discussing anyway. Masalai00:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to ask for your help on something. On his talk page, and on mine, Tony has made several accusations that I am engaging in personal attacks. We are discussing a topic that we disagree on, and we are both sticking firmly to our guns. However, I honestly don't believe that it is fair to characterize our discussion as incivil or consisting of personal attacks; it feels to me like Tony is trying to describe the mere fact that I am disagreeing with him vigorously as a personal attack by definition. I'd like to ask you to take a look at our discussion on those pages, and render an opinion. If you think I'm over the line, I will of course step back. I would hope that if you think my discourse is reasonable, that Tony will agree to reconsider his position that I am "attacking" him. What do you say? Nandesuka17:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about disagreement on the facts, but about the mode of expression of those disagreements over an appreciable period and over several different issues and in several different forums.
For my own part, it's stated in this initial complaint made on 27 December, and relating to several unrelated instances, recent at that time, in which Nandesuka had made what appear to me to be very snide and uncivil characterizations of my actions, and which taken together have the appearance of a personal attack. My latest complaint relates to this edit in which Nandesuka appears to characterize some of my contributions to an arbitration case as "inconsequential, trumped up claims" that deserved to be "given short shrift." I object specifically to the description of my proposed findings of fact, which were submitted in good faith and the majority of which found their way, in substantially the original wording, into the final decision, as "trumped up" or having been in any way shape or form "given short shrift".
As I also drafted one of the two remedies that found their way into the proposed decision (perhaps more, having contributed to the general civility remedy by insisting that I be included as a party to the case in the admonishment) I also find the characterization, which in any case would be rather uncivil, to constitute an attempt to denigrate me. It is this appearance at a consistent pattern of denigration that concerns me. It doesn't appear to mere incivility to me, but an attempt to goad me by making extremely slanted descriptions of my actions, which out of conscientiousness I cannot let alone but must investigate thoroughly to see if he has a point.
While allowing that it's true that I withdrew several proposed findings of fact, in the course of my investigation I found (to my own surprise) that substantial material from nearly all of those findings of fact that I withdrew found their way, in wording that I had drafted, into the committee's proposed decision in the case. As it's a workshop and the purpose is to draft, discuss and refine, it's hardly surprising that some proposals are withdrawn and redrafted. But here there is a clear pattern of material being incorporated and merged. But that's by-the-by--Nandesuka can disagree on this without his needing to describe my proposals as "trumped up" or "inconsequential".
I'm not getting the impression here of someone who is interested in, in his words, "civil discourse". My refutations have led to yet more wild claims such as one in which he expands his accusations to include proposed arbitration decisions which I did not draft, even two that I explicitly opposed, and even one that I did draft and which found its way into the proposed decision! I've asked him politely to lay it off but he only tells me that "is not acceptable to describe civil disagreement as a personal attack. Please tone down your rhetoric."--a conscious parody of my own wording in the original complaint that, frankly, is difficult to interpret as anything other than an act of insolent, unrepentant, trolling. I'm sure he has the good of the wiki at heat, but this isn't the way to do it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk19:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to rehash the substance of the debate here, because I think it is tangential. I think the crux of the issue is that I think it is difficult for Tony to interpret my comments as anything other than -- using his words, not "parodying" them -- "insolent, unrepentent, trolling." I think that if Tony were extending to me the same amount of good faith he (correctly) expects from others, he would not see my comments this way. But I am openminded and willing to hear and respond to criticism from someone not so close to the issue, and I hope that Tony is as well. Theresa, I know you haven't said you'll get involved, but I hope that you do, and if you do I look forward to hearing your opinion. Nandesuka20:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Secret Arbcom bans?
Theresa, Jossi wrote a bizarre message to me a few days ago.
You have been blocked for 48 hrs and the 12 month period reset for breaking your parole as stated by the Arbcom. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RK_2#Remedies, as it pertains to personal attacks parole, and revert limitations. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
All I can say is "Huh?" What is Jossi talking about? Theresa, there has been no process going on in regards to me, none at all. (Or, if there is, this has been kept an absolute secret from me.) In truth, I have not even been on Wikipedia, except in the most minor fashion, for months. For instance, today I made a handful of edits, and that's been the extent of my contributions for a month!
Is someone else using my account? Frankly, I have absolutely no idea of what Arbcom is talking about! It deeply concerns me that the Arbcom is making cases against people in secret, without letting them even know that a process is going on. That itself is a violation of Arbcom policy, and could lead to proceedings against those people who violated the Arbcom rules! Who is attacking me and banning me while I am not even using Wikipedia? Does this make any sense to you?
It is especially puzzling that I was banned and put on parole without being given any reason, without being notified, and with all the reasons and discussions kept secret, and during a time when I essentially had almost no editing on Wikipedia. I have never seen such a thing. Please get in touch with me. 20:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Theresa. By chance I just noticed that Hobbesian does a redirect to dear old Mr Hobbes, and that within that article the term "Hobbesian" is only briefly mentioned at the bottom of the piece about Leviathan, and that brief text is basically just saying that Hobbes is wrongly associated with the term. So, I had a look at the redirect, and found that there actually had been a short article on the subject there, created 22 March 2004 at 15:22 by an unlogged person. Not very well written, but it could have been expanded and improved. Less than 12 hours later, Fabiform (who seems to have withdrawn from Wikipedia shortly afterwards) pasted a notification about deletion on it, referring people to the Articles for deletion page to discuss the matter. And at 11:16 on 23 March, i.e. less than 24 hours after the article was created, you deleted all content and changed it into a redirect to Thomas Hobbes.
I've checked the archive of deletion discussions, and can't find any reference to that page, and considering the very short time span between creation and deletion, there can hardly have been any. So, I would like to know (if you can remember) what the reason for deletion was. It may not have been a very common term in March 2004, but now it definitely is. Following the expression's introduction into political life by the Neocons around Bush, it has become a buzz words in the media, with every other political reporter talking about somebody having "a hobbesian world view", or talking about "a hobbesian perspective" - and I'm convinced that 95% of the viwers/listeners/readers have no idea what it means. If I google "hobbesian" I get more than 300,000 hits, but hardly any of them explain the term. "Hobbism" (the philosophy based on a hobbesian view) gives me 2,500 hits, and "Hobbist" (a disciple of Hobbes), gives me 450 hits when searched with 'Hobbesian" or 'Hobbes" ("Hobbist" alone gives 51,000 hits, but that's because so many people meant to write "hobbyist", but didn't). There is even a blog out there, titled "Mr. & Mrs. Hobbesian Conservative".
While writing this, I notice that "Hobbism" received an even quicker redirect treatment by Doc glasgow in September 2005. An unlogged person had created a nonsense text about Hobbism being a term for a country's population being spurred into political action by a TV programme, derived from Irish TV presenter, Eddie Hobbs. Within three hours, Doc glasgow had changed it into a redirect to Thomas Hobbes.
And when I search Wikipedia for "Hobbist", I actually find the term in an article about the "neo-Hobbesian" philosopher David Gauthier.
Whatever the reason for deletion was in 2004, I definitely think "Hobesian" is worth an article of its own now. It could encompass "Hobbist" and "Hobbism", and give a link to Thomas Hobbes, of course. What do you think? Thomas Blomberg00:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't remember creating this redirect but I can take a good guess as to my motives at the time. I'm not keen on deleting pages (removing them permenantly from the database) so I always try to find alternative solution. If I saw a VFD header then I probably would have wanted to find an alternative solution. Hence my creation of the redirect. By doing this i was able to keep the old stub on the database as a page history. That way if anyone (like you for instance) wanted to expand the stub into a full grown article they could do so. So please do feel free to go ahead! Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn19:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The AMA needs an independent person to take and tally votes, by e-mail, for our upcoming Coordinator election. Could you possibly be prevailed upon to accept that task? Wally21:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for accepting, Theresa — I assure you this is only vote counting and no messy procedural stuff. We're going to vote by approval, between two candidates, with the largest majority winning. It was supposed to be over e-mail, unless you think there might be a better way (we've already ruled out an open vote on the talk page).
Do you have an e-mail address that you would like used for AMA votes? I'd like to start tomorrow if possible; obviously we've had some problems with procedural delays. Wally20:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Theresaknott AT gmail DOT com. I need a list of eligable voters. Voters should put AMA in the header and thier wikipedia username in the body. How long with the voting period last? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn09:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It will be a week, starting Friday, 3 February at midnight UTC. There is an eligible voter roll up already, and I'll place it with more prominence soon. I'll have all voters include "AMA Coordinator Election Ballot" in the e-mail. They can vote for either or both of the candidates. Wally10:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abramoff page
Dear Theresa,
Regarding your message.
We are having a HUGH problem keeping references to Jews off of the Abramoff page. And unless we can keep it Kosher we're going to have to find ways of doing it, even resulting to drastic measures. If you have a better way to pursuade the writers and editors of this page to keep all references to Jews or Israel off we would appreciate it very much.
Well we feel sad that it won't help because going to such drastic measures will not be a nice thing to do. However, we will do whatever is needed in order to keep school children from viewing this blatant antisemitism.
We were hoping that you would be own our side, obviously we were wrong and you harbor the same sentiments that the other writers and editors hold. Thats sad.
As I remember, the last spam that was handed out was on the 20th of December last year, so I think it's time for another update. First and foremost, the new Advisory Council and Administrator General have been elected. They consist of myself as Admin General and FireFox, Titoxd, Flcelloguy and Karmafist as the Advisory Council. We as a group met formally for the first time on the 31st of Decembe. The minutes of this meeting can be found at WP:ESP/ACM. The next one is planned for tonight (Sunday 29 January) at 20:30 UTC and the agenda can be found at WP:ESP/ACM2.
In other news, Karmafist has set up a discussion about a new personal attack policy, which it can be found here. Other new pages include an introductory page on what to do when you sign up, So you've joined Esperanza... and a welcome template: {{EA-welcome}} (courtesy of Bratsche). Some of our old hands may like to make sure they do everything on the list as well ;) Additionally, the userpage award program proposal has become official is operational: see Wikipedia:Esperanza/User Page Award to nominate a userpage or volunteer as a judge. Also see the proposed programs page for many new proposals and old ones that need more discussion ;)
Other than that, I hope you all had a lovely Christmas and wish you an Esperanzially good new WikiYear :D Thank you! --Celestianpowerháblame16:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply] Message delivered by Rune.welsh using AWB. If you wish to recieve no further messages of this ilk, please sign your name here.
Classic Rock
Hello. I was wondering if you would like to participate in my classic rock survey. I'm trying to find the most like classic rock song. There is more information on my user page. Hope you participate! RENTAFOR LET?02:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your question on WP:ANI, here are some issues I've seen. Please realize that what I am about to say is not my opinion, but rather the objections I've seen in a variety of places on-wiki (frankly comments about this are all over the place, some of them reasonable, some of them not).
Whatever discussion there was about clerkhood before its implementation, was not done on the wiki. Thus, it may look like a hasty decision.
The arbitrators feel that it was our decision to make. We have to be able to organise arbitration in the best way we see fit. The decision was to try having clerks. If that decision prove to be stupid we will get rid of the clerks.
Again in the spirit of openness, people don't like off-wiki discussions. The need for arbs to talk in private is generally understood, but the need for clerks to join private discussions is not.
The have write access only. They will not be joining private discussions.
Some people think that it looks suspicious that, days after the election, a new function is created and three people that ranked very low in the election are immediately instated. It is possible to construe this as disregard for the election results.
These people have no power. They have no influence. I have always used my own judgment when reviewing evidence. I will do the same now as before. I look at the actual evidence and ignore the spin. Someone summarising the evidence will not change that.
Many people, for a variety of reasons or past or present disputes, really don't trust Kelly, Tony or Snowy. Some feel that they will unfairly influence decisions, some feel they have been biased in the past, and some even feel they should be deadminned.
Makes no difference because they will exert no influence over me. The arbitrators have been chosen because they are trusted to make good judgments. My judgment will not change because of a clerk.
Several people don't see the need for a formalized structure or a "head clerk", and feel that implies input from other people is not wanted. The fact that the head clerk can read the ArbCom list can be seen to imply that clerks are privy to information that the public is not.
The head clerk is privy because she is an old arbitrator. All the old arbitrators are privy to to private information. I don't know if we need a head clerk. I'm not sure what the head clerk is supposed to do. I'm going to adopt a wait and see approach. Nothing is set in stone. We can always abolish the head clerk position later.
Some people feel that ArbCom members (or clerks, or related people) have been rather snippy in their response to these issues so far; claims like "the community has no say in this", while technically true, are rather undiplomatic.
I agree with them there. I take a different position. I feel the decision is mine to take - not the communities, Never the less I am certainly willing to listen to what the community has to say. The other arbitrators feel the same way - but they are human, sometimes they are snippy when they shouldn't be. But they are basically good guys.
A few people fear cabalism; certain groups or pairs of people are said to, or have been seen to, support one another automatically without researching the issue further, and some of these groups involve Arbs and clerks.
That's what Jimbo is there for. Remember that Jimbo can overrule the AC .
If you want my advice, which you probably don't but I'm going to give it anyway - #if previous discussion was on the mailing list, give out links to it; if it was over private mail, post some mails on the wiki.
It's done and dusted now. It was done on private mail. I'm not going to post it on the Wiki.
have all clerks work visibly on-wiki instead of in "back rooms".
We are discussing that now. Watch this space.
be liberal in appointing more clerks (because hey, more help wouldn't hurt, right?) and make a point of appointing some people that are not perceived to be part of said cabalistic groups.
Good idea. We will wait and see how things go for the time being. But I see no reason to limit the number of clerks.
be careful in what you say; on some topics, people can assume that any statement by any Arb is officially backed by the entire ArbCom unless specified otherwise. A sentiment exists among some people that certain users are immune to all forms of accountability or sanction (or, similarly, that certain users will not be taken seriously when talking about any dispute); this sentiment is sometimes inadvertently reenforced by an Arb's remarks, and it weakens trust in all forms of dispute resolution.
It's nigh on impossible to do that. Arbitrators are humans and can't watch their tongue. I will take this opportunity to remind people that the AC is a loosly knit group. We do not all agree with one another on lots of things. All the comments above are my own. I am not speaking for the whole of the AC. Likewise no other arbitrator speaks for me. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn20:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the quick answers. I think it may be useful to create an "Arbitration FAQ" and put it in Wikispace somewhere. I'd be happy to reformat these answers to a FAQ if you want (and striking names of individuals from there, because that doesn't belong in a FAQ if you ask me) assuming that the other Arbs agree with your answers, or edit the FAQ page if they don't. Radiant_>|<20:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm not sure. The questions above are not frequently asked yet. I'm worried about forming policy by decree. You could try putting it in your userspace for now it makes it less official. See what the aother arbitrators think of the idea. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn20:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean it to be policy or guideline or anything binding. Just something to put people's wikimind at ease. But userspace is fine, too. I'll just wait a couple days to see what the other Arbs think. Radiant_>|<21:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having just followed the link here from said ANI, I'd like to say thanks, too. I found this quite useful, and very level-headed (entirely unsurprisingly, given the source). Radiant, why not just to this section liberally, wherever said Q.s are in danger of being A'd, F'ly? Assuming Theresa not too alarming by the prospect of further "incoming" from same. Alai10:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clerks will not be summarising privately
We've been discussing this amoung the AC and would like to make the following announcement:
The Arbitrators have agreed that under normal circumstances, clerk evidence summaries should be public. Thet will be place at the top of the proposed decision page of the cases. Clerks will not post evidence summaries to the private arbitration mailing list unless specifically asked to do so by the AC. (This will only happen in exceptional circumstances) We would like to point out that anyone is free to email an arbitrator privately about any matter. This has always been the case and will continue to be the case. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn16:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It emphasizes the recurrence mentioned on my user page and indicates to well-meaning welcomers that leaving a welcome message is not really necessary. But a strange thing to do? Nah, not when coming from a golem called Gratuitous Pirate. 23:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Policy regarding protection of pages linked to from main page
Hi, you reverted me after I reverted you. But I was wondering where you got the idea from that articles that are linked to from the main page cannot be protected. Wikipedia:Protection policy states: "A permanent or semi-permanent protection is used for: Protecting high visibility pages such as the Main Page from vandalism." There is nothing about this "linked to from the main page" which you've used as an argument. There is a major edit conflict going on in the talk page, and many users are attempting to resolve it there. I don't think you actually read the talk page, because otherwise you might have commented there first. Jacoplane21:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Upon reading the policy thoroughly again, my impression is that it only states that since articles linked to from the main page are likely targets for vandalism, they should not be protected. However, in the case of an edit conflict between a number of (non-vandal) editors, it is still very prudent to protect the page. Vandalism is not a reason for protection, this kind of conflict is. (Sorry to keep nagging) Jacoplane21:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as it happens, Theresa, many of us who supported protection are well aware that articles linked from front page generally shouldn't be protected. However, that rule is not absolute, and the protection policy page explicitly says that if really necessary, it can be done. The revert warring and removal of content (which resumed the second you unprotected) was why we felt this instance was one in which protection was warranted. Babajobu22:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You need to look at the bigger picture. We can deal with the edit war by reverting. Policy is more than what is written down. We don't protect pages that are linked from the main page because they are showcases for wikipedia. Newbies tend to go to them. We want to encorage newbies and this means allowing them to edit. They often vastly improve an article too. An article is only on the main page for a short while. It's better to ride the storm than lose potential editors. (I don't mind nagging at all) Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn22:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I'm sorry if I reacted slightly annoyed. The whole discussion on that article has got me a bit stressed out. I realise you are only trying to do well, and I should be annoyed at other people, not you. Cheers! Jacoplane22:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your reasonings for unprotecting the page and note your comments above. I'm not advocating protecting it again, but somebody needs to step forward and stop this ridiculous revert war. I do not have the time right now. Since you removed the protection, I'd appreciate it (if you have the time) if you would endeavour to stop this revert war. It's been going on for hours with no sign of stopping except when the article was protected. --Durin22:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I'd block anyone who moves the picture from the middle to the top or bottom, and anyone who removed the picture. Returning the picture to the top should be fine, as should moving the picture to the middle. 1 warning, then done. That would make people TALK. Hipocrite - «Talk»22:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The page was just protected in a version that lacks the picture, and lacks a link to the picture, and lacks a protection notice. I will not accuse any adminstrator of bad faith, but It's trying. Hipocrite - «Talk»22:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Showing the figures of Mohammed is disturbing muslims. And it is a insult to Islam. In Islam making and also looking the figures of Mohammed is forbidden.That is raping the holy things of Islam.And it is not about "freedom".PLEASE get back your sıgnature.Thanks.--Erdemsenol01:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've never claimed it was about freedom. I've said it's about being an encylopedia. If muslims are offended by the image they should not look at the page. The images are not on the main page, they have to deliberately click on a link to the article. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn07:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Theresa. Here are a few more editors with only edits to poll or talk page. And many more were away for a long time and suddenly came to edit the poll.
Just wanted to let you know that I had to sprotect the article due to the amount of vandalism it has been recieving. It is extremely unfortunate that it is necessary since this is an on again off again front page article and it is high traffic article but the vandalism is just overwhelming and sprotection will at least temporarily ensure some stability so it can be fixed up and approved. I'm notifying you since you seemed strongly against sproteecting the article (as I am as well), If nobody else has done so by then later this afteroon I'll unprotect again since the article should be protected as little as possible. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 03:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You answered my question at the Reference Desk saying you knew of a branching database similar to what I was describing. Did you get any further in finding out its name? Any help is much appreciated!
Thanks so much! It's actually pretty surprising — I had to deliver a presentation yesterday on using software for class, and I described this piece of software almost precisely, without having seen anything like it. I figured "This is a good idea, so something like this must exist somewhere..." I hope you're feeling better! — Asbestos | Talk (RFC)13:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AMA Election Ends
ÉJust reminding you that the Coordinator election officially ended at 0:00 UTC this morning. As soon as you have the results compiled, please let me know and/or post them. Wally02:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Esperanzians! Well, since our last frolic in the realms of news, the Advisory Council has met twice more (see WP:ESP/ACM2 and WP:ESP/ACM3). As a result, the charter has been ammended twice (see here for details) and all of the shortcuts have been standardised (see the summary for more details). Also of note is the Valentines ball that will take place in the Esperanza IRC channel on the 14th of February (tomorrow). It will start at 6pm UTC and go on until everyone's had enough! I hope to see you all there! Also, the spamlist has been dissolved - all Esperanzians will now recieve this update "newsletter".
The other major notice I need to tell you about is the upcoming Esperanza Advisory Council Elections. These will take place from 12:00 UTC on February 20th to 11:59 UTC on February 27th. The official handing-over will take place the following day. Candidates are able to volunteer any time before the 20th, so long as they are already listed on the members list. Anyone currently listed on the memberlist can vote. In a change since last time, if you have already been a member of the leadership, you may run again. Due to the neutrality precident, I will not vote for anyone.
about our conversation earlier today, I think this contribution to my talk page may shed some light on who sent you that email. Almost certainly it was User:Rms125a@hotmail.com. He's been blocked several times so doesn't use that account any more, preferring anonymous IP addresses. Habits include anti-Catholic POV [31], hate speech vandalism [32] and personal abuse [33] ("póg mo thoin" = "kiss my ass"). He seems to have a particular dislike for me because of my nationality.
Actually the account was indefinately blocked. Although - somewhat strangely it doesn't appear on the blocklog. I've reblocked him for 15 mins in the hope that this will unblock him. It's easier to keep an eye on his edits if he logs in. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn09:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for blanking my page. I regard it as really unfair that people are allowed to throw all kinds of mud at me when I just want to leave. All wrongdoing I had in several years was a 3RR for which I got immediately blocked for 24hrs. Swatjester follows me wherever I go ever since I once agreed with someone who suggested it might be a good idea to have more editors than just three members of the US military editing 2003 invasion of Iraq. He even insists that it is vandalism if I remove content from my user talk page as many users frequently do. I do not want to waste the life of this guy harrassing me. I am really sick of this and want all my pages deleted. However, administrators recycled it, blocked me from adding the statement that I want to leave and do not want further messages on my talk page, do not even reply to complaints and created an extra page in the main space as well as a subpage. As sick as an internet project can get.84.59.79.24322:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC) (formerly get-back-world-respect)[reply]
Take a bit of advice from me. If you want to leave you should just go. Hanging around making sure no one is mud slinging will only cause you pain. I understand the temptation but it's not in your best interest to keep looking at the page. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn23:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep that's exactly what you should do. User's don't really have any rights about their user pages. They don't belong to the users they belong to Wikipedia. Since you are editing under a pseudoname then why do you even care? Just go. Nobody knows who you are, and I'll keep an eye on the pages. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn23:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Theresa: GBWR has no intention of leaving. Take a look at his most recent contribs as an IP addres: you'll see at the bottom 5 edits to article space. That should be evidence enough. If GBWR really wanted to leave, he'd just leave and not worry about all of this. There is already a discussion page for this available [34] here. We have several other admins involved in this. Your blanking of a protected page does not seem to me like appropriate actions for an admin. Beyond that, GBWR's comments about me are hyperbole. I've been involved in two disputes with him: One on the iraq page, and a second one that I stumbled into while offering a WP:3O. I'm not "following him around" as he so implies. But it should be obvious that a) this page does not qualify for CSD. b) the user is only deleting the page to try and hide his warnings. That's why the deletion was requested in the first place. and c) he has no intention of leaving as evidenced by the article edits and the fact that he is STILL HERE. ⇒SWATJesterReadyAimFire!23:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We won't know for sure if blanking will do the trick, but i'd like to give it a try. i've had plenty of experience of people leaving like this before and I'd like to try allowing him to leave with dignity. What does it matter if he blanks a warning anyway? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn23:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What does it matter? a) it's against policy. Why should he get to violate it, and I shouldn't? b) If below comment isn't example of the types of personal attacks this user has been slamming me with for weeks, I don't know what is. Should he get to cover up evidence of that? And finally, as I've maintained: the user is still editing. He's NOT leaving. It's just a cover up.⇒SWATJesterReadyAimFire!23:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Users have a right about their user pages. See: Wikipedia:User_page#How_do_I_delete_my_user_and_user_talk_pages.3F. People remembering may come across the page, and I do not have to make the case for a policy that is well established. I want my pages deleted and I insist on it. Look at Swatjester's contributions and you will see that he at least spent a dozen of hours in the past weeks harrassing me. I wonder if some people have no real life. 84.59.79.24323:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They have a right to request their userpage deleted. That's not the same thing as a right to have it deleted. The policy page states that " sysop will then delete it after checking that the page does not contain evidence of policy violations that may need to be kept" So as you can see it's a judgment call by sysops. You cannot insist on anything I'm afraid. As a sysop I get to make a judgment call. I decided to blank the page. Since admins are not supposed to edit protected pages i did this at some risk to my own reputation. I did this because i felt it was the best compromise. I have also deleted all subpages that i could find. That is the best I can offer you. Now if you want to leave then do so. If you don't want to leave then just state that you've thought better of it and come back. But either way your talk page is unlikely to be completely deleted. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn23:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(("Since admins are not supposed to edit protected pages i did this at some risk to my own reputation." -TK ... but "Administrators may protect their own user pages when appropriate, and are permitted to edit protected pages in user space." -WP:UP It seems your reputation is safe, as it should be if people AGF. Aumakua02:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)))[reply]
evidence of policy violations that may need to be kept. There was one 3RR block in several years, and it will be kept int the history anyway. All evidence you have against me is some nerd is following me all the time and spreading weird accusations like vandalism consisting of deleting his comments from my talk page. At the very least post my statement that I have left. I do not want to be remembered here as the vandal whose talk page was blocked. Not only do I not deserve that after having contributed productively for several years with only one block for 3RR, I think no one deserves that. People have the right to leave.84.59.79.24323:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What was the reason for the deletion of [35] this page? This was a page discusing the protection and deleted status. Are all of our comments now suddenly worthless? Despite whatever judgement call could be made on the talk page for the user, what reason could there be for the discussion page deletion?⇒SWATJesterReadyAimFire!23:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What was the reason for putting it in his userspace? What can be gained by provoking him? Of course your comments aren't worthless. It's not my intention to piss you off. I'm trying to allow him to leave. He feels he can't with "mudslinging" going on. So I removed it. I'll see how events play out. Everything can be undone if needs be. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn23:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I actually understand, and no you're not pissing me off. Wikipedia isn't THAT important to me. My post came off as a little more confrontational than I meant it to. You do make a good point that everything can be undone. Just so long as we all remember to do it if it's needed, and where things were at. ⇒SWATJesterReadyAimFire!03:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nah It'll be a good call if he leaves. At the moment it doesn't look like he intends to in which case he is his own worst enemy. The more stink he stirs up, the worse people with think of him. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn00:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will not leave until my page gets deleted. As Swatjester refused mediation, I have a right to apply arbitration. I am no one's enemy, life is too short to be wasted like that. I just want to leave without a page that seems like I was a vandal who had to be shooed away. 84.59.79.24300:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hear what you say but it's not going to happen. You have the right to request arbitration. If you do, then I for one will refuse it. The blanking of your talk page was intended as a compromise. For there to be an arbitration you have to stay around. Arbitration takes weeks if not months. Your opponents have a right to present evidence. This evidence will never be deleted. It is not in your interest to go to arbitration. You can try appealing directly to Jimbo if you like. He may decide to delete your page. He's far more likely to do if if you leave in the meantime. You are being accused of intending to stay all along. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn00:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stephen King
I noticed you're a fan of Misery and mention that he's written some rubbish books (which ones?), but as a longtime King freak despite 5 years of university department arguments and my obsession with James Joyce, I still think he's the Dickens of our era. If you've got an interest in being pointed towards his best works (and I consider Misery entertaining, but middling), drop me a note on my talk page. Or feel free to ignore this, it's late and I'm feeling talkative, and your mention of King's novel sparked a talkative urge in me. :) - dharmabum10:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Four Past Midnight was pretty good, but not outstanding. Sounds like the one you're talking about with the clown is It, which is a rather lengthy piece of work (a favourite of mine, but I can understand complaints about its length). I admit that sometimes he has a problem paring down his novels, but if you really want to have your pants scared off, I highly recommend The Shining (the Kubrick film, despite its merits, did no justice to the novel). And if you really want to see why people adore him, pick up The Stand - one of his longest in the expanded edition released in the late 80's, but if you want shorter, the original edition from the late 70's is a hundred thousand words or so shorter and still terrific - it's a masterpiece of character development. Of course, as a hardcore King fan, I can't recommend The Dark Tower series enough, and consider it an equal in fantasy literature to Tolkien's work, but it requires a pretty huge commitment. Still, in the midst of one of my most literature-snobby periods (which I'm not proud of), reading nothing but Nobel Prize winners, The Stand blew me away for its character development in a way that The Year of the Death of Ricardo Reis just couldn't equal, no matter how critically lauded it was. Of course, if you just want to read some terrific but less epic King work, pick up Different Seasons, a collection of novellas which contains the stories which were adapted as Stand By Me and The Shawshank Redemption - you won't be disappointed. - dharmabum11:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually i was thinking of different seasons when i said four past midnight! I love the the film adaptation of the prisoner (shawshank). I've read the first in the series of the the dark Tower and enjoyed it. Thanks for telling me about the The Stand. I have not read this one so will keep an eye out for it. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn11:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You bet. Four Past Midnight had a short story which was adpated into the Johnny Depp movie Secret Window, which while not the greatest movie or story, had a terrific performance from Depp, if nothing else. If you liked the first DT book, it only gets better from there, the first book is what stalls many interested readers. The Stand also had a TV movie adaptation, which while not all that great, featured terrific performances from Gary Sinese and Rob Lowe. - dharmabum12:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We are not Daniel Brandt. At the very least, can we consider the chilling effects of having personal info revealed about an editor? We don't accept legal threats, why personal identification threats? - Ta bu shi da yu12:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps i didn't make myself clear. My position is that I was not willing to make a blanket statement. I don't want to make an AC decree saying that under no circumstances would revealing personal info ever be allowed. What I have in mind are people trying to insert spam links into articles to their own websites.
I think that info obtained from some publically available source may on occasion be useful and i won't issue a statement saying it is never to be used.
Hey Theresa, I've ammended my proposal at Proposed wheel warring policy to (hopefully) address yours (and Fred's) concerns. Could you give it another look and/or comment more specifically as to what you'd like to have it say (besides, of course, being word-for-word with what you've proposed, heh). =) Thank you for your time! —Locke Cole • t • c07:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a vote under way which would maintain the main restriction on me which forced me off Wikipedia. If it goes through, I will be effectively hard-banned, since (as the last year has shown) I can't function under these conditions.
I've interacted with you a little in the past, and honestly don't know what you think of me, but I hope you will believe that, though at times controversial, I have always been a conscientious editor. I once made hundreds of edits a week here, including much anti-vandalism, and every time I read Wikipedia see how much more I could do were I allowed. But with that rate of editing and the expanded defintions of "revert", I am too vulnerable to the stress of constant blocking.
And where is the justification for this restriction, the finding of facts, the care for the evidence I presented? I explained those cases, why I didn't think a talk page "discussion" was needed (e.g., I was being stalked). And it's been a year I've waited now!
I spent hours laying out a specific defense. It will all be for nothing if this passes.
If you had read my appeal, you would understand why. Recall how I was blocked for trying to fix Ruy Lopez's denial of history, the deaths of millions of Ukrainians. I'm disappointed; I held out hope that you would do the right thing. VeryVerily03:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I read your appeal! But at this moment I'm not 100% sure that I can trust you not to edit war. In your appeal you made plenty of arguments as to why you were edit warring and i have read them and been influenced by your arguments enough to vote tp partially repeal some of the remedies. However you have failed to convince me that you will not be an edit warrior in the future. To be convinced of that I would like to see a few months editing where you have not edit warred.
A requirement that you discuss reverts on the talk page is no great hardship. I'm sure it's something that you'll do anyway.
I understand that you feeled upset, and wanted to clear your name. The best way to do this IMO is prove our distrust wrong by demonstrating that you are in fact a good guy and not a revert happy edit warrior. If you do this I will be very happy to admit I was wrong. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn06:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I never said I would not edit war. Contrariwise, I justified doing so against stalkers and rampages of deletion of sourced material. (Subject to the now-reigning 3RR, of course.) And if this was your concern, the partial repeal should have been of the revert provision and not the other one.
By failing to comment on it you gave implicit sanction to the Neutrality block which means that yes it is a hardship. I didn't go from being a hyperactive contributor to a missing Wikipedian overnight for no reason; it's because I can be accused of reverting (and blocked by a non-neutral/bad admin) without even knowing it. And, I have always been responsible about using talk pages when appropriate, so this provision serves no purpose.
You have taken no steps to clear my name. A noble ruling would have been, "We were wrong and we're sorry"; an acceptable one would be, "Yawn, fine, restrictions removed." But removing the lesser restriction without any kind of comment conceding any point sends the message that my appeal, and I, are irrelevant (which Raul has basically said). Even though I had the FoFs refuted dead to rights on several points.
Raul (who probably should have recused himself, sigh) treats the AC like it exists in some Platonic realm above human beings. If you had further concerns, we could have talked it over and worked something out we could both live with, like adults. And if my 17 months of edits weren't enough to show I'm a good guy, I don't see what 4 more would do, or why I should trust you to get the next ruling right when the previous two were so wrong.
I never said I would not edit war. Contrariwise, I justified doing so against stalkers and rampages of deletion of sourced material. (Subject to the now-reigning 3RR, of course.)
No. This is the crux of the problem. The 3RR is not some kind of right. It is not OK to edit war. Not if you are being stalked. Not they other guy is a complete nut. Not ever. You haven't learned that yet. Until you do i cannot trust you and will not vote to have the restriction lifted I'm afraid.
Please don't talk down to me. For "haven't learned" read "don't agree". And I would say many editors, many admins, and possibly even some arbitrators would not agree. Indeed, there would be no "rollback" feature if one were not permitted to fight against someone's edits. Nor RC patrol. Vandalism - and this surely includes someone blindly reverting for non-content reasons and mass deletions of sections of articles (and see the Jimbo Wales post re Ruy Lopez) - has always been considered revert-worthy. Indeed, a former arbitrator asked me on a talk page to help revert against Ruy Lopez (in a former life) because he was "out of reverts". In the case of a stalker, it would be a suicide pact to never revert back.
I realize community norms have changed somewhat over the past two years, and I could change with them. Again, this would be the case where dialogue, not restrictions, would be appropriate.
Anyway, you've clarified that you do not intend to vote to lift my restriction until/unless I hold your (possibly minority) view. But perhaps it is you who has much to learn. (Or maybe you have some weird definition of "edit war"?) VeryVerily06:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am well used to being ignored
But I must restate the problems I have here. First of all, the statement of "insertion of POV" as a bannable offense is vague and open to interpretation, and I don't trust administrators, many of whom edit from a point of view that is ideologically closer to Ruy Lopez than to myself. Second, Ruy Lopez has done more than enough to receive a ban on KR related articles, in fact all articles (if anyone here bothered to look at the evidence). I have seen others banned from articles altogether for commiting lesser or equal crimes. It is disturbing that the Arbcom has not come up with a "finding of fact" condemning him of POV pushing. Third, there is no guarentee that his sockpuppets would be detected if he used a proxy or masked his IP. The provision I placed in the Workshop (which was ignored) called for the banning of people reasonably believed to be Ruy Lopez (i.e. making very similar edits). The Arbcom had no problem passing the same thing in a decision involving a certain User:Beckjord. Thank you. CJK23:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism
Re the vandalism on Robsteadman's page.
I used to be in charge of system security (incidentally I was a systems manager at UCL once) so I'm aware of what the log will show. The user concerned has made certain statements and the IP log should confirm this. Having dealt with these issues it is always worth establishing any undisputed facts that can be checked. I'm not saying the user involved is not telling the truth but it never hurts to confirm as it then lays any questions to rest. I still feel he owes the user that was vandalised an apology as either directly or indirectly he was the cause of the vandalism but that is just my personal assessment. I didn't add this to the incident log as I don't want it to seem as if I'm gunning for the guy - as an ex systems manager I'm just used to following a set thorough procedure. SOPHIA17:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If he's telling the truth, the logs will show him logging off then the anon vandalising the page. If he's lying the logs will show him logging off then vandalising the page as an anon. No log can show who was actually sitting at the computer. We have protecols here too. They are rather different as we view privacy pretty seriously. Very few people have access to the logs, and they don't check them for minor vandalisms like this.
I saw that on you user page - I was a starlink manager lots of years ago! Fair enough that this is too small fry to check the logs - I'm not suggesting we pursue this. The point I was tring to make was if the logs showed activity on his account a very short time after his log out it would cast doubt that he had had time to leave. If activity was shown on his personal account between the vandalism sessions this would show his version of events was not correct. SOPHIA17:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Will anything be done about the personal attack that you removed from Robsteadman's page. The same guy had a go at me over the Deskana business and I think he's really gone too far with this one. Rob is blocked so can't do anything about it himself. SOPHIA23:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've spoken to him on his talk page. I didn't realise that he had a go at you as well. I like to warn before I do anything though. I'm going to watch things for a bit. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn23:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for writing on the last line of the Please do not remove the image-section of the Mohammed Cartoons talk page. I had a bit of an urge to reply to the nameless IP-number there, but I decided that your comment was a good end-of-discussion. DanielDemaret17:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A question
May I ask you an honest question? How do you feel about the state of Wikipedia as it is today? I have not asked this question on Wikipedia before, but I would very much like to know what your opinion is. Could you give me a brief synopsis at your leisure, if you get a chance? --HappyCamper08:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno. It's certainly a very different place that it was when i first joined. In a community of a few hundred people it's possible for everyone to know everyone else. That's impossible now. :-( I've noticed that there are more arguments and less give and take. It's really difficult to get a policy made now for instance. I don't like working on Wikipedia as much as i used to but that is probably because i am on the AC and soo far more conflict that i used to. Even so i think there is much more of a mob culture than there used to be and this is to do with size. However a large community certainly benefits articles! Without a doubt our articles are much better than they used to be so i'm willing to put up with being in a vast rather than small community. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn10:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good point - a larger community means that the articles benefit! :-) The confluence of contributors does feel different now. I think I agree with much of the sentiment you've expressed. Even the reference desks seem busier now, let alone the rest of the encyclopedia! I'm glad I can still find that little corner of Wikipedia and write articles that don't exist yet. Anyway, thanks for your response, I really appreciated the little chat. See you around! --HappyCamper13:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having fun?
Another of your racist admins just deleted my response again and u keep lying about me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.35.95 (talk • contribs)
ha ha i shoulda known u really dont care bout the rules u just want n excuse to ban ne1 who doesnt kiss ass to admins —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.35.95 (talk • contribs)
I know where you were referring to. And i know some of it was vandalism. But i rather teach him a lesson than block a shared IP. I will block if I have to. I'm watching the situation. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn21:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ha ha u already did block loser, u dont care bout rules or truth ur just looking 4 excuses n if theyre lying im gonna call them liars cause thats what they r if they dont want 2 be called liars then they an u can stop fuckin lying
He just vandalised again. I think you've done your AGF here. Please stop him from doing any more damage. (I've reported him to his system admin at UH)Gator(talk)21:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem like he's very eager to learn is all. I suspect your valuable skills and talents could be better spent elsewhere. Nice try. Glad he's gone.Gator(talk)21:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He's used two adresses tonight. I've talken action at the AN so that when he comes back from yet another one - it's a university after all. He won't be able to edit anyway. Like I said - more than one way to skin a cat. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn21:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a wife need not be physically superior in order to kick her husband's butt. There's more than one way to skin a cat. ;)Gator(talk)21:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When I awakened this morning and reviewed the history of the Justin Berry talk page, I noticed you removed a number of comments by User:Self-Adjoint, claiming that he was a sockpuppet. I also noticed that you provided no link to evidence of this in the template. Do you have evidence? Did a sys-op perform a sockpuppet check? Or are you just making very dangerous assumptions that exceed your authority as an administrator? If you did either of the former two, please provide documentation of this. If the latter is true, and you are blocking based on unproven gut feelings, I will report this since it would appear it's nothing more than a ploy to silence somebody with whom you disagree. Thanks, Corax15:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You mean did someone perform an IP check? No. It's not necessary in a case like this.
The main evidence I have for Self Adjoint being a sock is his user contributions list. He is simply not behaving like a newbie. If seen a lot of newbies in my time and i know how they behave. The evidence I have for him being Hermitian'd sock I am not willing to reveal online. I have no intention of giving him information that will make it easier for him to create another sock.
Dangerous assumptions? Rather OTT language don't you think? This is only wikipedia it's not life or death. Also if I was simply blocking people who disagreed with me then i'd be blocking all of you wouldn't I? By all means report me if you want. I have nothing to fear from the wikipedia community. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn17:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think blocking people because of unproven gut assumptions is appropriate for an administrator. It would be ironic indeed if administrators for an encyclopedia that prides itself on supplying only verifiable information would perform their duties based purely on non-verifiable conjecture. In any case, you can rest assure that I will be reporting this. "I know it, but can't prove it," is not a tenable position. The fact is that the controversy over wikipedia administrators' handling of the justin berry article has spread beyond wikipedia, so it's not surprising that a newbie may be gravitating to the article (that is assuming, of course, that the user had not made anonymous edits to wikipedia before). As it stands, it appears that you are jumping the gun in order to silence somebody with whom you disagree. In light of your behavior pertaining to the Justin Berry article, I must confess that I am not all that surprised. You will join User:NicholasTurnbull in realizing that your administrative capabilities does not give you carte blanche to do as you wish. Regards, Corax17:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
![[13]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Transit_diagram_angles.png&diff=3902456&oldid=3732866){kind=link}
