Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:23, 16 November 2005

Old talk at /Archive1, /Archive2, /Archive3, /Archive4, /Archive5, /Archive6, /Archive7

Because

I keep running into your edits, both recently and in page histories I've been digging through lately, and I keep running into evidence of your good sense and efforts to promote consensus, amicable dispute resolution, and productive editing—so I award you this well-deserved barnstar. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Boothy block

I saw that you blocked Boothy for 72 hours for personal attacks, but now Jtkiefer has blocked him indefinitely for the same thing. Since this is almost surely going to go to ArbCom, do you mind providing a copy of his email on WP:AN? It's currently being discussed there now. Titoxd 23:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

You are one of the subjects of an RfC

You have been named as one of the subjects of an RfC at --Silverback 06:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank You!

Thank you for voting in my RfA. I am happy to be among those wielding the adminly tools, which I promise to use wisely. While I'm sure you voted before Redwolf, I think the timestamp might be lying a little on this ;). Thanks again, -] _{22:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)}

Lying Eyes

There ain't no way to hide your lying eyes ... 130.49.221.74 14:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Andrew. I see you are back again. I would have thought such a well-educated techie grad student like yourself could contribute more than just vandalism. I'm disappointed really. Oh yeah, and I'm blocking you. Dmcdevit·t 22:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

John Kerry

Hold on a moment. I didn't edit the John Kerry page after protection. Your protection appeared after mine on the watchlist. Please don't make untrue allegations. Please return the page to the version you first protected. FearÉIREANN\23:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

1. (cur) (last) 00:27, 8 November 2005 Dmcdevit (protected, edit war)
2. (cur) (last) 00:26, 8 November 2005 Jtdirl (rv to Mr Tibbs version. Please stop trying to sneak in POV language, Rex. That is vandalism.)

There was no protection on the page when I edited it. If there had been I would not have edited it. I don't do that. Maybe you and I were editing it simultaneously, but it was not there when I did my edit. Please do not make such untrue allegations in the talk summary. BTW Rex has already been banned by the ArbComm in the past for POVing that article. Everyone on that page regards what Rex is doing there as gross abuse of NPOV. It took a 100k row just to get him to allow the use of the word wound on the page to describe what had happened when Kerry was wounded. He then demanded it be called a minor wound, and then when finally not allowed to write that in rewrote the sentence to make the reference to wound sound ironic and snide, by implication reading that what we were actually saying was "so-called wound". Please don't jump to conclusions before you actually know what you are talking about. What is going on there is a simple case of a Bush supporter trying to turn a page into an expose of a Bush rival. It is dirty and underhand and users have been queuing up to tell him to stop. This will probably have to go back to the ArbComm yet again, because Rex is doing the very thing that caused three earlier referrals and one strongly worded ban. Rex is now doing to have a field day accusing me of breaking rules because of your untrue allegation. FearÉIREANN\

"Edit warring"

I see you posted in the Request for Arbitration that you thought that something ought to be done against me for "edit warring" -- I don't understand what you think the problem is. Some people revert articles to bias and bad versions solely out of ego and POV-pushing, and they don;t discuss things. Putting it back to the good version when people like this are encountered is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing. IT's one thing to say, well, you should talk it through, but in each of the cases you mentioned it was a case of the side I was reverting refusing to discuss anything, violating policy, and throwing out insults. I am reather frustrated that so many admins here want to try to blame the victim instead of stopping the people who are clearly violating policy. Note that the vast majority of peoplpe I "edit war" with have eventually been banned from editing those articles because their actions were ultimately decided to be way over the line... My role here is to make the article go back to the good version in the weeks or months it takes other editors to get motivated to actually do something about the bad editors. Without my edits several Misplaced Pages articles would be stuck in totally distorted versions for months. The end result it that my actions that you are complaining about makes Misplaced Pages better for all the people counting on the articles as a source of unbiased and educational information. Certain admins seem like they are more interested in fostering a site for social interaction experiments instead of encyclopedia-making. DreamGuy 05:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

As you know, I protected chimera in an edit war. While I don't personally know how extensive your edit warring is, having seen it in that article and in freemasonry, I thought I'd mention it. As far as I'm concerned, edit warring is always a Bad Thing. There are other recourses you can take. Edit warring, and especially protection, even if they are for a good reason are always harmful. If an editor has to be banned for disruption (which isn't the case in chimera), that doesn't mean you should indulge them in edit wars. It takes two hands to clap. I think not edit warring is essential to fostering encyclopedia-making. I'm happy to engage in a philosophical debate about this if you like, it's just my nature, but I doubt you'd like to get me started. :) With reference to the "Certain admins" comment, I take full responsibility for my opinions, expressed as a Misplaced Pages editor, not administrator, and that opinion has no bearing on other administrators' ability.

Now, since I'm here, I wonder if you'd care to reply to my recent comment on Talk:Chimera. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 06:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I consider your view to be hopelessly naive, and obviously so if it is looked at with even the slightest bit of logical detachment. Edit warring is absolutely not harmful if it is done to get the article back to a good version. It may "take two hands to clap" but if the good guys don;t clap then only the bad guys end up winning on any article in which there is any sort of disagreement. It sounds like your philosophy comes from some sort of feel-good swami speak or something and not paying attention to what's going on in this encyclopedia. If you want to surrender the whole project to POV-pushing, policy-breaking trolls and so forth, go ahead and follow your philosophy. I would submit, however, that your attitude is even more harmful to this encyclopedia than the POV-pushers: at least they have a goal, albeit misguided. You seem to want to do nothing to prevent the project from gong to pieces and actively try to hinder those people who try to stop it. DreamGuy 06:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

I just wanted to thank you for your support of my RfA which finally passed! I greatly appreciate it! Ramallite 04:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Re:Boothy443

To a certain extent your right and to a certain extent I disagree since arbcom and blocking in themselves are two very seperate things. And just because I was the only one to block I disagree that I arbitrarily now have to be the one to put up the arbcom case. I also think it's somewhat hypocritical that people are criticizing the fact that I blocked without going to arbcom while many of them think Boothy443 should be blocked by admins or by arbcom but none of them have put up an arbcom case either. Jtkiefer ----- 16:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I have a lot to do outside of wikipedia but I may try to write up an arbcom case this weekend. Jtkiefer ----- 18:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm rather busy outside of wikipedia but I'll try to get it done eventually if nobody does it first. Jtkiefer ---- 04:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism

Hello, I saw that you reverted vandalism to my userpage. This prompted me to look at your contributions and your record of deletions (Special:Log/delete), and discovered that you have been quite active in policing vandalism. For this, I award you the RickK anti-vandalism barnstar. Ingoolemo  18:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Psy guy's RfA

Thanks for supporting my RfA. It recently closed with final tally of 51/1/2. I sincerely appreciate it and I hope I can live up to your expectations. I will try my best to be a good administrator. If you ever need anything, just let me know. Thanks! -- Psy guy 05:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

"Disagreement" about block

Oh, sure. I felt invited by your final sentence to phrase my comment by contraries like that, sorry. ;-) Let me say that that that wasn't disagreement, that was applause. Bishonen | talk 08:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC).

Block

Yeah, I have no plans to reclose it, either now or after 24 hours are up. Thanks. --Sockenpuppe 01:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Race and intelligence

I don't edit it for content. --Ryan Delaney 03:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

You haven't established how I was "disruptive"? I only added the {npov} header to the article, it should be obviously clear there is an in good faith dispute over the race and intelligence article, check the top and middle sections of the talk page (bottom ones seem tangential). In fact, the entire article is fundamentally disputed. zen master T 03:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello Dmcdevit, it seems Ryan has given up trying to explain his actions in banning me from race and intelligence, he also has coincidentally archived his talk page apparently to cover up this controversy (but that is his right I suppose, but only makes his case weaker). Anyway, what recourse do I have here? zen master T 16:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I think your best bet is to ask the arbcom (under the requests for clarification). If you do so, you should explain in detail why a) Ryan is an involved admin, and should not have banned you himself, and b) why you were not being disruptive in your opinion. And be very civil and polite. I'm not sure that you'll get anywhere though. You could also try an RFC against Ryan Delaney, but I guarantee you you'll just get clobbered yourself. I'm about to post my opinion to ANI. Dmcdevit·t 19:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

My opinion on SPUI

Regarding the afd, that was a 3rr, SPUI basically figured the closures were a loophole; if nobody stops him there, he wins. If someone tries, he just does it 3 times until he has to have a regular speedy keep vote. The closures and the vote were exactly the same thing in different ways. SPUI's a good editor when it comes to transportation, but he needs to be reigned in somewhat elsewhere, hopefully to the point where he's reformed to the level of Cool Cat. Karmafist 03:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the unblock, I don't mind at all. If SPUI can avoid being causing problems in the future from knowing that he will be blocked if he tries to skate on a technicality while WP:POINTing, I consider things to be good, whether he's blocked or not. I don't interpret WP:AGF as applicable to users such as him(disruptors) on topics outside of transport related articles. Karmafist 04:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the barnstar. Honestly, though, I'm about to leave. User:Woohookitty/Vandals. I am pretty sure that the vandal tonight was Rex. It just doesn't feel worth it anymore. It's not fun anymore and it hasn't been for awhile. So I appreciate the barnstar, but I might be done. Don't think I have the makeup for the daily abuse. I'll decide for sure tomorrow. --Woohookitty 03:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the Arbcom nom. We'll see what happens. Alert User:Neutrality too. He hasn't been involved in JK, but he was the major party in the last arbcom with Rex. He should be alerted. And alert Katefan0. She's been heavily involved as well. I went ahead and added his arbcom from earlier this year, which was about...you guessed it...the Kerry article. I'm in. --Woohookitty 06:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

And btw, in the "3rd party opinion" part, you mentioned his 3RR violations. Well he gets around it by having several versions hanging around that he can go back to. So it's not strictly a revert, but it's a revert to a previous version he put up. --Woohookitty 07:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, in retrospect, I'll just leave it at gaming and let the others explain. Dmcdevit·t 07:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

OK I'll add that in. Btw, both kizzle and JamesMLane are not going to be involved, so there goes half the case. Kizzle thinks it'll be resolved by the end of the week. Unfortunately he doesn't quite understand the issues here. But whatever. --Woohookitty 08:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

And yes, it's good that we let Neutrality know since he's going to have to recuse himself since he was a party in the last arby with Rex. --Woohookitty 07:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I added notices for User:Gamaliel and User:HorsePunchKid. I won't be completely uninvolved, but I did most of the work on the last RfAr (Neutrality was already on the ArbCom by then), and I've really had it with trying to explain Rex's faults. I'm hopeful that input from people not previously involved will be persuasive to the ArbCom. Although I hope not to be as heavily involved as I was in the previous cases, I will put in something. JamesMLane 10:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Btw

FearÉIREANN\'s signature is causing problems. I just fixed it for you. If he signs again, just use this page as a template to get it fixed. --Woohookitty 02:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeesh

Not sure you want to get involved in Price-Anderson. Your head might spin. ;-) --Woohookitty 02:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Sort of. I'm going to work on the arby case and that's all. No editing. I don't trust people on here right now outside of my friends (you, Kate, kizzle, Redwolf). Today my user page got vandalized a bunch of times. --Woohookitty 12:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Great job! Just for you, here's an iconoclast and zealot award:

If you can tame the savage beast, I bow before you

I hope things work out. I'm afraid I haven't been much help at the Rajput article; I'm too tactless and blunt. I don't think it's a good article now, but Shivraj's version in much much worse. I could probably write a much better article -- ugly to toot my own horn, but there it is -- but only after a couple of weeks of reading and research. For which I have no time. Instead I'm doing stuff like writing Talk:Battle of Uhud/Temp.

Hope I'll have your support if and when Striver files an RFC against me. He believes that I'm persecuting Shi'a on Misplaced Pages <g>. What fun. Zora 03:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Apology

Point taken Dmcdevit. I apologise for taking the bait on the article and hopefully will refrain from it in future. The lock on the article is a positive but temporary step. We will never actually get a common view amongst us as the arguments are not being accepted. Can we get a mediation or something similar going to get a common ground without any bias?--Raja 10:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Marsden is back

User:Marsden is back, using his IP address, 69.138.215.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and apparently spending most of his time reverting those he doesn't like, or who he has been asked to revert. Now he's being even more disruptive; in order to avoid going over the 3RR, he's added a link to a bogus hate site at Self-hating Jew instead, and posting trolling text to a bunch of talk pages about "nigger lovers". I'm considering a 1 week block for disruption at this point, unless you think you or someone else should do it first. Jayjg 17:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Re:Block wars, molobo and varia

Tnx for ecucating me about the blocking policy - I will definetly be more careful next time about unblocking. I just hope Wiglaf will be as careful about blocking :) In the meantime, I wonder if you could take a look at this: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/Halibutt. It seems to have caused quite a stirr - and more reasonable and unbiased voices would be appreciated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

One thing I don't get: why 4 times? I have unblocked Molobo only on two separate occasions when dealing with Wilgaf (and once with Chris73). I have reached an agreement with Chris (it was about 2 months ago?), and the first block by Wilgaf as I have explained was definetly dubious (he was involved in this dispute, reverted reference additions and blocked Molobo without giving any clear rule). So when I got information from Molobo that he was blocked again in the similar situation, and indeed there was (again) no info by Wilgaf on Molobo's page (even through I talked to him about this extensively last time), I reviewed latest Molobo's contribs, so no reason for block (I didn't thought this would be related to Talk namespace edits from over a day ago) and unblocked him, assuming Wilgaf made a mistake again. I was wrong this time, I apologised and learned the procedures - but why are people accusing me of having done the same mistake 4 times?? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Blocking policy

I edit conflicted with you (about an hour ago, I got sidetracked) at WP:BP, when I was about to put in something else. Rather than do anything, I decided to write my response to Piotrus at ANI. Basically, I would have changed your words to:

• "(Where the premise of a block is disputed,) In virtually all cases, you should at least notify the blocking admin on his or her talk page and the rest of the administrator community at WP:AN/I and get community consensus before unblocking a blocked user."

More explanation I think in my comment at ANI . What do you think? Dmcdevit·t 22:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I would not go so far; there are situations where building consensus before unblocking is not required (most commonly, for collateral damage unblocks). "Virtually all cases" is too strong a claim here. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)