This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 67.168.241.139 (talk) at 04:42, 25 February 2006 (For the record). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

You should have been blocked for a lot longer than a month, my friend.--Jimbo Wales 17:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

We are not in the business of 'outing' people, and we must continue to have deep and profound respect for the subjects of our biographies. ---Jimbo Wales 14:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

User:MegamanZero/TopNav User:MegamanZero/Templates/TalkArchiveBar User:MegamanZero/Talk Template

Userboxes don't equal blogs

Describing your social or economic opinions or allowing others to acknowledge them isn’t bloging. This is, quite frankly, just being honest and exposing potential biases that we’d find out sooner or latter. Furthermore, Wikipedians have shown that political divide isn’t a factor. Republicans, Democrats, Conservatives, Socialists, and all the likes have came together in opposing your rouge, unilateral platform, based mainly on some statements Jimbo made. Self references certainly do not harm Misplaced Pages and are disconnected from the actual encyclopedia. Wiki isn’t a bureaucracy and self descriptive templates problems don’t match the hype administrators have been putting on them.

Furthermore, Wiki isn’t about a sole authority figure, even Jimbo, unilaterally directing things. Wiki is about a community and collaborative effort. A few Administrators shouldn’t have absolute power and Wiki must foster discussion to succeed.

Canadianism 10:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Saying you're an democrat, an republican, etc. is perfectly fine. The only problem with userboxes is when the community confuses the interests of the encyclopedia with the personification and sharing of their own interests. Go figure. That's not goining to fly. When userbox mania crosses into the realm of imfalmmatory and offensive, not to mention pure unadaterrated absurditty, then they must go. Additionally, users have begun to justify the prolonged longtivity of these boxes by using the constraint of process.

Concerning templates and self refernence, I think we'll have to agree to disagree here. The point of all the tools and options provided to us is to expand the encyclopedia. Mea Culpa. The community, admistrators, collaborative effort, its all for the encyclopedia. From your staement, it seems to me you're placing the community before the value of the site (Of course, I could be mistaken, however, your statement sounds akin to the thought through which it was conveyed). Good faith, hardworking admins deleted these imflammatory boxes, ussually with a valid comment about an troll out to make trouble. I see no harm in deleting them. Please get back to concetrating on the encyclopedia. -Zero 15:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Dschor

I do not think it helpful to suggest he discuss things with you! It will only extend his ban. The talk pages of banned users are not a great place to initiate conversation. -Splash 17:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see this and take note. Per the rfa page, User:Dschor is blocked for disruption. While I agree upon the concensus his probation is to be enforced, the fact that his contributions go waste are not. I constructed his articles he prepared, and I merely wish an comprimise he be allowed to his talkpage as long as his actions represent an effort to improve the encyclopedia. -Zero 17:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom rulings are not subject to compromise, unless the Committee changes their ruling. There is no consensus on probation, since he is banned and committee rulings do not need consensus. I do not see anything in that link that I should take any notice of, since it is a banned user circumventing his ban. Enforcing an arbcom ruling is not, as you accuse below, thuggery. You should be careful of accusing people of such things, particularly the arbitrators. -Splash 18:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I said as much in my comment to the talkspace. Why should we prevent users from making good-faith and productive edits..? That doesn't make sense. And, yes, I do indeed agree with the arbcom's criteria and rulings, I'm merely making an statement of discussion pertaining to the matter. Perhaps we should make an argument of allowing him to merely construct an sandbox. I'm not making an personal attack of thuggery, merely an citation to how we should give this some thought. I do apologize if I came off as so. I'm merely trying to come to an comprimise. Do not believe we have differning viewpoints on the matter, on the contaire, I'm in full agreement, just try to assume good faith. -Zero 18:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The reason we do not allow any edits from banned users is that, if we did, we'd have to have long discussions over when to revert, when to extend bans, etc. That, in cases more serious than Dschor's, would be allowing the trolls to continue causing division even though they are banned. I don't know if you're familiar with the banned User:Skyring, but this is more or less exactly the way he behaves — he fixes a semicolon in amongst trolling and someone, somewhere, tries to say that means he should be allowed to edit. The ArbCom is there to put a final end to all the discussion which usually has followed months of bad-blood and to hand out a binding ruling with remedy. There are no exceptions to bans, unless the Committee makes one; they didn't do that this time. That said, you may be able to persuade the Committee to replace their remedy with another one. This is not something that can be decided among admins and/or other editors, however, hence the fact that the talk page message to Dschor isn't the place to start. -Splash 18:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I'm merely saying what I believe is good for encyclopedia. Allow edits for mainspace expansion and creation, and discussion regarding other areas of interest are to be ignored. You're completely correct, this situation had divulged into an probmatic area, and an ban was good. However, discussion regarding the striging of the good and bad is perfectly warrented. Thanks for your advice and consideration, and I'm gald to be on the same team. -Zero 18:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

edit count adjustment

I'd really rather not start adjusting user's edit counts. Other users have much larger "problems", in that they made several thousand edits under a different user (or IP) than they currently edit with. Also, edits (especially four edits) shouldn't really be that important... And per the Splash's comments on my talk page, Dschor is banned, not on probation. --Interiot 17:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

You're correct. And, per the rfar, he is banned (I was under the introspect they were the same thing in his situation and its what I meant). If you feel its not okay to insert the edits, that's fine, but when an user is prevented from making contributions in light of an lack of disruptive behavior, there's a problem. I am sorry you feel this way, resorting to thuggery in light of good faith is not the way to construct an encyclopedia (I am not accusing anyone of this, however) -Zero 17:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop (Again)

I have just readded three proposed remedies to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop, which had been removed. I have also refactored these comments to

• remove personal attacks, irrelevant comments, and bickering
• make the page readable and usable for the arbcom, as Minspillage recently has done.

As your words appear on that page, I'm letting you know so that you may review the changes. I have tried not to let any bias or POV I may have color my summaries; however, it's a wiki, so if you think I've misrepresented your words, please fix them. Respectfully yours, InkSplotch 14:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

For the record

I would just like to state, for the record, that User:Dschor was banned for a particularly long time, for particularly harmless edits. No vandalism. No page blanking. No malicious article edits. No personal attacks. Simply for creating a template to describe an interest in an encyclopedic subject. If this is the way wikipedia intends to treat editors who act in good faith to improve the encyclopedia, the project will self-destruct. --67.168.241.139 04:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)