User talk:El Sandifer

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5 /Archive 6 /Archive 7 /Archive 8

I archive when I feel like it. Depending on my whim, your comments may or may not be archived. The odds of being archived are inversely proportional to the amount you annoy me. Please do not annoy me.

Idiotheism

That was pretty fantastically speedy. Coming to search for it, it must be a local term; sorry. Crab

Webcomics proposal

I've written down as a proposal page some of the things you and other people have said, and put it all at User:SCZenz/Webcomics/Proposal. Can you take a look, and see if there's anything that you can think of that's left off? I'm not saying I agree with all the criteria—I need to do some research on specific sites—I thought it would be helpful to write up a full, coherent, multi-criterion proposal to help with further discussion.

Let me know what you think. -- SCZenz 20:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Expertise discussion

Hi again. I just wanted to let you know that I've put a question on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) regarding expertise counting extra on AfD's. This was largely a response to Mr. Gerard's insistence on the point. I just wanted to mention that it is by no means an attack on your credentials, or an effort to bring the argument about webcomics into another forum. We've had some pretty insistent arguments about the issue, but I think it's been a fair debate and we're making progress; I hope you think so too. -- SCZenz 23:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The Woosterite Speaketh

Hi Snowspinner. You asked about my IS, which is a magazine reporting on students with disabilities at Wooster and giving students a taste of disability studies. My adviser is Peter Havholm, who will have to teach me Quark. Since Kauke is closed this year, Taylor now holds the computers with Quark loaded on them. :)

I think I may have seen you around in LiveJournal-land (that is, if you use the same name there, too). I think we must have a mutual friend there, though I'm forgetting who that might be. --Jacquelyn Marie 02:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Before I could even say a word to Peter Havholm, he said, "Phil says hi." :-P PS, good common sense on that AfD... --Jacqui ^★ 18:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey, another Woosterite! (Hi, Jacqui). I'm currently at Wooster as well. -- Phyzome is Tim McCormack 02:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Closing the Wooster debate

Hi again Snowspinner. With respect, I don't understand your early closing of the debate at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_College_of_Wooster_Greeks_(2). I do not know of any rule allowing such a decision—especially not for the reason you cite. Articles are repeatedly nominated every so often, and there's no rule against it, while the rule you said you oppose is policy at Wikipedia:Undeletion_policy. Your action seems rather close to a violation of WP:POINT, but perhaps I misunderstand. Can you explain? -- SCZenz 07:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Template/Workshop

You, or any Wikipedia user, can contribute your suggestions and comments to the /Workshop page of any active arbitration case. Comments on evidence or proposals can help in understanding the import of evidence and in refining proposals. Proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies may be listed on /Proposed decision and form part of the final decision. Fred Bauder 14:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Your revert

Sorry, I assumed that 68.101.68.213 (talk · contribs) was a vandal attacking your User page; I assume from your revert of my revert that it was you, un-logged in. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Able and Baker

Hi Snowspinner

Regarding the Able and Baker AFD, I see that your arguments have swayed a number of people over to the "keep" side, and the article seems headed for either a "keep" or at least a "no consensus". I still have no opinion myself on the merits of the article, since I am perhaps the least knowledgable person on webcomics you will ever find on Wikipedia. Mathematicians rarely have much knowledge of webcomics.

However regarding the first AFD which I closed, I would like to point out that it is really your own responsibility to keep a check of the daily AFD listings and add your points to the discussion before the debate closes. In this case you got lucky since there were some people who had added their keep votes on the first debate, and because I made a more or less unilateral decision to reverse my original "delete" result, thereby giving the article a rare second chance. Had the debate yielded the clear delete consensus which I thought was there originally, I would have voted "keep deleted" at DR without any regrets. If the debate had been closed as a "delete" by anybody apart from myself, I would also have endorsed that decision as a reasonable one at DR, the same way a great number of users endorsed my original decision. (In this case, I was the only one who knew that I had completely overlooked the valid keep votes, so I was able to make a more informed decision.)

In general, trying to bring up an argument over the article's merit after an AFD which has run its course in process for five or more days giving a "delete" result will be futile. I don't really know if DR should be that way, I have some concerns about the low scrutiny of individual AFD debates occaisionally yielding unreasonable "delete" results which are made almost irreversible by "Keep deleted, valid AFD". For me, it's not a huge deal, after all, I have access to all the deleted material, and could even print out a thousand copies of deleted articles and use it as wallpaper if I wanted to. But the way DR is handled today, that is definitely the way it works, and so it is best to get your arguments in early, before it's too late.

Yours, Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

We should make a good faith attempt to enforce policy. Voting "kd" on DR simply because the AfD result was formally correct is failing to address the principal question: "Is Wikipedia a better encyclopedia with this article?"

If it is, then the previous AfD should be reversed. Consensus never overrides commonsense. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 12:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:RFA/SV

I greatly appreciate your support at my RFA, and no less so because of your general stand against the use of RFA as a remedy in Arbcom cases. I hope that my explanations have served to answer any outstanding questions as to my trustworthiness, as raised by others. Sincerely,-St|eve 04:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Trust

Snowspinner,
Please don't mistake my objections for a personal issue of mistrust. As I've said several times, it's only about outside verifiability, and the differance between an expert opinion on the factual nature of something and it's relative importance. I can't support any objections that you would do anything less than honest, as I assume good faith and have no evidence otherwise. I'm deeply sorry that you've been offended.
brenneman^(t)(c) 13:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Snowspinner,

I haven't had much direct contact with you, although you did feature on an early version of my user page. Thus forgive me if I ask: Is everything all right in your world? Your contributions seem to be becoming more, well, shrill. On WP:WEB there is every chance that we could come to some form of guideline that you can live with, if you'll have some faith in the process. That also means having some faith in your fellow contributors, even those whom you believe to be aligned against you.
We've all got similar goals in mind, for the project as a whole and for little things like guidelines. If we focus on the areas we agree on first, that will make the other things easier.
brenneman^(t)(c) 22:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

And again I'm trying to express some concern. You're looking near meltdown on WP:DRV right now, and I'm trying to offer an ear, or an eyeball or something. What's gotten up your craw, so to speak? Forget that random public bunfight on the other end of town, just pretend for a second that you don't think I'm some sort of enemy combatant and tell me what's going on? - brenneman^(t)(c) 03:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Reclaim

could use some of your expertise. Someone came in and half-heartedly threatened to nuke it if it didn't improve. You know your critical theory way better than I do, and I think it could come in handy to expand the article. There's a brief mention of Foucault's idea of "reverse discourse," but not enough to fully explain it.

If you don't have time or are uninterested in doing anything with it yourself, a few helpful hints on its talk page, or mine, would be welcomed. If you're too busy, though, I understand -- I'll pull out my Foucault texts at home over winter break. Thanks. Jacqui ^★ 16:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

RFC

I have removed you request for comment on Hahnchen, because it was not certified by two users who had failed to resolve the dispute earlier. Radiant_>|< 00:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

"regardless of your personal distaste for me"

Snowspinner,
I'm reaching out again here, trying to find some way forward.

I'll again say that I don't have any personal distaste for you. I'm just finding it very difficult to reach any sort of compromise with you. When trying to work out a guideline, something like "this survived AfD" simply isn't helpful. We're trying to go to root cause here, and ask why it survived AfD. We distill out the things that are important to people, we codify them, and thus we avoid (in a large measure) repetitive argument.

With regards to the A.B. AfD the thing that changed that from it's previous "delete" to "no consensus" was you. Not the evidence of syndication, but you. People are pretty specific about that. The problem is that that really doesn't help much.

We cannot have a state where (with the excpetion of Jimbo) we are deciding what stays and what goes based upon one person's opinion. In fact, thinking back to Ashida Kim, even he doesn't get to decide sometimes.

This really isn't about anyone casting aspersions on your academic standards. Ok, that may not be 100% true, I shouldn't speak for other people. Some of them may have axes to grind. What this is about for me are the tenants WP:NPOV and WP:CITE. I just want some simple, objective guidelines that we can get general agreement on.
brenneman^(t)(c) 23:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Poll: Micronation Infobox

An info box template has recently been created by myself and O^O for use in Wikipedia articles about micronations and other unrecognised entities, to address longstanding concerns and edit wars that have resulted from the inappropriate use of the standard country infobox in these types of articles.

This new info box has so far been successfully incorporated into the following articles: Sealand, Republic of Rose Island, Independent State of Aramoana, Empire of Atlantium, Avram and Province of Bumbunga, and it is intended to incorporate it into most of the other articles in the micronation category in due course.

However, one editor, Samboy has suggested that the micronation infobox should be excluded from Empire of Atlantium on the grounds that the article is "not notable" and because only 22% of micronation articles in Wikipedia currently have the info box (ie because the info box project is not yet complete).

As someone who has contributed to similar discussions in the past, I thought this might interest you. I have instituted a poll on this subject here, and invite you to review it if you are so inclined.

Thanks. --Gene_poole 06:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

My personal issue with Gene Poole's action is that there is a conflict of interest here. One of the first micronations he added this infobox to is, conveniently enough, his own micronation. And, while he sets up a poll about whether we should add the template to the article, he did not mention the poll in WP:RFC, which is the best way to make the poll visible to people who have never been involved in the issue. Instead, he posts the existance of the poll on the user pages of a number of users who he feels are symphathetic to his micronation. User:Tony Sidaway has felt that this kind of campaigning is dishonest. Samboy 07:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The College of Wooster Greeks debate reopened

Since you participated in this AFD debate, you might like to know that it has been reopened following discussion at WP:DRV. The new debate is at here. Yours, Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• I have reverted the import of the old votes since the old AFD is more than a week old, and the article may have changed a bit since then. Instead I spammed the talkpages of everyone who participated in the previous AFD. If you strongly disagree with my revert, then I won't revert a second time. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• OK. It's definitely not a big deal. At least one user, David Gerard, has already responded to my spamming, so you might want to be a bit cautious when pasting in their old votes as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Bait taken, I guess

I've already discussed the Wooster Greeks thing over at WP:DRV. The Afd closure was blatantly improper. To me, it sure looked like an effort on your part to tune consensus to your own tastes. I'm not sure why you're wondering about it now, I thought I made myself abundantly clear at deletion review. FWIW, it looks to me like I'm not the only editor who found your closure questionable. Friday (talk) 01:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Southern Ivies

Snowspinner, I take your point in the last edit. I didn't mean it that way. But I did re-tweak your edit so as to remove the unsourced assertion that these schools are "prestigious."

(For the record: I did not go to an Ivy League school as either undergraduate or graduate, by the way; I did my graduate education at a "public Ivy." Both of my kids went to state schools, one of which happens to be a "public Ivy" and one of which happens not to be).

The constant pressure of academic boosterism in Wikipedia grates on my nerves and from time to time it just gets to be too much. My own alma mater's article keeps growing cardinal-and-grey peacock feathers whenever I'm not looking, and I sometimes try to pluck them.

As far as I know, Wikipedia is the only encyclopedia that uses the word "prestigious" in connection with universities. I'm willing to be proved wrong on this. As far as I know, Wikipedia is the only encyclopedia that knows or cares about U. S. New rankings.

I hate this whole article because the whole point seems to me just to brag about how great Duke & al are. The Public Ivies article has recently acquired a foul paragraph whose only point seems to be to brag about "them." It opens "While public universities typically are larger than, and can lack opportunities available at, liberal arts colleges, the Public Ivies boast of many attributes that many of the actual Ivy League cannot match." It contains impressive claims such as that "The University of Florida was the first and is (as of 2005) the only university in the world to achieve an Audubon Sanctuary status, one of only 607 such sanctuaries in existence."

Recently academic boosterism seems to have taken the form of creating article after article about various "Ivies." We can't all be in the Ivy League—why we would want to isn't particularly clear to me—but it seems that, well, we can at least be in a Public Ivy or a Jesuit Ivy or a Southern Ivy or some kind of Ivy. It's only a matter of time before someone writes an article about the "Engineering Ivies."

Anyway, I would like to find some acceptable way that points out that the obvious—that calling a school a Southern Ivy is just a way of saying you think it is a very good school—without asserting as fact that these schools are "prestigious," which is, I think, far less capable of objective assessment even than "notable."

Our articles go on and on and ON about U. S. News rankings and how many Nobel prizes the faculty has won. I think they would bring a blush to the cheeks of even an admissions officer.

See also User:Dpbsmith/rank for some, uh, thoughts on this matter. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Ernie Dingo

So instead of properly listing it on the copyvios page, you just undeleted it? Isn't that criminal action? User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Jolanta paterek

You don't think An accomplished artist and art historian, Jolanta now resides as an associate professor at the Georgia Community College. is imminently speedyable? You obviously don't understand the speedy deletion criteria. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Xed 2 has been accepted. Please place evidence on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Xed 2/Evidence. You are welcome to make suggestions and comments on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Xed 2/Workshop Fred Bauder 15:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3 case. →Raul654 03:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Final decision

The arbitraton committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Regarding The Bogdanov Affair case. →Raul654 03:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The College of Wooster Greeks (3rd nomination)

While I do not dispute the close as no consensus, do you mind not closing an AFD in which you've participated? There's hundreds of uninvolved admins who can do the same thing... Titoxd^(?!?) 23:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, this one will be controversial, certainly. Given your previous involvement, you should not be the one to close it this time around. I've unclosed it. Friday (talk) 23:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I haven't closed this one before, and as it's an obvious no consensus keep I closed it this time. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 23:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Given your involvement, I don't think you should be the one to close it either. There's a request on the talk page for an uninvolved party to close it. This is not an unreasonable request. Friday (talk) 23:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Inclusionist?

I have noticed lately that you've become quite an inclusionist. I remember before you deleted some content about NYT and Village Voice music reviews of a multi-platinum album, despite my objections, so I am a little bit skeptical of this change in position. But I thought of a way you could demonstrate your inclusionism, and at the same time go some small way to righting the wrongs you've done to me over the last year: Autobiography sales and chart positions used to be an article, and is now a redirect; VfD tended towards keep, but it was redirected nevertheless. I would like to get this article restored. Do you think that is a good thing to do, and if so, how should it be done? Should it go through deletion review, although it was previously kept by the vote and is now technically still extant (as a redirect)? Everyking 10:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you should take the initiative. If I start any process it will be tainted by my earlier involvement in the dispute. Everyking 06:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Autobiography sales and chart positions (current revision, an attempt at reopening that was quickly dropped) and the last version that shows the actual vote that counted. Everyking 06:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Of all people...you, who worked so hard to get me punished for reverting those articles, now wants me to go and revert it again? Everyking 06:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to do it. Enough people complained about me and those articles before that I'm not going to go stirring up a hornet's nest, regardless of whether I'm right. One more battle erupting and I could be right back for Everyking 4—and who do you think would be filing the case? I think you should revert the article as a gesture of goodwill. Everyking 09:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

IAR

<Grin> Your version wasn't half bad, no. Just the (in)famous "Ignore all rules ... including this one" sorta got snowed under. Hmm, How about this way? Kim Bruning 21:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tara Stewart

My "non-notable per nom" on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tara Stewart meant that the comic was also non-notable for the reasons you listed (no album, only "claim to fame" is as an opening act). Since you seem to have a problem with it, I have struck the "per nom" portion. Best, Dragonfiend 23:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

the facts on Joe Johnston

You might reconsider this edit if apprised of the situation surrounding it. "Joe Johnston" was previously userfied, to its creator User:Rotundgrappler, as a vanity (history). though had previously been a semi-attack page for Robert De Niro [1]. Philwelch advised Rotundgrappler about vanity pages, yet Rotundgrappler blanked his user page and created a new Joe Johnston page, from which you removed the speedy-deletion tag. {{deletedpage}} comes to mind. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 23:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

moron more on Joe Johnston

Hey, look at this [2]. Was he not adequately warned first? — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 00:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Fred Bauder thread

The thread on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration regarding the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Fred_Bauder has long since ceased to be productive. May I suggest a cooling off period with regards to that thread and that any follow up discussions be take to individual talk pages. FuelWagon 02:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

WP:AN/I

WP:CIV TheChief (PowWow) 03:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Another try

I was looking around and I found a more interesting case than the one above. Ashlee Simpson U.S. tour, 2005 was actually deleted by you (following a VfD vote), personally, on Feb. 28. So this one would be a perfect case for you to try to get fixed on Deletion review. Since it was deleted outright, not redirected, this one can be treated as a standard deletion issue. Everyking 10:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Haukur makes three excellent points on my talk page. Besides those, I have one other point: you have argued, unless I've misunderstood you or misremembered someone else's argument as yours, that VfU, or deletion review, shouldn't just be about reviewing process; it should also be a forum for revisiting a debate, opening the way for a deleted article to be undeleted even if there was a 100-0 margin in favor of deleting during the original debate. Everyking 12:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The whole idea, of course, presupposes that Phil actually feels that the article does not merit a longer stay in the graveyard. He can, of course, legitimately hold another opinion on the matter - regardless of what inclusionist tendencies James has perceived in his recent votes - and then the point is moot.

As an aside I get 14,200 English language Google hits for the exact phrase "Ashlee Simpson tour". I get 1,010 hits for the exact phrase "Hrafnkels saga" - the title of a featured article I wrote. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 20:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Not just his votes; he's been arguing vociferously lately for some really radical inclusionism, more radical than my own, fighting to get webcomics and that kind of thing kept. So I figure he could help get something that actually deserves to be on Wikipedia restored, and at the same time go a little ways towards mending fences with me, assuming of course that he desires that at all. Everyking 22:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I just browsed the current deletion review discussions and they're not quite what I expected. The people involved seem to be very concerned with procedural issues and I honestly don't know if throwing poor Ashlee in there would do any good - even if Phil were to do it. Can't we just be bold and recreate the page, using the rationale that it's going to be an essentially different article? And create it under a different name even? Or would that still bring on a G4 speedy-deletion tag within minutes? Surely there must be some reasonable way of resurrecting an article without showing that there were procedural problems with its previous deletion? - Haukur Þorgeirsson 23:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I feel almost as though my presence in this conversation is wholly incidental. Phil Sandifer 23:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I can sympathise. Let's move this elsewhere if you feel we're imposing on your talk page. I'd still like to hear your opinion on what the best way to move forward on this would be. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 23:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Phil, you never did respond to me again. I can recreate the article and may well do so, but I would vastly prefer to have the history undeleted as a starting point. Please explain how you could give "no convincing grounds" for undeletion in light of the points raised by Haukur and myself. Everyking 10:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, I can accept that reasoning. You may be right about that. But I do feel the proliferation of other tour articles is s very strong point in favor of undeletion. Everyking 19:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia meetup:Tampa

I'm writing to let you know that the Tampa meetup has officially been announced -- Wikipedia:Meetup/Tampa2 &rarr;Raul654 04:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Dacodava

I am a Daco-Roman and I am immortal!Dacodava

Your vote on Guanaco's RFA

Yep. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others/Evidence. You may make proposals and comment on proposals at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others/Workshop. Fred Bauder 19:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Checkerboard Nightmare

Please be familiar with the policies of Wikiquette, no personal attacks, and civility before making a recommendation as to whether an article should be deleted or not, or making a comment on an AfD. AfDs are for discussing articles and whether they ought tho be deleted, not for discussing your personal feelings about other editors. Dragonfiend 02:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• Can you stop being condescending and mousing around people's talk pages snarkily calling me "Snowy?" Phil Sandifer 06:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

  I will henceforth desist referring to you as "Snowy". - &lt;font color="#2f4f4f">brenneman^(t)(c) 06:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not an assumption of bad faith to question someone's judgement in a given area - it's an assumption of good faith but questionable judgement. And really, that nomination was jaw-dropping. You should probably accept that it was and move on - David Gerard 00:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Mob rule

When I first came to Wikipedia I really respected you. You seemed not only to understand the letter of the law but the spirit as well. I've mentioned before that you even had a place on my user page as someone to emulate. But I have to say that with every contibution you make any slight shred of that feeling that remains is further diminshed.

I cannot believe that you would not only accept but condone what has happened at this AfD, and your altering of the proposed guideline goes beyond any possibilty for me to assume good faith. If it's ok by you for people who have no commitment to the goals of the project in general, who don't contribute to it operation, and who don't care about anything but their own interests to contaminate the process as long as you get what you want, then you are not on the side of good any longer.

The fact that you have not been able, with logical coherent discourse and citing your sources, to make a succesful bid for inclusion of articles like this speaks volumes.

brenneman^(t)(c) 00:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Checkerboard nightmare afd

hmm, just did the math on my calculator and your right, it's about 79% to keep, I've changed the notice on the afd closing tag to reflect that. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Big Finish edits

Hi there. I appreciate your editing the Big Finish audio entries, but if you could stick to the formatting that we've set out there, it'd make the look more consistent across the wikiproject. Have a look at the television episode articles and the style guide at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Doctor Who. Thanks. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Apologies

I crossed the line last month. I should have apologised a long time ago. I apologise. Guettarda 04:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Webcomics ArbCom

Do you know any means of dispute resolution other than arbitration? I'm serious. The webcomics thing is just astonishing. You cannot just keep bullying people and trying to control the project forever. With this kind of excess everyone is going to come to see what some of us have been arguing all along. Even the ArbCom isn't going along with you unconditionally anymore, as you can see by the rejection of the election controversy dispute. The point of this message is to reiterate what I've always been trying to get across to you: do something besides stir up controversy. Something productive. It's OK if you stir up a controversy every now and then. But it's basically all you do, all the time. Everyking 18:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I was hoping for "I finally understand and will reform", but OK. Everyking 21:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I've made my response to the ArbCom request. - brenneman^(t)(c) 22:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

WP:CSD

Gee. Blanking official policy? I wasn't expecting that from you. You know better than that. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Symbolic or not, it isn't fair for us actually trying to discuss it on the talk page (besides, that isn't what you got rollback for, but that's a different matter). If the policy is truly flawed, then there would be a consensus for changing it. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

3RR - TheDoctor10

I really don't need yet another mindless buffoon to harass me.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 19:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment removal

I don't accept others removing comments from my talk page, short of plain vandalism, and I definitely don't approve of you in particular doing it. You should know that. Everyking 05:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

How do you know it was Lir? It doesn't matter to me, anyway, I want the comment there. In my opinion, comments made on individuals' talk pages should be left to either be kept or deleted by the individual whose talk page it is. Everyking 05:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I was greatly amused by your defense of Wonderfool, because I had the opposite feeling—while I thought the block might've been a tad harsh (I would've preferred an initial offer of clemency in exchange for complete contrition and confession), I felt no sympathy whatsoever for someone knowingly adding false info and did not really think he deserved any particular leniency. It seems we can agree on nothing. What's your stand on abortion? Everyking 04:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

That was a joke. I can't even win with jokes. Everyking 05:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you go edit some? You know, articles. Give us a reason to want you around. Everyking 05:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

You know what I mean. People should of course be welcome to contribute as much or as little as often or as seldom as they wish. But the criticism of you is that your article editing is very, very little compared to the enormous amount of "contributions" (to use the term loosely) to arbitration and policy issues. It's wildly out of proportion, and it's somebody who wields a great deal of power in the project. Everyking 05:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I just don't think that is very much editing for somebody who has such a prominent place here. Look at it this way. If someone disagrees with every single one of my policy positions and discussions in the Wikipedia: namespace, they would still have to judge my overall presence as positive because they couldn't dispute all the article editing I do. This is basically what the ArbCom always likes to include in its punitive rulings against me. But for you, if somebody, like me, disagrees with you and thinks you are harmful regarding policy and arbitration issues, there's really nothing else to fall back on to say "well, even so, he's been useful doing ____". So there's a tendency to see your presence as simply harmful with very little redeeming merit. That makes it much harder to stomach your antagonistic attitude and general harshness. It is hard to understand why someone would be attracted to Wikipedia primarily for the purpose of trying to get restrictions imposed on its editors. The only good explanation I've ever been able to think of is that it's some kind of power thing you're into. Everyking 05:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes I think to myself: What if all or most of the things about Wikipedia I argue in favor of are wrong? What if I've been in the wrong about all those arbitration cases? I console myself with the belief that even in that worst case scenario, my positive impact would still greatly outweigh the bad. I suppose you just aren't plagued with any kind of doubts like that and are 100% sure that you know everything. I think it might help if you were plagued by at least a few doubts, actually. Everyking 05:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

TheDoctor10

I am preparing an RFC against User:TheDoctor10 for speculation, revert warring and personal attacks. Would you please review the draft User:TimPope/Requests for Comment/TheDoctor10 and leave any comments on my talk page if you would be prepared to endorse if I should list it formally at WP:RFC. I would also be grateful for any additional examples of any attempts you have made to resolve the dispute.

Thanks! --TimPope 10:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for unblocking me. I left a comment about the RfC on Khaosworks' talkpage, you may want to take a look, 'cos I don't think I'd be allowed to edit the proposal. Thanks again,--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 16:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Blogging Tories

Why did you undelete Blogging Tories? The AfD looks alright to me, and I don't see any irregularities that warrant a speedy undelete. Or is there something I'm missing? Thanks.--Sean|Black 05:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, thanks.--Sean|Black 05:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Blogging Tories

G'day Phil,

I notice that the article Blogging Tories was recently deleted in a rather odd AfD. You undeleted it, presumably after reading the discussion on VfU. One of the GNAA ... er ... useful contributors ... appeared on IRC and asked for an admin to delete it, and an admin duly complied. Once he'd discovered the VfU and the identity of the undeleter he was, of course, quite embarrassed.

I've let a note on the talk page in case the issue comes up again. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Your question on my ArbCom candidacy

Hey Snowspinner, thanks for your question - this message is just to let you know I've answered it. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Wonderfool blocking - technical point

Hi, I don't want to get into a discussion on our disagreement over this - I think you'll agree that Arbcom's decision renders the whole thing moot. But, and I not very good on the technicla stuff, when my 48 block on him expires - will it cancel out the ind blocks by you and Neutrality [3]? I'm not sure, but does this need unblocking and reblocking? I'd do it myself - but I don't know whether it is neccessary. --Doc ^ask? 12:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify as I saw your reply on Doc's page. I did the initial 48 hour block which you reversed. Then Doc re-blocked for 48 hours. This was followed by the indefinite block per the emegency Arbcom rulling and would have resulted in the block expiring in 48 hours. Splash has since unblocked and reblocked to fix the problem. Block history --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, all good now. --Doc ^ask? 16:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

RE Wikiproject: Blogs

Hello, thanks very much for the invitation. In light of recent events, I would be happy to add my name to the cause and help out whenever possible. I am almost certain that Blogging will soon become a dominant form of media and I am dumbfounded how some can ignorantly label all blogs as "not notable" when they so clearly aren't.--Esto 16:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Unsolicited, somewhat random, Wiki-question

Hi Snowspinner,

Please feel free to ignore this question if you wish, but it was motivated by genuine good-faith curiosity, I promise. Your user-page, and actions of yours I have noted in the past, evinces a belief in the freer application of WP:IAR, and seems to suggest that a Wiki-elite should promote "common sense" action that "slow" mechanisms of policy reform find it too cumbersome to approve. That is my understanding, anyway. In the interest of full disclosure -- if it has escaped your attention -- I generally oppose these positions that I have taken to be yours. So be it, and I am not particularly keen to discuss that issue directly -- though I am always happy to, if you wish.

Having browsed the Association of Member Advocates, I have a question. The Association appears to espouse due process and audi alteram partem as among its high principles. You appear to belong to the Association. Particularly in the case of the latter precept, I honestly cannot logically reconcile your view on IAR with your membership in the Association. I was hoping you might share why you feel unilateral boldness in administrative action is not inconsistent with audi alteram partem.

This is not an attempt to provoke. Really, I wanted to become a prospective member of the group, but your active involvement with it struck me as so incongruous that I was left to wonder if the Association has an agenda different than that which it openly states. You're a frank person, so come to you asking you to clear up my confusion, if you have the time and inclination to do so. Best wishes, Xoloz 08:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Fair use and comics

Not sure if you have had a chance to glance at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Fair use and comics, but as I feel you are someone who has an interest and also relevant experience in this area I would appreciate it if you could find the time to read it and comment, as I think it is important to clarify the situation. I would dearly value your input and insights, thanks in advance, Steve block talk 14:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

My RfC - another thread

Cc: Tim Pope, Khaosworks, Sean Black, Josiah Rowe, 23skidoo

I know I'm not quite ready for an RfA yet, but since my RfC has been up for five days now, should it come down (especially since I'm away all weekend anyway).--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 18:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Important AfD

Hello again. Recently I've been having difficulties in getting a sufficient amount of feedback from the top caliber editors of the history and politics articles-- needed in order to establish a consensus in the vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of modern day dictators. I recall you taking an interest in similar category issues. So, it'll be much appreciated if you can take a look. Regards. 172 22:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics/Workshop. Fred Bauder 22:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FuelWagon v. Ed Poor has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FuelWagon v. Ed Poor/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FuelWagon v. Ed Poor/Workshop. Fred Bauder 00:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration case Instantnood 2 closed

The Arbitration case on which you commented, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 2, has closed. The Committee's decision is as follows:

Instantnood, Huaiwei, and SchmuckyTheCat are all placed on Probation for topics relating to China for a year. This means that any sysop, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, documented in a section of this decision, may ban them from any article which relates to China which they disrupt by inappropriate editing. In doing so, the sysop must notify the banned user on their talk page, and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I. They may post suggestions on the talk page of any article from which they are banned from editing. This remedy is crafted to permit them to continue to edit articles in these areas which are not sources of controversy. In addition to this, Instantnood is restricted to proposing only one page move, poll of editors, or policy change relating to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) per week, and reminded to make useful edit summaries.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Copyvio

Hi Showspinner, thanks for correcting my blunder, I hadn't realized a translation is also covered by the copyright. -- Ze miguel 22:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Form question by Snowspinner

Being an arbitrator requires a finely tuned bullshit detector. What in your life has prepared you to detect bullshit with ease? Phil Sandifer 21:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

People don't often try to bullshit me. My best physical aspect is my peircing eyes... have a look ;)

I am a psyche major mainly because of my natural skill at analysing and evaluating others, and the fact that they so often open up to me and tell me about their personal horrors, dreams and tragedies.

I have often been both a salesman and a sociological/political/market researcher, so it is usually my job to be aware of when people are telling the truth, or when they are simply telling me what they think I want to hear. The secret is you can trust everyone. Just trust them to do what they do, once you know who they are. Trust them to speak in their own language. Trust them to be themselves. Sam Spade 17:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Enough with the reverting already

At least the other players in this little drama had the decency to edit each other's versions. You don't simply get to decide what pages are up for editing and which aren't. - brenneman^(t)(c) 02:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you claiming that this is not by an anonymous user? - brenneman^(t)(c) 02:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Cognition

Your treatment of Cognition regarding his user page images could be considered harassment and bullying. How would you respond to someone who thought that? Everyking 11:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

If you want to fight about copyright issues, there are innumerable articles where you can do that, instead of picking on one individual user about it. Seems to me that's one of the least important battles you could be fighting. So that, combined with my belief that you want Cognition gone from the project (am I wrong?), combines to give me a reasonable degree of confidence that your primary motive was simply to pressure or annoy Cognition. Frankly, I don't believe you really care about the copyright status of Cognition's page in itself, certainly not enough to do all that research and write all that. Everyking 01:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, then, let's look at it a different way. Do you recall the case of User:Skyring, and his one-year ban for wikistalking? How do you feel about that case? Everyking 01:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey, knock it off, you two. User:Cognition has uploaded a bunch of images that he's improperly tagged or used, and has even used them to make personal attacks. We need to move forward with resolving these long-standing problems. I appreciate that user:Snowspinner has taken the initiative and given a reminder warning to the editor that these images are being used incorrectly. Let's not make a federal case about it. -Willmcw 02:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Concern with copyright issues is good; bullying is bad. I suppose it comes down to your general assessment of Snowspinner whether you consider this bullying or just being vigilant. My opinion about him is that, taken individually, nothing he does seems particularly terrible, just perhaps a little excessive or misguided. But if you look at his contributions in general, you get a much worse impression, in my opinion, because you see these same patterns: lack of any normal degree of caution, lack of respect for the views of others, tendency to pressure others, belief in and promotion of ideas about Wikipedia that tend towards a kind of anarchic despotism (investing excessive power in individual admins, without any firm rules and processes binding them all together), terseness and lack of goodwill—and all that coupled with very limited content contributions. The overall picture is a bad one. Well, once you get that impression, derived from past individual actions, you're going to tend to apply it to future individual actions—so it becomes very difficult to see the treatment of Cognition and his images in good faith, although it would be entirely possible to imagine another person doing that in good faith (although I would at least expect a more gentle approach about it). Everyking 07:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any word from user:Snowspinner to user:Cognition that can be considered bullying. OTOH, berating Snowspinner for doing legitimate admin-type maintenance and follow-up seems to me to be provocative. -Willmcw 07:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, yeah, allowing for rhetorical exaggeration on your part, that's about right. I don't assume everything you do is in bad faith, but it has gotten to the point where I do either assume or conclude that for most of it. And as for wikistalking, I don't know. You've started two ArbCom cases against me, and look at Xed and many others, too. Is that wikistalking? You've voiced the opinion that LaRouchists are crazy cultists and should not edit here (correct me if I'm wrong here. For my part, I think they are cultists and probably a bit crazy, but I think they can contribute usefully, even on LaRouche-related topics); you've blocked users similar to Cognition on very iffy grounds (probably the most iffy I've ever seen—the idea that two users are the same person purely because they hold the same political viewpoint); is it a great leap to think that you targeting Cognition specifically for copyright userpage issues has more to do with pressuring and annoying him than the copyright issue itself? Is it, moreover, completely unjustified to take terse, unhelpful responses like yours as a sort of confirmation that your motivations are negative ones? Everyking 08:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

.

Wolfowitz

I am unable to remember the exact time. It was taken by a fellow SAIS student for the SAIS observer at his office at the time when he was still at SAIS. It was around January 2001. Thanks. Rananim 16:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

re: sig

From what I've read on the issue, the amount of "database load" is proportionate to the number of pages on which a particular template is used, and the frequency with which said template is edited. I don't edit my signature on a regular basis (one time since June, when I designed it) and from what I have noticed (in designing the layout of my userpage, and checking AFD listings), edits to a page outside the "Template:" namespace that is used as a template (a "pseudo-template" if you will) are not reflected in the pages that transclude it until such time as those pages are either edited or manually purged.

I realize a sophisticated vandal could wreak generalized havoc upon the database (and also on various talk pages) by maliciously editing such a template, regardless of its namespace, but page protection would solve those issues. Let me know immediately if I accidentally sign a page with a penis photo or something similar. It is also worth noting that the effects of similar vandalism to templates in wider use, such as {{unsigned}} or various {{school-stub}}s, would be of greater severity, yet none of them are protected from such attacks.

Self-containment is another concern, and I would argue that spilling html codes directly onto a page is something best avoided. If somebody "clips my sig" so to speak, it would merely turn into a harmless red-link, rather than causing the lower half of the talk page to turn green, or anything else that might require a hand-coded fix. I would, however, be unopposed to substing any templates transcluded into closed or archived discussion pages as these would be unlikely to experience accidental formatting goof-ups.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Freakofnurture (talk • contribs) 19:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Infobox Company

On the 11th, I made a clean-up edit to this template, mostly fixing some ugly formatting. The template had too much of the CSS style hard-coded, so I made use of the infobox CSS class. I also fixed the row headers, which weren't setup using proper wikitable mark-up for headers (HTML code "<TH>"). The template also used a combination of meta-templates and sub-templates and I eliminated all of that with a less ugly hack which hid each row if the data was undefined. In the end, there was no loss in functionality, but a cleaner and more readable format. If you looked just at the visual differences, the box lost a lot of excessive white-space, was slightly narrower, and the row header alignment changed from right to left. All positive changes I thought, and consistent with other Infoboxs. Adraeus reverted twice and then I offered to listen and fix anything he saw was not working, so long as he stopped ranting and describe the problems he saw specifically. I think it was at this point he started more ranting about how I was "vandalizing" the template. -- Netoholic @ 21:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

If you find yourself in continuous edit wars, Netoholic, you might want to consider if you are acting in accordance with consensus. Firebug 06:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Please use summaries when you unblock people

Please use summaries when you unblock people. When you don’t put a summary in the log, people may think you’ve got bad motives. Susvolans ⇔ 10:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

User recovery

I am interested in recovering the text to Alex Weiss. Can you do this for me? (he is my father so there will be no problem keeping it in my user space). Cheers, SqueakBox 21:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Brilliant! SqueakBox 21:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

Vandalism is defined as "willful wanton and malicious destruction" [4] and as "willful and malicious destruction or defacement of property, or an act thereof". [5] "Malicious" is defined as "arising from intense ill will or hatred". [6] Acts of vandalism are properly labelled "vandalism" when such acts are committed with knowledge of the destructive results. Regarding meta-template usage, Netoholic had expressed his malice towards meta-templates on his user page; [7] therefore, his willful and malicious behavior was rightly described as "vandalism". Adraeus 09:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Also remember that I created the Infobox Company template, which is now used on more than a 1,000 articles. SIGNIFICANT CHANGES ARE TO BE DISCUSSED! I was unfairly blocked for defending a popular template (that I created) against vandalism. Netoholic was blocked for violating the template namespace restrictions placed on him; however, cronyism evidently prevails on Wikipedia, and Netoholic was unblocked several hours later. Adraeus 09:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Adraeus 23:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

pretty (dead) templates

Here is the list of "prettytable" templates which can go bye-bye. All are replaced with class="wikitable" which is in MediaWiki:Common.css : Template:Prettytable, Template:Prettytable-R, Template:Prettytable-center, Template:Prettytable-center2, Template:Prettytable100, Template:Prettytable100center, Template:Prettytable2, Template:Prettytable95, Template:Prettytableright, Template:Prettytablewidth, Template:Prettyinfoboxleft.

All should be fairly straightforward, except maybe Template:Prettytable itself. Might nominate all the others first, and then go after the main one later. -- Netoholic @ 22:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Here are some others. These ones copied prettytable, but were made just for WP:F1. Template:F1 table, Template:F1 Grand Prix table, Template:F1 race table, Template:F1 quali table. -- Netoholic @ 23:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Not related to prettytable, but here are a couple more bad F1 templates. See Template:F1 season link & Template:F1sl. -- Netoholic @ 23:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Deletion policy

Thank you for your initial assistance in resurrecting Right to exist. I'm somewhat confused about deletion policy on Wikipedia, and I was hoping you could help clarify. I was under the (perhaps erroneous) impression that a AfD vote was restricted to the article in question, not to future articles that might be created under that title. Yet, in the current AfD on Right to exist, a large number of users have cited the previous AfD as a reason why the article should be deleted. Why? I never saw this infamous previous article. It must have been really bad to get so many people upset about it. But I have done my best to write a NPOV, cited article on this contentious issue. User:Jayjg said that the "topic was deemed un-encyclopedic", which seems bizarre to me - this issue comes up all the time in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict. And it gets a lot of Google search results, and is even the title of a book. Some people seem to be voting based on precedent, not on the article itself. I will certainly be happy to cite more sources, fix any potential POV issues (I removed some POV from the article a while back), or make it into a disambiguation page if needed - but I don't see why so many people are clamoring for its deletion. Further, there seems to be some nasty arguments going on about whether certain people behaved inappropriately in the process. Crotalus horridus (TALK ● CONTRIBS) 22:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Marsden

I see you have blocked User:Marsden, with a totally inadequate justification on AN. Apparently in my absence nobody else is willing to challenge you on these things, or even ask a question. Can you please explain to me, in as much detail as you like, why you blocked this user indefinitely? Everyking 10:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

If you don't respond, I will take the initiative to undo the block myself. Everyking 19:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

"Pernicious troll" is not a valid reason for an indefinite block. Everyking 04:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

What could Marsden agree to that would lead you to unblock him? Is there anything? This is the simplest and least confrontational strategy, so this is the one I want to try first. Everyking 09:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Respond or I will unblock. This is getting tiring. Everyking 07:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Marsden has never done anything other than toxic trolling. Have a word with Jayjg about this. Did you see the crap he was spewing on Jay's AC nomination? - David Gerard 10:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you aware of the discussion "Marsden again" on WP:AN? Some input from you would be appreciated. Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 19:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Netoholic now permitted to edit Templates?

Has Netoholic's ban on editing Templates been lifted? I ask because of this, this and this. These were shortly preceded by this and this. Oh, and a little while before that there was this. I take some exception to the peremptory tone of these comments and the abrupt nature of the reversions.

I understand that WP:AUM is Neto's particular little Hobby horse (his "favorite topic, to which he constantly reverts") but I object to being ordered around like some small puppy who has just widdled on the carpet. This is particularly true when the "rule" I have apparently "broken" is a guideline which has repeatedly failed to be promoted to policy status.

I'm asking you and Ral315 because the two of you seem to have some knowledge of the situation, and possibly some influence over Neto himself.

Yours hoppingly-mad but nobly self-restrained…Phil | Talk 15:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

This is Net's hobbyhorse, and he handled it in the usual Net manner, i.e. badly. Again, he's arguably 100% right, but wasn't getting it across to people productively. I dived in and went "WTF" as well, but took it to somewhere that something could be done about it - wikitech-l. And now it looks like those who really want the logical template stuff are writing Mediawiki extensions to do it without crippling the server. As long as they don't make it Turing-complete, I'd call it a win all round so far - David Gerard 10:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Webcomics rfar

Take a look at some edits I made to your Proposed finding of fact 15 "Dragonfiend has assumed bad faith". My intention is to provide evidence that matches the proposal. Please amend if you wish. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Hegel

Thanks for the revert on Hegel. Being admittedly ignorant on the topic, I have no objection to the information being in the article. However, given my past experiences with "ROHA", I have no reason to trust his judgement, and "read these philosphers" is not a "source" that is useful to me. :( —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-17 03:52:34Z

Template:Microsoft

You have deleted Template:Microsoft. However, the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion regarding if the template should be deleted yielded the following votes: Keep: 15 Delete: 5 Split: 1. Consensus was achieved in over 70% of commenting Wikipedians voting keep. On what grounds have you ignored that consensus and chosen to split the template, a suggestion voted for by only one of the 21 responding users? Criteria for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion are that: "Templates that have been listed for more than seven days are eligible for deletion if a rough consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to its deletion have been raised." Again, consensus was in favour of keeping, not deleting, and many objections to its deletion were raised.

You commented that: "Result: Split. The fact that 30 templates violate template guidelines is not justification for any of their existence. Note that the split is best responded to by categorization and deletion. Phil Sandifer 19:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)" The result of discussion was not "split", it was "keep". You mention template guidelines but provide no references, please provide them. Your comments belonged in the discussion regarding the template's deletion, not as a justification for the unlaterial action you chose to do.

Though I welcome your comments regarding how to improve the template, I do not believe you have the authority to reject consensus and delete it. Please explain your actions. Kurieeto 01:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

If you maintain that the un-discussed actions you took regarding Template:Microsoft were the most appropriate, I would appreciate you proposing the rest of the corporate templates for similar deletion or splitting. This way the actions taken to Template:Microsoft can be debated for application to all the corporate templates as a whole. Kurieeto 07:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Problems?

I am restoring all of the templates you removed. Please do not revert my edits without discussing as that is the best way to irritate me which I am sure is not your intention. I also object of the removal of the templates during the tfding of them. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 04:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I really, really don't want things marked as up for deletion on our most important policy pages, and ask you to reconsider putting the templates back in. Phil Sandifer 06:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, how about publicize the template and commenting it out on articles. If it survives the tfd it would be very easy to reinclude them. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 06:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Please explain the following actions

I would appreciate it if you could explain why you did the following things recently. Susvolans ⇔ 15:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

1. 23:13, 17 December 2005 Snowspinner deleted "Template:If else" (content was: 'Template:Insert text' (and the only contributor was 'Ausir'))
2. 22:13, 17 December 2005 Snowspinner protected User talk:Lir (No real reason anyone needs to post to this page.)
3. 19:40, 17 December 2005 Snowspinner deleted "Template:Infobox Movie/movie language" (content was: '|-| style="vertical-align:top;text-align:right;" | Language| style="vertical-align:top;text-align:left;" | {{{1}}}' (and the only contributor was 'Adraeus'))
4. 19:40, 17 December 2005 Snowspinner deleted "Template:Infobox Movie/starring" (content was: '|-| style="vertical-align:top;text-align:right;" | Starring| style="vertical-align:top;text-align:left;" | {{{1}}}' (and the only contributor was 'Adraeus'))
5. 19:40, 17 December 2005 Snowspinner deleted "Template:Infobox Movie/producer" (content was: '|-| style="vertical-align:top;text-align:right;" | Produced by| style="vertical-align:top;text-align:left;" | {{{1}}}' (and the only contributor was 'Adraeus'))
6. 19:40, 17 December 2005 Snowspinner deleted "Template:Infobox Movie/music" (content was: '| style="vertical-align:top;text-align:right;" | Music by| style="vertical-align:top;text-align:left;" | {{{1}}}' (and the only contributor was 'AzaToth'))
7. 19:40, 17 December 2005 Snowspinner deleted "Template:Infobox Movie/imdb id" (content was: '|-| colspan="2" align="center" style="padding-bottom: 5px;"| IMDb profile' (and the only contributor was 'Adraeus'))
8. 19:40, 17 December 2005 Snowspinner deleted "Template:Infobox Movie/distributor" (content was: '|-| style="vertical-align:top;text-align:right;" | Distributed by| style="vertical-align:top;text-align:left;" | {{{1}}}' (and the only contributor was 'Adraeus'))
9. 19:40, 17 December 2005 Snowspinner deleted "Template:Infobox Movie/budget" (content was: '|-| style="vertical-align:top;text-align:right;" | Budget| style="vertical-align:top;text-align:left;" | {{{1}}}' (and the only contributor was 'Adraeus'))
10. 19:40, 17 December 2005 Snowspinner deleted "Template:Infobox Movie/screenplay by" (content was: '| style="vertical-align:top;text-align:right;" | Screenplay by| style="vertical-align:top;text-align:left;" | {{{1}}}' (and the only contributor was 'AzaToth'))
11. 19:40, 17 December 2005 Snowspinner deleted "Template:Infobox Movie/original story by" (content was: '| style="vertical-align:top;text-align:right;" | Original story by| style="vertical-align:top;text-align:left;" | {{{1}}}' (and the only contributor was 'AzaToth'))
12. 19:40, 17 December 2005 Snowspinner deleted "Template:Infobox Movie/movie name" (content was: '|-| colspan="2" align="center" style="text-align:center;font-size:larger;"| {{{movie_name}}}' (and the only contributor was 'Adraeus'))
13. 19:40, 17 December 2005 Snowspinner deleted "Template:Infobox Movie/image" (content was: '|-| colspan="2" align="center" style="padding-bottom: 5px;"| 200px')
14. 19:40, 17 December 2005 Snowspinner deleted "Template:Infobox Movie/director" (content was: '|-| style="vertical-align:top;text-align:right;" | Directed by| style="vertical-align:top;text-align:left;" | {{{1}}}' (and the only contributor was 'Adraeus'))
15. 19:40, 17 December 2005 Snowspinner deleted "Template:Infobox Movie/editing" (content was: '| style="vertical-align:top;text-align:right;" | Editing| style="vertical-align:top;text-align:left;" | {{{1}}}' (and the only contributor was 'AzaToth'))
16. 19:40, 17 December 2005 Snowspinner deleted "Template:Infobox Movie/cinematography" (content was: '| style="vertical-align:top;text-align:right;" | Cinematography| style="vertical-align:top;text-align:left;" | {{{1}}}' (and the only contributor was 'AzaToth'))
17. 19:40, 17 December 2005 Snowspinner deleted "Template:Infobox Movie/tagline" (content was: '|- valign="top"| style="text-align: right;" | Tagline| bgcolor="#dfefff" | {{{1}}}' (and the only contributor was 'Flamurai'))
18. 19:39, 17 December 2005 Snowspinner deleted "Template:Infobox Movie/runtime" (content was: '|-| style="vertical-align:top;text-align:right;" | Runtime| style="vertical-align:top;text-align:left;" | {{{1}}}' (and the only contributor was 'Adraeus'))
19. 19:39, 17 December 2005 Snowspinner deleted "Template:Infobox Movie/release date" (content was: '|-| style="vertical-align:top;text-align:right;" | Release date| style="vertical-align:top;text-align:left;" | {{{1}}}' (and the only contributor was 'Adraeus'))
20. 19:33, 17 December 2005 Snowspinner deleted "Template:Microsoft" (Split into {{Microsoft board}} and {{Microsoft products}} and substed on Microsoft itself)
21. 18:13, 17 December 2005 Snowspinner deleted "Robert X. Patriot and the White Devil Conspiracy" (Crazy? Band vanity? I can't honestly tell! But I know it's speediable!)
22. 21:38, 16 December 2005 Snowspinner deleted "Diane Porsch" (no reason given)
23. 21:37, 16 December 2005 Snowspinner deleted "Mobile security Software" (no reason given)
24. 21:14, 16 December 2005 Snowspinner unprotected Wikipedia:Zero-revert rule (No reason to protect this, I suspect.)
25. 17:32, 16 December 2005 Snowspinner unprotected Wikipedia:Fancruft (We do not protect pages because of external links.)
26. 23:12, 15 December 2005 Snowspinner blocked "User:Marsden" with an expiry time of indefinite (Hopeless troll)
27. 20:43, 12 December 2005 Snowspinner unblocked User:Netoholic (no reason given)
28. 20:43, 12 December 2005 Snowspinner unblocked [[User:#66521]] (no reason given)

If

I agree entirely. However, we should not ruin pages if we can help it. Remove uses of the template before changing the text of it. Remove all mentions of it, then destroy it in whatever way seems best to you. But don't spoil hundreds of pages if you can help it. [[Sam Korn]] 19:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Qif

Difficult to say. Each template using it needs to be tackled one at a time. Infoboxes are easy to fix, others, like Template:Country flagcountry are part of an obscure and convoluted chain of template ugliness. Template:Language is probably the worst offender. -- Netoholic @ 20:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll do my best. -- Netoholic @ 20:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Damn... so much for getting my xmas shopping done today... -- Netoholic @ 20:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Kmweber

Hi, I'm curious if you saw this before you changed the timing of the block on user:Kmweber, that, by the way, isn't the first time he's done something like that. Also, he was on IRC 5-10 minutes ago bragging about how he beat the system, via you, so I changed the block to indefinate. karmafist 00:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

"Salt the earth"

A new and innovative vote in deletion debates: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Peppers 5. By the way, is the description of policy accurate? "The very concept of this article has been deleted as non-notable by consensus on AfD". I thought only specific articles were voted on, not concepts. Firebug 16:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

No, no. If six people vote and four are for killing all internet memes and two are against, that's consensus for 20,000+ Wikipedia editors. Of course it is. - David Gerard 18:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Sympathetic point of view

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons deserve special sensitivity and its talk page need severe rewriting to, e.g., actually bear some resemblance to "NPOV" - David Gerard 18:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Question

I have noticed you seem to be ignoring me lately. I asked you a very politely worded and clearly reasonable question on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2005/Candidate statements/Snowspinner and you haven't responded to it. I feel like a lot of the problems people have with you come from the simple fact that nobody really understands where you're coming from. It seems like there's never anything but negativity—why don't you try constructively outlining your views? It gets tiring to see you constantly trashing people and ideas you disagree with, always phrasing things in negative terms, never allowing for any possibility that the other person is right. I have a lot of questions I would like to ask that I think would get to the bottom of a good many issues, but I'm not going to bother if you won't even answer the question I've already asked. Notice I did answer the question you asked me two months ago on my candidate page, and also wrote follow-up responses. Everyking 07:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

AUM

If you're still working on deprecating meta-templates, you may want to take a look at Template:Col-break and all other five templates mentioned on that page, which generate simple wiki markup that makes tables. I'd say substing would be a definite improvement. Radiant_>|< 14:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Infinite Crisis

Don't really know how to do footnotes, but here is the source for the Dan Didio comments on the Crisis planning: http://www.newsarama.com/dcnew/InfiniteCrisis/CrisisCounseling01.htm. Dyslexic agnostic 06:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration policy ratification vote

The Arbitration policy ratification vote page says specifically "This is a rolling vote, which means that further votes and expressions of support or opposition are very welcome".

It's odd, but that is how it was set-up and intended. I suppose of some great number of people start to dislike Arbitration, they are invited to express that and it would possibly counteract their mandate. I'll also point out that you removed only late "no" votes, not all late votes. If July 2004 is your cut-off, then there are about 10 yes votes as well. I think, though, that the best thing would be to revert, and ask for clarification on the talk page about what's intended. -- Netoholic @ 06:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the idea is that it's an avenue to "express opinion". Why not clarify with Jimbo before potentially upsetting people in this instance? -- Netoholic @ 06:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

If that's how you feel, you may want to adjust the intro - to avoid further confusion/voting. -- Netoholic @ 06:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

St. Pete meetup

Snowspinner, unfortunately it seems that we've been unable to resolve our conflict regarding the images on my userpage through civil communication. However, I notice that you've signed up for the St. Petersburg meetup in January. I'm planning on attending also, to discuss with Jimbo various concerns I have about Wikipedia, and I'm wondering if perhaps you and I could have a discussion in person about recent edit wars on my userpage. When the meeting is nearer, you should let me know how I can recognize you and hopefully we can work things out. Or email me through the Wikipedia email feature. Cognition 18:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Oops. My screw-up

Sorry sorry sorry to post my holiday cheer on, by accident, your userpage. Meant to do it here. I'm a good writer-editor, but clearly, an idiot otherwise. Again, let me offer apologies for my part in our contretemps, and warm wishes for a happy holiday. Tenebrae 03:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/David Levy

I absolutely never advocated ignoring the developers. I explicitly stated that I intend to follow their recommendations, and merely want to make sure that we properly understand their wishes. I haven't used a conditional template since learning of the problem, and I told you that "I don't intend to ever use such template syntax again, until a developer explicitly states that it's okay to do so." I reinstated {{cleanup-date}}, purely to allow the removal of {{qif}} from {{cleanup}}. I voted to delete {{if}}. I even awarded a barnstar to Netoholic for bringing this issue to everyone's attention. I respectfully urge you to reexamine my involvement in this situation. Thank you. —David Levy 06:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I remain baffled by how the developers can possibly be taken as being less than clear at any point. From day one, Jamesday said that meta-templates cause noticable database strain, and should be avoided. Phil Sandifer 06:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll quote myself from Wikipedia talk:Avoid using meta-templates:

I merely want to understand the nature and extent of the problem. I'm more than willing to abide by the developers' recommendations, but Jamesday's statements on this page are not particularly specific. "Using resources unnecessarily is not helpful," but how should we define "unnecessarily"? (Technically, all templates are unnecessary.) Should we merely "work at reducing the use of qif," or should we ban it entirely?

I'm not saying, "let's all continue to use these templates until we're told not to." I'm saying, "let's be told what not to do, and hopefully no one will try to do it."

Every pertinent comment by Jamesday that I've read has been something along the lines of "try to avoid using those" or "try to reduce their use." I've never seen him recommend an outright ban. If he does feel that way, I want him to say so, thereby putting to rest all doubts. This, however, would not change my template use in the slightest, because I already have decided to err on the side of caution (by avoiding conditional templates completely). I'm speaking on behalf of the community, which I believe is entitled to a first-hand apprisal of the situation.

Perhaps you've privy to some of Jamesday's comments with which I'm unfamiliar, or maybe your understanding of his intentions is clearer than mine. Regardless, you've misrepresented my stance on this issue. —David Levy 06:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Avoid using meta-templates#Conference reference. This is precisely the sort of dispute that I suspected would arise without a more specific statement from Jamesday or another developer.

It's frustrating that you perceive me as working against you on this issue, because what I really want is to be able to cite something conclusive in response to such inquiries. A third-party assessment (whether yours, mine or someone else's) is insufficient, because it's based upon the same ambiguous statements that are available to everyone else (and subject to interpretation). An explanation straight from the proverbial horse's mouth would be virtually irrefutable, and hopefully would legitimize the policy in the eyes of the community (which is all that I want to occur). —David Levy 13:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I would sincerely appreciate an amendment to your RfA vote. If you honestly believe that I'm unfit to be a sysop, I respect your opinion (and hope to address your concerns, whether I'm promoted or not). I am, however, troubled by the fact that your cited justification is based entirely upon a misunderstanding. Constructive criticism is fine, but the claim that I "was one of the most active supporters of ignoring the devs on the meta-templates issue" simply isn't true. I'd rather you oppose me because I'm a pest who won't stop posting messages on your talk page. ;) —David Levy 20:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for voting in my RfA. I hope that I'm able to gain your trust as an administrator. —David Levy 06:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll let you have the last word if you want it

I think I'm going to bed in a minute, so I'll let you have the last word if you want it. I think our argument got a lot more abstract than will likely be useful to the Arbitration Committee anyway. ;-) Good night! -- SCZenz 06:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

i hope

i hope you realise that vandalism wasnt me. i was happy with the change as it was. unsigned by 151.196.32.61.

MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice

Hi, Snowspinner. Did you mean to make this edit? I'm assuming that you just slipped or something, but I was wondering if you had intended to blank the page. Blackcap (talk) 18:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

O.K., cool. You may want to go back and put in your comment again, as when Brian reverted it probably removed it. Blackcap (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!

MERRY CHRISTMAS, El Sandifer! A well deserved pressy!--Santa on Sleigh 22:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Netbot run

Actually, it was fine that it removed the template, but it should have at least preserved the rating information. Instead, every single one of those pages now lists the All Music rating as 5/5. —Slicing (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Marsden again

Could you please explain why you blocked User:marsden, preferably with a diff? There's a discussion on WP:AN that really needs your input. Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 00:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You say you don't see what you have to add to that discussion (which is going off in deeply unhelpful directions) so I repeat my request here.

I'm just asking for evidence of behaviour justifying a ban, and noting that normally such justification should be placed on the user's talk page. There's mention here of "Threatening people's place of work", but I'd just like to see the evidence for it. Rd232 ^talk 01:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW, I expect there is good reason and evidence for it; but in the absence thereof I'll consider unblocking Marsden. Rd232 ^talk 01:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You mean you blocked based on SlimVirgin's opinion, who could have blocked him herself? This get's more and more confusing. And what was the reason/evidence? Rd232 ^talk 01:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't find SlimVirgin's remarks, and nothing in Marsden's contributions that I can see seems to warrant a ban. What am I missing?? Rd232 ^talk 01:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

announced where? And if you don't want to work for the block, would you object to my unblocking Marsden and giving him another chance? Rd232 ^talk 01:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Xed arbitration case / personal remarks

In the future can you please take personal remarks to user talk pages? I feel that your exchanges with EK tend to obscure the discussion over at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Xed 2/Proposed decision. By the way, I have also responded to our earlier thread in the hope that it was just a misunderstanding that made you ignore my questions. Thanks, — mark ✎ 08:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for responding; I see where you're coming from. I have tried to remedy the issue by adding section headings above such exchanges, hope that's OK to you. — mark ✎ 18:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Firebug

I'm about to write up an RFC to address his insolence about meta-templates and wiki-stalking of me. Can I count on you to co-sign? -- Netoholic @ 17:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Why?

What could you possibly expect good to come of this? Did you just want me to jump in and revert? Umm, WP:DICK?

Oh, and I was interested in the rant at [8], is that your picture?

brenneman^(t)(c) 17:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Webcomics

I would like your opinion on a simplification I've proposed to the website guidelines. It strikes me that enumerating all possible Good Publishers such as Keenspot would be somewhat instruction creepish. However, it also strikes me that e.g. Keenspot and the Webby are major international news media within their field (but do correct me if I'm wrong). So then to simplify the guideline, I'd suggest that we can use the exact same guidelines for webpages and webcomics, and simply state that a comic that won a webby has thereby garnered enough media attention to be considered notable. Hope that sounds reasonable. Radiant_>|< 17:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

User box meta templates

Most of them appear to use Template:Userbox. It's everywhere, just check the link tables. Some users use it direct, but even then, they incompetently fail to substitute.

It's a big, steaming pile. What are we going to do about it? Rob Church ^Talk 21:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Images and database load

Since you speak the devs more often than I do, I was wondering if you know what the deal is with unnecessary image usage - in particular, images in user signatures, and icons is several editorial templates. Obviously these cause more server load than plain text does; my question is if it's actually problematic, and if steps should be taken to reduce it. Radiant_>|< 22:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Possible mediation?

Snowspinner, I am wondering if you would be amenable to my mediating the difficulties between you and Everyking. I realise that it is unusual for mediators to contact parties, but I understand that the disagreements have become rather disruptive to the encyclopedia and I would like to try my hand at smoothing things out. I normally mediate as follows. If this is kosher, drop me a note through email or on my talk page. --Improv 05:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Deletion

Since when do we delete articles because they contain nonfree images, rather than just removing the images? Firebug 00:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:AUM's Most Wanted

I've started to work on a replacement for the hideous Template:Language, but one of the locals is actually reverting several conversions I've done. I'd appreciate some help, either on Template talk:Infobox Language or on User:Garzo's talk page. -- Netoholic @ 09:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

RFC

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Snowspinner 4. Although you do some valuable work on Wikipedia, your refusal to reconsider your out-of-process blocks and deletions is unacceptable. I strongly suggest that you take the advise of the other administrators who have previously overruled these actions. Firebug 17:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

blocks over Template:Helpuserboxes

Phil, I don't understand why you're blocking these people. I support out-of-process deletions of inappropriate pages, under certain circumstances. But the blocks you're making are punative, and nothing else but, as far as I can tell. What's the deal? -- SCZenz 17:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Even supposing it does cause all the long-term damage you claim, I thought we only blocked for deliberate damage to the wiki. It's pretty clear that the users at most misunderstand Wikipedia. Do you see the distinction I'm drawing? I urge you to reconsider the blocks. -- SCZenz 17:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Deterrents only work if users know they will be blocked for behavior; that's what "deterrent" means! These users are (allegedly) confused; they had no expectation that this would happen, and I don't see why they should have. -- SCZenz 17:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

What, precisely, do you think should be "deterred"? Any criticism of administrative actions, even when those actions flagrantly violate community consensus and Wikipedia policy? Firebug 17:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Using consensus whenever possible is part of how Wikipedia runs, Phil. I'm disappointed when admins with experience, who feel they know best what Wikipedia is really about, stop caring at all about community input. I accept that you get a lot of leeway, and long-standing, trusted users like Kelly Martin get even more, because you do know what the project is really about—but you're not the only ones. I just don't see anything those users did as blockable; I think discussion would be more fruitful, and I'm frankly very frustrated that you don't care. -- SCZenz 17:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I realize that we're not "voting" in an RFC, but numbers are important here because they help to reflect consensus. There is not, and never was, any consensus for these mass deletions. Copyright can't be subject to consensus, but that could easily have been rectified by simply removing the images without deleting the underlying templates. Furthermore, plenty of substantive points were made. They just happen to be points that you disagree with. Speedy deletion exists for issues that are so clear-cut that no reasonable Wikipedian could disagree. Here, a significant majority are outraged at these deletions, making them flagrantly inappropriate. You know exactly what the policy is, and have deliberately chosen to violate it. Firebug 17:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to have even left a message for the users you blocked here, to tell them that they were blocked. Why's that? Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 18:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

spinning wheels

G'day Phil,

I see you've deleted {{Help Wikiboxes}}, and thereby done your little part in keeping a wheel war going. Congratulations. Don't do it again. Wheel warring — even deliberately taking on a tiny rôle in same — is disruptive, and lowers the level of trust the community has in its administrators. You command a great deal of respect on Wikipedia, and you should know better. Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 18:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Neto

Sure. It was Template:Infobox_Pope. [9] The background was that there was a vote on a particular design for the infobox and a consensus agreed what design was wanted and what design wasn't. Netoholic had decided to overrule that consensus and design the template in a way that had been rejected by a long discussion and dump the version chosen by users. I had reverted his changes before. He and another user have a tendency to go to designs chosen by users and when no-one is watching change them to the version they want. Today another user logging in as an IP rather than using their account, as they were entitled to do, and having found that yet again Neto had changed the template away from the agreed form returned it to the agreed form. Neto did two reversions, contrary to the explicit ruling of the Arbcom that he was limited to one reversion per page per day. A glance at his talk page showed that his behaviour towards others on other infoboxes has been controversial, to put it mildly. Given that the arbcom ruling was specifically about templates, and infoboxes are clearly a form of template (as their name makes clear) he seemed to me to be deliberately breaking both the spirit and the letter of the arbcom ruling and engaging in a continuation of past behaviour.

If it was a once-off slip up I could understand it and would have given him the benefit of the doubt and let him off with a reminder. But the evidence of his talk page and his behaviour towards others shows that it was just the latest in a host of examples of questionable behaviour. He seems intend on causing confrontation on infoboxes he visits, offering no explanations and when changing codes sneaking in redesigns that other users don't want but he does. Given that he had unambiguously breached the 'only one reversion' ruling, it was IMHO mandatory that a block be imposed. That is why I did so. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me summarize... Jtdirl is involved in a dispute and blocked me, one of the other parties, in said dispute. Read the talk page... since about August people have been trying to make that infobox not look like crap. Consensus sometimes changes... -- Netoholic @ 20:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Nethoholic, this was his response on my talk page. That is the sort of imbecilic behaviour, full of threats of what he will do if he doesn't get his own way, seems the norm with him. Even though he had explicitly broken the arbcom's ruling I was perfectly happy have the block lifted in the expectation, given your advice, that he might explain his behaviour and try to work with people. Clearly he is just his same obnoxious self. I am reimposing the ban for the remainder of the period and will be reporting his behaviour to arbcom and requesting that he receive further sanction. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

He then responded with this threat. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Phil for your comments. I only noticed them after I had filed an RfA. I understand your viewpoint. However Netoholic's behaviour has been causing problems for a lot of users. There is already another RfA about him on the page. When he made two threats he crossed a line and IMHO it has now to go to the arbcom. If he gets away with such behaviour against me then he will try it on others. He is clearly his own worst enemy. He had got himself into the mess and now he has to answer for his actions. Slán FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Just another example: Neto choose a fast track way to change template:Infobox President that temporarily broke prominent articles like George W. Bush due to a major backwards-incompatible change on parameters (this one for 4.5 hours, others at least for 15 min). My request to not repeat this on other templates and to think about doing it another way to achieve the same result without temporarily breaking prominent articles was replied with this. In his anger he then requested to stop my bot without any reason regarding my edits or those of my bot [10]. Adrian Buehlmann 22:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Stalin userbox

See Bourbons3's comment on the tfd - it wasn't single-use, but abstracted from various user pages where the code was already present. Image:Stalin3.jpg shows whose, more or less, if you really want it gone immediately. (And I can't believe I posted this on your userpage. That's twice in less than a day. Sigh.) —Cryptic (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Fuck it, I quit

Well, if you hoped to drive off Wikipedia contributors with your three-ring circus, you've succeeded. I will not be editing here any longer. Enjoy your little circle jerk; no person of stature or dignity could abide such disrespect and remain. Firebug 00:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)