User talk:ATren

Personal non attacks

Continuing disagreements over the PRT article still need to be resolved. Some time ago, I asked for your most likely candidate for inclusion. If you and JzG can have some constructive experiences together, it might help you to get onto the same wavelength, which would be an added bonus. Stephen B Streater 21:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Light rail

I've done a first pass of Light rail. The mood there seems constructive. [1] I noticed the references at the bottom - perhaps these contain the references missing from elsewhere. I'll read them all to check. Stephen B Streater 09:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

stephan

Hey, Thanks for the heads up, i'll keep my eye out. Fresheneesz 19:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

RfA message

		My RfA video message
		Stephen B Streater 08:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Username change

Your request has been fulfilled. Regards — Dan | talk 22:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

arbitration

Hey, didn't realize it was you at first. I am bringing up an arbitration case at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and I would really appreciate your input. Its about some talk page vandalism and general wikigang behavior around a couple guideline pages. I'm deeply ashamed of wikipedia right now. Fresheneesz 04:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Btw, thanks for defending me. Its nice to have friends. Fresheneesz 05:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem, just keep a cool head. I know it's frustrating, but sometimes it's better to just take a step back and let things cool down a bit before you say or do something you regret. You've given me similar advice in the past, so I thought I'd pass it back to you. :-) ATren 23:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Beat

"Have you stopped beating your wife" is not a personal attack, but rather a common response to people who ask loaded questions. Based on your reactions to both this and the comment about ulterior motives, it would seem that you take offense at things more than is necessary, and I would advise some restraint against accusing people in the future. >Radiant< 11:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

(note: I originally posted the following response on Radiant's page, but Radiant removed it, so I am reposting it here)

I would advise you to link the "beat" reference next time so there is no confusion; for someone who never heard of that reference, this could only be interpreted as a personal attack, and a link to the page explaining the reference would have eliminated any confusion. If I were a suspicious person, I might think you intentionally didn't link the reference, in order to bait me into over-reacting. But I am not a suspicious person so I didn't over-react, and I now consider the matter closed.

But let's not cloud the bigger issue here - you were the one who was asking for action against Fresheneesz. I found an instance of aggressive behavior on your part (I'll stop using the "v" word, even though it absolutely was) that inflamed the situation, and I pointed it out. I think you are the one who is taking undue offense to what I am saying. I would therefore similarly advise you show some restraint in the future. ATren 14:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Drini 22:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

From WP:VAND

"Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." Says so almost at the top of the page. >Radiant< 13:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"Deleting the comments of other users from Talk pages other than your own, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc. is generally considered vandalism." This seems pretty clear cut. Note, I'm not calling you a vandal (I've said that before) but I do believe you stepped over the line in this case. I also believe you've been overzealous with the guideline tag on Notability and DDV - at least six other editors reverted your changes on DDV but you still claimed there was consensus. But all that is up to the arbitrators to decide, I'm just presenting evidence. ATren 14:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you're presenting conjecture. You're assuming that I used DDV as a justification, whereas in fact I was only pointing you to some additional reading material (hence my words "see also", as opposed to "and this was based upon such-and-such policy"). Also, you're giving a one-sided view of the situation by only mentioning the six editors who opposed me on DDV, and omitting the twelve that supported me. >Radiant< 14:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You cited DDV while claiming that removing a poll was justified. That, to me, implied that DDV justified the poll blanking (at least partially). But that's for the arbitrator to decide.

When I refer to the six editors who opposed, I'm talking about those who reverted your change to "guidline" or removal of "disputed". There were one or two other editors who reverted to "guideline" in the very beginning, but they didn't edit-war the tag. You persisted in reverting at least six other editors in re-applying "guideline" and/or removing "disputed". Aside from the edit warring with six other editors, there is the question of consensus - clearly, consensus had not been gained if six others were reverting you. Again, the arbitration committee is the ultimate judge on these issues. ATren 14:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• So what you're saying, basically, is that instead of offering evidence, you are offering your own assumptions on what happened, in the hope that the arbiters agree with them. By definition, an assumption is not evidence. >Radiant< 14:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we just let the arbitration committee decide? ATren 14:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stop imputing motives to me and making accusations of bad faith. Frankly it looks like you are trolling on the RfA page. I really don't want this to descend into the gutter. I'm going to give you fair warning that if you continue in this vein I will add your actions to the RfAr, and invite the arbitors to take a look at your civility and 'helpfulness' to this case. By all means contribute, but let's all assume good faith and stick to the issues.--Doc 01:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFAr

Wow, I'm looking at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability/Proposed decision and it looks like it's not going well. Apparently Radiant! did nothing wrong (despite provoking Fresh) and Fresh fundamentally misunderstands policy or something. Wikipedians need to learn that people do stupid things when mad or provoked. I read your comments and wholly agreed, and thought discussion.. would be a fun way to porcrastinate! -- Chrissperanza! chat edits 19:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little disappointed in the direction of this arbitration, but not entirely surprised. Wikipedia is, in my mind, hopelessly oligarchical: admins and arbiters act as the ruling class, and very seldom rule against each other in support of an outsider. And once you get on the bad side of one admin, you are pretty much guaranteed to be at odds with all of them. I admire Fresheneesz's spirit in trying to break this oligarchy (or "cabal", as some like to call it) and for a time I was hopeful that maybe he could do it... but I'm not at all surprised at the result.

This is why my focus on Wikipedia has always been to protect, not to enhance. I originally got involved because of a single dispute in which a single editor on a crusade was trying to use Wikipedia to advance his political agenda (see this) and I figured it would be easy enough to convince the powers-that-be that his agenda had little to do with fact. But he got an admin on his side (JzG, who was a fan of this guy's cartoon work) and the battle turned out to be an all out war. It didn't matter that my side of the argument was supported by 3 other reasonable editors (including Fresheneesz) and based in verifiable fact - JzG accused us all of being POV pushers and essentially took ownership of the article, pushing it to an unjustified level of skepticism that was just a notch less extreme than the crusading editor's version. He justified his version in part using notability arguments.

After months of fighting, we finally got it to a more balanced, verifiable state. It was after this debacle that Fresheneesz moved on to Non-notability in an effort to prevent this kind of abuse of notability in the future. He took the idealistic approach: he was going to try to change Wikipedia to prevent editors from using notability to push a POV. The rest of us were not so idealistic: I largely gave up on Wikipedia, choosing to just linger and protect some pages from abuse; Skybum also largely gave up on Wikipedia; JJLatWiki continues to edit, but with a detectably cynical approach. These are four reasonable editors who were so disgusted by this debate that they reacted in extreme ways: two abandoning the project entirely and one spending all his efforts to fix the notability mess (and getting repremanded for his efforts). For JzG's part, he still continues to mis-represent that debate, even in this arbitration where he accuses Fresheneesz of pursuing non-notability just because his article was deleted (an extreme mis-characterization of what really happened over there - but other admins believe him implicitly because he's on the inside).

So, basically, this arbitration is nothing short of what I'd expect from the Wikipedia cabal: a decision in support of its admins and admonishing an upstart who has the gall to question authority. For me, it only confirms the exact reasons why I've largely abandoned the project in the first place. ATren 07:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

This is hilarious, thanks for cheering up my morning! No wonder you have problems if you suffer this badly from m:MPOV! The article is, of course, pretty much as I left it, what I did was simply to remove the egregious puffery added by fans of this hypothetical transportation mode and the months of fighting were over tiny details, largely related to precisely how many times a particular fan of PRT should be quoted, how to represent the arm-waving hypothetical cost calculations advanced by proponents, and what to do about the profound lack of sources other than proponents. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, after all, and I cited policy and guidelines at every turn and and as I pointed out numerous times if you thought that my interpretation of policy was at fault then you were at all times free to start an RfC. Fresh has a positive genius for arguing even when he admits that you are right! Guy (Help!) 10:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I actually responded to this at length on JzG's talk page, but I just wanted to add one more point: from the m:MPOV article, one of the signs that you are megalomaniacal:

• "Upon reading this list, you are convinced that most of the people you deal with are suffering from MPOV."

May I be so bold to suggest to you, Dr. Guy: heal thyself? ATren 18:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again, a belly laugh. ArbCom indeed! I wish you had. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad the insiders can have a good hearty laugh at the inherent corruption of Wikipedia. But you miss my point in all of this: I don't care! I know how it works now, I know about the cabal, and I know how to defend against future POV attacks like the one you and Avidor tried on the PRT article. That's all I care about. I do feel a little bad for Fresheneesz, an idealist who thought he could change things and was spanked for his audacity. But I think he's learned his lesson by now: don't challenge the authority of the oligarchy.

For me, my only concern was defending the PRT article against Avidorization by you, and I did that. My work here is basically done.

But just so you know, whenever you try to mis-characterize what happened in your PRT POV push, I'm going to set the record straight. You can count on that. ATren 23:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

ROFL! For some values of straight, of course... Guy (Help!) 23:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

So you doubt whether my version is "straight"? Would you like me to post the hard evidence of your abuses? I have all the diffs... it would be easy enough. Multiple violations of WP:OWN and WP:AGF. Multiple threats to block a good faith editor for daring to oppose you in a content dispute. Not to mention repeatedly acting at the behest of a proven POV pusher and link spammer, while defending him just because you happened to be a fan of his cartoon (see this piece of fancruft you created and defended) - and not recusing yourself from mediation even when it was clear your affection for said editor was affecting your judgement. Even if I don't go to arb com, I can still post my whole case and refer to it whenever you try to twist the facts of that debate. Now that would be my version of "straight"... ATren 23:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course, dear ATren, it is always the case that everybody else is biased! Guy (Help!) 23:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the one who owned PRT for a month. I'm not the one who abused admin powers in a content dispute. Maybe it's time I posted all that evidence, so I can just point to it every time you try to twist the truth. ATren 00:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Er, if you two have issues, i'd suggest a WP:RFAr be filed. -- Chris is me 00:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I won't go the RFAr route at this point; for one thing, most of the evidence in the dispute is old (from March and April). The only reason it all flared up again was Fresheneesz's arbitration and the arb com elections - both of which compelled me to dig up all the old evidence. I'm sure it will die down again soon. (another reason I won't go to arbitration - did you see what happened when Fresheneesz took on a respected admin?) ATren 06:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

XPLANE deletion review

ATren, Would you mind weighing in on the deletion review for XPLANE at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 24? Your comments/opinions are much appreciated.Dgray xplane 15:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

JzG

While I do think you make a valid point, it should be noted that the identity of Fys is not that guarded a secret. Ral315 (talk) (my votes) 03:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that; but nevertheless Fys obviously did not want the link there, because he removed it soon after JzG posted it. JzG should have respected that, but instead he re-inserted the links. I could understand JzG linking it once, but re-linking after Fys removed it and explicitly requested that he not re-insert it... well, as an anonymous editor I found this distressing. ATren 04:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

I would like to take the time to thank you for voting in my unsuccessful RFA. YYour comments and Support vote inspired me greatly. Have a nice day! (By the way, if you think JzG is an abusive admin, you should open an RFC)-- Chris is me 13:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm sorry it didn't work out. ATren 22:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikidata

Hey, someone messaged me a while ago in response to the wikidata blurb I have on my user page. They set up a site to start the project out - its basically a place for experimental data, primary sources, and original research. Let me know if you're interested - Nkayesmith set up http://www.primary.formationos.net/ as a starter. Cya around. Fresheneesz 22:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop

This business with JzG has become disruptive. Please take it to dispute resolution if anything further is needed. Tom Harrison ^Talk 04:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Whats his^ deal? As for the arbitration, I think Tom harrison may be right - dispute resolution first. I dunno if that killed the arbitration I had, but it seems like the arbitration didn't really think very hard about the case. After their apparent lack of consideration - I'm not so sure I trust the arbcom to make decisions that make sense. It really seems to me like some people have forgotten about the "Wikipedia is not a beauracracy" part of WP:NOT. People that focus on making policy aren't the people focused on building wikipedia - and its hurting us. Neither policy nor that arbitration is based on consensus at all at this point - I had thought I had a decent amount of support.. but apparently the comittee didn't think so. I think I'm going to avoid jerkasses like JzG and Radiant as much as possible for now on - most of the stuff I edit has absolutely no verifiability (or "notability") problems anyway. Fresheneesz 10:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If JzG is continuously throwing out personal attacks, then its probably something to go to dispute resolution about. Perhaps their less... jugmental .. over at DR. Fresheneesz 20:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If you don't go down the DR, but try to keep away from each another, my advice is to try to occasionaly follow WP:TEA and write something nice about the other person - commend him on a good article or handling of some situation or such. It's hard to bury the hatchet, especially if one or more of the persons involved are hot tempered and quick to use some words - and other is more than sensitive to them - but with good faith, lots of problems can be patched. In the end, most of us share the same goal here. Unfortunatly there are times when no amount of good faith can help - but there are very few, in my career - almost three years here - I have found three at most, so it's not so bad (if you have a stomach, check the newest oneI am involved in...). But remember - this is an exception, 99% of wiki is a nice place - just write a WP:DYKable article and you will fill better :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  12:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't Destroy

I've started an essay called Don't Destroy. Thought you might like to look at it. Fresheneesz 00:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Enough

Sure, I'll drop it if you will. I don't like hatchets to begin with. HAND. >Radiant< 10:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

“Wikipedia is not a democracy.”

Wikipedia is frat without booze or sex. ;-) —SlamDiego 02:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Speak for your own sober self! (Though the sex part, I agree with) :-) ATren 02:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Final Warning

This is the final warning you will recieve on this matter. If you continue to stalk and needle JzG you will shortly be forcibly stopped from doing so. Do not remove this warning from your talk page without an edit summary that acknoledges that you will not longer attempt to police JzG's edits. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Since Hipocrite is not an admin that I can see, I think I am safe in assuming you can just tell him to blow this pseudo warning out his ass and delete it without a care in the world. :-)...and even if he were, you are under no obligation to keep warnings on your page, official or not. Just thought I'd let you know. Lotta bullies on Wikipedia. Jeffpw 22:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not a very civil or constructive piece of advice. Quite frankly, if I were investigating a complaint and saw other reasons to block a user, that sort of response would probably increase the duration of the block. Durova^Charge 02:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

In this theoretical scenario, are you implying it would increase my block?

In any event, the civility policy doesn't really carry much weight around here, given that it is so arbitrarily applied. ATren 02:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It could if I were responding through WP:RFI and decided you were the primary aggressor. That's my particular practice and not necesarily what another admin would do. What generally happens is I'll see a complaint at a noticeboard and if a warning has been removed then so-and-so removed warnings comes into the discussion. Until I actually investigate in detail it's a tossup whether the warning was issued appropriately and the deletion formed part of a pattern of rejecting feedback or whether the warning itself was frivolous. So sometimes I'll explain why the warning was earned and sometimes I'll delete it myself. Usually that buries the particular bone of contention. I might not be the best person to intervene in your case because this warning is related to a noticeboard thread where I was heavily involved. Yet I'll offer constructive advice to the extent that time allows. If you join WP:ADOPT as I suggest you'll get someone whose ear has more time to bend. BTW I strongly advise taking WP:CIVIL seriously. Best wishes, Durova^Charge 02:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again for responding. BTW, I always take WP:CIVIL seriously, as you do. It appears we are in the minority. ATren 03:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• My apologies for my vulgar and uncivil remark. It was completely uncalled for. My wikistress level is quite high at the moment, but that is no excuse. It will not happen again. Jeffpw 05:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Gone, unarchived

Voila! —SlamDiego 01:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the discussion at Talk:C++

Really much sorry if my use of the word "nerd" irritated you. I confess that I did not realize this term could constitute personal attacks and the use of it is incivil. Please forgive me if I really did any personal attacks in your eyes - and observe the fact that I am also a contributor to the article, so if I was doing any personal attacks I was actually stabbing myself. Waiting for you reply at my talk page. --Deryck C. 15:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind reply ^^. In the past I just thought smileys are not widely accepted on wiki discussions, so I seldom used it. Moreover, next time try not spilling out guideline links when you encounter a conflict: referring another user to WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL implies you've defined him or her incivil and personal-attacking. Doing so could usually aggravate conflicts instead of defusing them. It would be much better if you said "May I suggest you to refrain from calling other editors 'nerds' as it is strongly derogatory" in the first place, suggesting that you're pointing the issue against the word "nerds" and not the my being incivil and personal-attacking. Much thanks that you really replied! --Deryck C. 07:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your kind comments accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 20:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply re: 208.62.42.226

Hi, do feel free to warn users who vandalise pages in future. You will find a table of appropriate warnings at WP:UTM. If a user has continued to vandalise after receiving a level 4 warning, you should report them to WP:AIV, which ensures that an available admin will block them as soon as possible. WJBscribe 01:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

:-) Glad to have been of help. WJBscribe 03:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protect C++?

We might consider asking an admin to semi-protect this article if the hello world wars continue... ATren 15:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I added a footnote to the "hello, world" section (feel free to re-word it or whatever). Let's try that before a semi-protect. Xerxesnine 22:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Be Bold When Editing Pages

Remember, ATren, the Wikipedia motto (and procedure page)....

Xerxesnine

Xerxesnine has reverted at least 7 of my changes in a single day, including several articles more than once. I think that qualifies as 'edit warring', don't you? It's interesting how you and Xerxesnine always agree on everything, and contribute to the same articles at close to the same time, don't you think?

No, and no. ATren 05:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• RE Grand Island, New York the aboriginal name is right in the cited external links for history, "Highlights of the History of Grand Island, NY," second line under the pictures. Stepp-Wulf 01:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

JzG

Final chance. Drop it now please. Nick 22:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support

I've been completely force-wedged into humbling myself in front of admins - having to concede half of my argument because they just will never even bother actually contemplating my argument (I suppose they don't always have a lot of time), that in the end I have to wittle down my argument into bite-size chunks and defend it, going in guns blazing.
My point is that I practically agree with all your comments, and as usual I'm alarmed at the incestuousness of the admins - all of them giving you subtle threats, talking you down, sidestepping the issue, archving, moving, etc. I want to sincerely thank you for all your efforts. Even if at the end of the day you were somehow inccorect (unlikely) at least you were a fighter for justice, debate, the right of reply, and holding admins accountable
I believe you have a comment that you believe that Wikipedia has jumped the shark. While I feel slightly unsure of what you're talking about, because I think Wikipedia is about to hit critical mass in a few months (i.e. having full, decent articles on just about everything necessary), I nontheless have noted an outright deletionist mentality, incestuous admins, good admins being few and far between, etc. So at least on some level, I believe we're on the same page.
That said, I still highly value Wikipedia. I've called it one of the best inventions since 2000.
Let us hope we can one day realise a wikipedia with decent admins. Rfwoolf 23:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your response. I've had a chance to come up for air, and read your userpage a bit, I see that you too have had some kind of beef with JzG. I'm of course curious about it given the discourse I've had with JzG. Over the next couple of days I'll see if I can look into some recourses over a few things - deciding what it is that I want, and to what extent (if any) I want to report/impeach/RfC/arb him, we could possibly chat a little about it. Anyways, that's just something to think about. This doesn't mean I'm going to actually take any action - but it means I'm going to use my 'tiny mind' and consider the situation. Ciao Rfwoolf 00:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

ATren

Now that I have read your explanation on your userpage, your username is less interesting than I had imagined it to be. I had imagined it to be "A Tren" where Tren was intended to be Spanish for "train" thus resulting in "A Train" as in Take the "A" Train.

--Richard 03:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I'm not nearly that creative. :-) ATren 05:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

What

What exactly is it you are trying to accomplish here? I don't refer to the deletion review but to your recent actions with respect to JzG as a whole. Open question. >Radiant< 11:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I am offended by the long term pattern of blatant, arrogant incivility by this user. Civility is one of the 5 pillars that should be enforced unconditionally, and it currently is not being enforced for this user. Simple as that. ATren 11:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I get that. That brings up the question, what do you mean by "enforcing civility"? >Radiant< 11:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

What would you do to me if I told you to "shut the fuck up you whining twat"? You'd probably block me. If I did the same thing again after the block expired, you'd block me for longer. Eventually I'd be subject to an indefinite ban, especially if I promised to continue attacking in a strongly worded message at the top of my talk page.

But what do we do with "respected admins"? Can't template them, that'd be rude. Can't block them, no admin would do that. So basically the policy amounts to "once you reach a certain level of authority here, you are free to tell anyone to fuck off, as long as you're a self-confessed 'surly old bastard'." Call it the "surly old bastard admin clause", and add it to WP:NPA, because that's basically what's going on here.

Note: I'm not being completely facetious here: I would not mind at all if that was actually added to the policy - hey, if it reached consensus that certain admins can act this way, then who am I to question it? But it's not there now, and civility is considered a pillar. And this user flaunts it, and his flaunting it poisons the project. That's my problem in a nutshell. ATren 11:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• It's not quite as black-and-white as you seem to think. First, it matters whether the attacks are incidental or systematic, or perhaps provoked. Second, it matters whether the account is doing useful things besides attacking people; this generally applies to long-term users, regardless of whether or not they're admins. It is an extremely rare thing for users that do constructive things to be indefinitely blocked; for instance, check User:Badlydrawnjeff's block-and-unblock log. The point of all this is that we don't "punish" editors for doing things they should not, but that we remove people from the project if their presence is a net negative. People are held accountable by social norms, not threats. >Radiant< 13:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• But there's very little gray area with something like "fuck off" or "you whining twat". These are blatant violations, and as long as someone in a position of authority is saying these things (not to mention boasting that he'll continue to do it on his talk page), it will continue to undermine civility on the whole project. Do you think it's just a cooincidence that JzG seems to attract so many so-called trolls? Has it occurred to you that maybe JzG's condescending behavior actually triggers trollish behavior in otherwise productive users? I know, in my own case, I was a good faith editor from day one, yet I was treated like a troll and a POV pusher by JzG... so how many other good faith editors have gotten the same treatment? How many of these trolls are actually good faith editors like me that JzG has provoked into incivility with his own heavy handed treatment?
  The fact is, the civility policy is there for a reason - because civilized discourse is crucial to producing good, neutral, encyclopedic content. Incivility is poison to this effort, because it creates hostility and drama that detract from the business of writing an encyclopedia, and it turns civilized debates into flame wars. Take the case of Rfwoolf - what did he do? He complained on his talk page about a deletion - it was pretty damn harmless if you ask me - but JzG not only blanked it, he also protected it. How is this kind of aggression going to be helpful? He planted this seed six months ago, and now he's shocked when it grows into this enormous weed that we're all dealing with. Then when the user complained about what he views as a hypocrisy (and he did it politely, and he did it with evidence that you've now deleted) he's viciously attacked. What happened to AGF? Maybe the guy is a troll (maybe not, I can't tell), but he also has a point - aggressive, condescending, uncivil admins are much more dangerous to this project than a simple maybe-maybe-not troll. And I wholeheartedly agree. ATren 13:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• And as for Badlydrawnjeff, I don't recall him ever telling another editor to "fuck off" or anything nearly as uncivil (but maybe you know something I don't know). It's one thing to be forceful, even argumentative, in debates. It's quite another to call someone a "twat". ATren 14:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Ah, no. JzG attracts a lot of trolls because of the work he does. It is a fact on Wikipedia that if you involve yourself in, say, new page patrol, BLPs, OTRS, deletion, image checks, or anything related to race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality or religion, you will attract any number of nasty people who think attacking people is the proper way of handling disputes. Go ahead, try it some time. Go and edit some articles from the Wikipedia:List of controversial issues and see how long you last until you are called names by people with a strong opinion. "Before you judge someone, walk a mile in their shoes". >Radiant< 14:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Many admins wade in these murky waters without resorting to vicious attacks. If JzG can't control himself, he should stay away from contentious topics. Incivility is not an option. ATren 14:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Contrary to what you state, Woolf's message last week on JzG's talk page was aggressive, condescending, and uncivil - not to mention beating a dead horse, for Woolf came out of a period of inactivity to "debate" a half-year-old issue again. It would seem that your opinion on this issue is clouded by your earlier conflict with JzG. He could have simply asked for undeletion of his article in the proper forum - in fact, I've suggested this twice to him, and he refused. Instead, he chose to attack people. >Radiant< 14:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• "Beating a dead horse" pales in comparison to calling someone a "whining twat". Your view of "attacking people" is quite skewed, I believe. ATren 14:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• That is not to say JzG should go around calling people "twats" or whatever, and indeed several people have already told him not to, but you have the case precisely backwards, in that JzG's incivility is not the cause of his treatment by others, but the effect thereof. >Radiant< 14:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Then we'll agree to disagree. But in any case, the exact cause-effect relationship is inconsequential - a personal attack is a personal attack, no matter what the reason. ATren 14:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

But Radiant's original question remains unanswered... "What do you wish to accomplish here?"

Rfwoolf can issue an RFC on JzG but the result is likely to be the same as the opinions already expressed on various pages such as Rfwoolf's talk page. JzG was out of line. He was provoked by Rfwoolf's unjustified retaliation for an old grievance. Rfwoolf should have pursued established channels for requesting undeletion and unprotection of his pages instead of retaliating on JzG's user page in violation of WP:POINT. There's plenty of blame to spread around.

Blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive. If we had blocked JzG for his incivility, we might also have blocked Rfwoolf for his attack on JzG's user page. However, that would have just added fuel to the fire. Our objective is to put the fire out not fan it.

If JzG was involved in a "hot" (meaning ongoing) series of personal attacks, a block would be in order. If anything, Rfwoolf might have been blocked for provoking JzG on his Talk Page. However, since the provocation and the uncivil response blew over quickly, there's no value in blocking either editor now.

Let's all just get back to editing. Rfwoolf should focus on rewriting his pet article which we can facilitate by undeleting the content if he wishes to work on it in his user space.

--Richard 14:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

What I "wish to accomplish" can be summed up in one word: civility. We have an established user who has basically does not believe he is subject to the civility/personal attacks policy. Look at his talk page, where he boasts that he is more than willing to tell you to "fuck off" if he deems you are a troll. Well, he's called me a troll in the past, and I'm not a troll, so how many other "non-trolls" are subject to his attacks?

But regardless of who's a troll and not a troll, the fact remains that JzG thinks he is exempt from the rules that apply to other editors, and I don't believe anything in the civility policy pages reflects such an exemption for any user - nor should it. What exists now is a policy linked directly from the 5 pillars page that basically says "No Personal Attacks. Period." If the community supports "civility exemptions" for established users(I don't think it does) then it should be documented so that newbies know what their getting into. But assuming the policy does not change, then JzG's own promise that he will tell you to "fuck off" (along with his proven willingness to follow through) should be enough to get him blocked or banned. Civility is not optional in the current policy wording.

Does this mean I want JzG banned? No. I want JzG to be civil and abide by the rules that everyone else must abide by - but if he won't, then a ban is the only way to prevent future attacks. ATren 15:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Ironically, as with the last time this came up, in your effort to hold somebody else accountable for incivility, you are becoming incivil yourself. Reflect. >Radiant< 15:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• In that case, please tell me which specific phrase you consider to be "uncivil" so that I may address it. I cannot "reflect" on such a vague accusation. ATren 15:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Some examples include "this speedy closure stinks...", "people here are so eager to squelch well-presented criticism", "This double standard we apply to admins is getting quite tiresome." I'm not going to enter an argument about which was worse, but both JzG and Woolf have been incivil recently. >Radiant< 16:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't consider any of those uncivil, but if you do, I will strike them. ATren 16:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Radiant, I'm sorry, but I don't think the examples you cite are comparable in their degree of incivility. In general, I support JzG in the way he deals with true riffraff, but even with riffraff I too wish he would find a way to at least use civil language. I mean, "people here are so eager to squelch well-presented criticism" seems like a strong opinion that at best, at best, might skirt the gray area of WP:CIVIL. JzG often uses profanity and in sentences that can only be interpretted as personal attacks. "Personal" attacks. "[I think] this speedy closure stinks" is nowhere near as personal or incivil as, "you whining twat". I hold an opinion that people in authority should hold themselves to a higher standard. I agree that someone who spends extensive amounts of their time honestly trying to maintain and improve the overall quality of the project, as JzG clearly has, deserve a little leeway compared to someone else with a single-purpose agenda who stops at nothing to push that agenda. But leeway is not carte blanche. Among too many other things, I manage a group of customer support operators, and senior operators get away with handling surly customers in a slightly less friendly tone. But no matter how senior and how bad their day is going, if they call someone a "whining twat" in a public way, they will be lucky if they aren't escorted off the property with their final paycheck that minute. I would never ask (because I don't care) if the other person provoked it. My employees are expected to have enough self-control to ignore personal attacks. They are allowed to tell the customer that they are not required to help customers who use profanity or personal insults, but they are not allowed to retaliate. I think Admins should hold themselves, personally and collectively, to similar standards. Regardless of the health status of the particular equine in question. --JJLatWiki 18:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• The more you argue about this, the more accurate JzG is looking with his remarks. This isn't so much beating a dead horse as beating the bit of ground under which the aforementioned dead horse was buried 6 months ago. Nick 15:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not arguing - Radiant came here asking a question and I answered, which spurred a debate. I'm really getting tired of having to defend myself for civil discussion. And I'll repeat what I said earlier, beating a dead horse pales in comparison to telling someone "shut the fuck up you whining twat", then posting a message on his talk page basically promising he'll do it again to anyone he deems to be a troll... ATren 15:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, I've read you think beating a dead horse's grave pales in comparison to calling a troll on his talk page "a whining twat". I disagree and there's nothing you can so or do which will make me think differently. You are now becoming disruptive, trying to air these grievances when ever and where ever you can. It must stop and it must stop now. Go do something considerably more useful, like edit an article. Over and out. Nick 15:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Radiant asked me, and I responded. Am I really being disruptive for responding civilly to his questions? I had intended to let it drop for a few days, but then (a) Radiant speedied the evidence page and (b) Radiant asked me a question here, starting this debate. The charge of disruption is wholly unwarranted and I would appreciate it if you would strike it. ATren 15:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Nick, back off. Yes, it's becoming quite tiresome but I think editors should have a right to air their grievances. Not on WP:ANI. It's not that level of incident. That's why we archived the discussion from there. However, airing grievances on User talk pages and in an RFC is the appropriate venue for these kinds of discussions. You may disagree with Rfwoolf and ATren. That's your right. The response to their RFC may wind up being a big YAWN accompanied by a "Get on with editing the encyclopedia". However, they have a right to their day in court. Please stop trying to stifle them. --Richard 17:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh do shut up. They've got two options, file a damn RfC or shut the hell up. Their preferred option of endless complaining is no longer going to be tolerated. Nick 17:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

And you have the right to take User talk:Rfwoolf and User talk:ATren off your watchlist. No one says you have to listen to them whine and complain. They have the right to do it and you have the right not to care. --Richard 17:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

If they stick to their talk pages, I'd be over the bloody moon, trouble is, they were doing it on JzG's talk page, they've been doing it on my talk page and they're doing it right now on deletion review and MfD, and ATren is actively trying to encourage other users to take part in this mind numbing complaining match. If they stick to their own talk pages, they can complain as much as they want, when they stray out into the rest of the project, it's disruptive and they have two choices, to put up or shut up. It's RfC or bust now. Nick 17:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• I object to pretty much every insinuation you've made here, as well as the the order to "shut the hell up", but I'm done with it. The next message you see from me on this topic will be at arbcom, though I seriously doubt I will take that course either. I'm done. Let incivility reign. ATren 17:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• "If they stick to their talk pages" - what's this? ATren's talk page. With you he's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. Radiant asked him questions, he's answering, and you're saying "Stop". Do you honestly see yourself as being fair on these kinds of threatening remarks? Rfwoolf 15:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

I will heed your good counsel David in DC 00:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Civility

To quote your own words (above), "[c]ivility is one of the 5 pillars that should be enforced unconditionally", yet many would consider the wikilink to WP:MPOV, misleadingly piped to "sad", as a violation of that policy.[2] Please consider striking that link. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

What did you say? I can't hear you. I have an ear infection. But it's OK.

Oh yeah, civility. ATren 17:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice Diffs. Point well made. Peace.Lsi john 18:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

If you're still around

Why did Nick delete your post to Durova's talk page? His userpage says he's an admin, and simply removing an editor's post is something an admin should know is not appropriate. I've noticed a tendency for people to ignore incidents reported by the same person they happen to. If this kind of thing has been happening for a while I'd be happy to help point out the fact that you really have something to complain about and aren't just "bitching". Anynobody 06:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry; it's handled. Durova^Charge! 09:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Yeah, I immediately saw it and read it, and was very tempted to respond to it but have wisely decided against it. All I'll say is he accuses me of bringing up a deleted article, when in fact I strictly brought up his censorship of my userpage. It is this blatant distortion of the facts that ... , he thinks if he can make an issue about something that it is not, that he can win the argument. His diatribe is also rather one-sided, once again saying that a user's contributions (or lack thereof) has any bearing on policy and civility. A sysop or admin needs to be just, and civil, something he appears to have lost a long time ago. Rfwoolf 16:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I see your attempt to respond to JzG's website on your userpage. I'm returning your own feedback to you - it is simply best to not respond to his distorted views - so many factual errors he's made, distortion of the truth, an enraged depressive by his own admission. No matter how much of an asset the man is/was to Wikipedia, there is currently no onus on you to defend yourself. Rfwoolf 15:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Also once again, the double-standards on Wikipedia continue - feel free to consider the following:

From Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks -

Off-wiki personal attacks

Wikipedia cannot regulate behavior in media not under the control of the Wikimedia Foundation, but personal attacks made elsewhere create doubt as to whether an editor's on-wiki actions are conducted in good faith. Posting personal attacks or defamation off-Wikipedia is harmful to the community and to an editor's relationship with it, especially when such attacks take the form of violating an editor's privacy. Such attacks can be regarded as aggravating factors by administrators and are admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases.

External links

Links or references to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against Wikipedians are not permitted, and should be removed. Such removals are not subject to the three-revert rule, though administrators may disagree over whether or not a particular link qualifies for this exemption. Attacking, harassing, or violating the privacy of any Wikipedian through the posting of external links is not permitted, and those who do so deliberately or repeatedly may be blocked. As with personal attacks, extreme cases of harassment by way of external links can be grounds for banning. Rfwoolf 15:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Answer

I suggest that if there is a content dispute over that article (which at present does not appear to be the case), it be taken to RFC, that's what it's there for. >Radiant< 16:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with the current state of the article. ATren 17:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

And near as I can tell, neither does anybody else, so I kind of fail to see why I got that lengthy message (not by you) on my talk. Oh well. >Radiant< 07:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, hopefully this is the end of it now. Thank you for your input. ATren 00:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Sicko

Thank you for your comment. My edit keeps getting reverted by POV-pushers on the page. Per WP:DR, I have brought an RFC. THF 13:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

regarding THF

THF's identity was not outed by Moore. THF disclosed that information on his userpage (check the history). As for the picture, it's from AEI's website (which THF also disclosed he was a fellow of). Not much of an outing if all the info has already been revealed by the editor.--149.125.202.18 16:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The point is, THF may have revealed aspects of himself as disclosure - maybe he's even revealed his name too, I don't know - but that does not mean he wishes to have his picture and identity plastered on a web page that implicitly accuses him of COI. The photo and identification is clearly meant to intimidate and impugn his reputation here, without any evidence other than an edit count. I've seen other sites banned for doing this same thing to other editors. ATren 16:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You realize that until 2 weeks ago, THF actually edited under his real name (see the rename log, and you can see his userpage from March '06 here)...I mean, the only thing that Moore showed on his site that wasn't on Wikipedia, was his picture, which is 2 clicks away from the homepage of the AEI (which THF admitted to working for and gave his name). Nothing on Moore's site constituted an attack, as those other sites did more than take public information, but rather delved into more personal aspects.--149.125.202.18 17:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

But I think it's clear that Michael Moore's intent was intimidation - he revealed THF's former employment and made unsupported insinuations that THF had an agenda. Absent of any hard proof ("96 edits on Sicko" means nothing - the substance of those edits are what matters), this can only be construed as intimidation, especially given that he had a link to THF's talk page. Even though that link was later removed, it's evidence as to the intent to intimidate on the part of MM.

Furthermore: whether or not THF revealed his identity before, it's quite clear that he does not want it used now. We should respect that. What should be done here is that mm.com should be removed unless and until MM removes the THF section. This is what is done for other cases, it's what should be done in this case. ATren 17:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Intimidation of editors

Do you care enough to pursue this? I think it's a clear cut attack to plaster a photo and reveal your identity, regardless of the talk page link. If that were done to another anonymous editor with more clout, the esternal links would be removed almost immediately and uncontroversially. But if you don't care to pursue it then I won't bother. ATren 16:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I state my position here. I hope you understand that if I am the one who pursues this, it will be used against me for further attacks, but that doesn't mean that other editors concerned about the integrity of Wikipedia and the ability of people with loud megaphones to intimidate Wikipedia editors shouldn't act. THF 16:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

offwiki vs. onwiki

I've never asked for any special treatment on the offwiki issue: I just asked for policy to be enforced. I'm more concerned about the onwiki violations. THF 19:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Just for your reference, in my experience, enforcement of on-Wiki policy is inversely proportional to the time you've spent here. Those who have been here a long time and support the status-quo of the "community" can do whatever they want, policy be damned. So if you're looking for justice here, you won't find it. And if you argue too hard - even if you're unwaveringly civil - you will be called a troll by those who don't want to be bothered. This is especially true when they suspect you have an "agenda", as they obviously do in this case.

It's unfortunate, but it is what it is... :-( ATren 19:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I can add credence to these claims. For this very comment, I will probably be labelled a troll. The philosophy becomes "Rfwoolf can't possibly be correct because he is a troll". Had I contributed more to Wikipedia, the philosophy would have been "Rfwoolf must be correct, because he spends hours on here every day fixing vandalism". There is no such thing as "right" or "wrong" on Wikipedia, just "admin" or "nonadmin". Rfwoolf 17:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Ted Frank

I just wanted to point out to you that I genuinely don't believe Wikidemo created the article in some kind of revenge over mm.com. Wikidemo says that he has no part in what went on, and as someone who was following and contributing to it all yesterday, I don't have any recollection of him being involved. The first I heard was when Wikidemo, after presumably seeing David Shankbone's post at the village pump (because that's where he posted first), looked up Ted Frank and decided he was notable enough for an article. I don't think Wikidemo has really done anything in this beyond create and improve an article - and I think, given the circumstances, he should be commended for keeping a clear head about our aims as an encyclopedia. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. I never meant to impugn Wikidemo's motives in any way. I just initially felt that, since the article had been speedied previously, there probably wasn't a reason to keep it now. It may have been a hasty judgement on my part, and in fact, as the article has significantly improved I am considering changing my vote to keep. But I never thought that Wikidomo was acting in bad faith. ATren 23:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I just felt I ought to say something, nice to know we're on the same songsheet. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 18:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:GerryCheeversScar.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:GerryCheeversScar.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Question from Miltopia

I recognize your name from an external site run by a Wikipedian that in all certainty is an "attack site" but isn't recognized as such because it's run by a Wikipedia admin bully rather than banned losers. I haven't been following the attack sites arbitration but I get the gist. I was just wondering if that site has come up in the case. Milto LOL pia 17:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it has not come up in the case. I personally believe it is a clear example of an attack site, certainly on the level of WR or worse, but I'm not going to raise an issue of it because I have no desire to re-engage in that war. I did ask him to remove the link at the top of his talk page, and he ignored my request so I let it drop. Bottom line: I don't care what he says about me off-Wiki, and it's not worth the trouble for me to start it up again. ATren 17:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Bringing up Avidor

That's tough. In spite of David Shankbone's claims, I know almost nothing about your dispute with Avidor. One of the first things I do is check the block log, which I just did. You're clean, and Avidor's been blocked twice, but the second time was very controversial and quickly undone. I don't know who's in the right on your dispute, but you're right that it's irrelevant to the ArbCom case. Have you tried asking Shankbone to stop? I've had no luck myself.

If so, we could certify RfC/U since we've both tried and failed to resolve it, but it would look like a ArbCom-related spat, and I'm not sure any good would come of it; for me it would just prolong the agony. I'm willing to let it blow over. If the fifth arbitrator votes dismiss, I'll probably never have to deal with him again, and he seems to get along with most other users. Cool Hand Luke 01:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Your contribution

Thanks ATren for your help with my question to JzG. I'd hoped I'd got a bit beyond new-user but obviously not because I don't understand what you mean by "don't worry about it" - if I am a new user, please explain to me what happened; if I am a not-new user, please explain to me what it is I should know by now. What exactly is the quirk by which I am represented by the diff as the editor in question? What buttons would I push to make someone else appear in the same position?

It seems a simple question - how did it happen?

Thanks for your help. Franamax 12:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

OK - WOW - my face red :) Totally misunderstood (because it was from farther up the page maybe?) and yes I do already know how it works. My only excuse is that I've been working with Durova a bit on using automated tools to detect abuse and subterfuge and my head is awash with paranoia. At least I got some good practice using api.php before I twigged to the obvious - try looking at the revision -before- yours stupid!

So I used my other tool, wpW5, to look for a sentence of the deleted material and 12 seconds, yeah, it's from 06Aug07. No fun with such a short history though.

Now, having introduced myself Clouseau-esquely, would you be interested in a tool that can take a piece of text from an article and tell you in a few minutes exactly when it first appeared? And pop the diff into your browser? And if looking for a second sentence from the same article, pretty much guaranteed an answer in 30 seconds or less?

I'm looking for challenges - article name and fragment you're interested in is what I need.

Meanwhile I'll keep that newuser intro on my talk page and read it every day. D'ohh! Franamax 01:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, what a turn of events over the last 7 months. Does the current Hello World source code look familiar to you? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C%2B%2B&oldid=126469503. I was harassed, insulted, and even banned for trying to improve the quality of the C++ article with this exact code 7 months ago, and now that it is finally accepted as the standard, where is the apology? Where is the citation? It's nice to see that the world is now better informed, but it's disappointing that Wikipedia's mantra that everybody can contribute is a sham, as clearly the only thing that matters when it comes to making a change is who has higher status in the community. I think an apology is in order. -Norvig —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.95.70 (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you just weren't convincing enough. :-) ATren 19:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I have alerted the admin noticeboard

That you are re-litigating a dismissed ArbCase, which is an abuse of the Arbitration Nomination process and could be considered trolling. --David Shankbone 21:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Your revert created an error

Dot's nice. --Calton | Talk 13:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Dot's nice. No. --Calton | Talk 14:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

So you're going to leave a quote attributed to the wrong person?

"So when did you stop beating your wife?" --Calton | Talk 14:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Is that what you intended?

Is pestering people by asking them loaded rhetorical questions your only mode of communication? --Calton | Talk 14:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

See? Offering evidence instead of badgering works MUCH better. --Calton | Talk 14:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Calton, reread the above: I was not badgering. I was just trying to point out the error

I read it the first time, and nope, you were offering evidence-free badgering and loaded rhetorical questions. That you haven't figured that out may be part of the problem. --Calton | Talk 14:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

So, in fact, pestering people -- primarily by asking them loaded rhetorical questions -- is your only mode of communication? Dot's nice. Always good to have confirmation. --Calton | Talk 14:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)