User talk:Dorftrottel

Contents

Re: C68-FM-SV/Workshop

I think I understand - of course a moderate approach to matters is usually recommended and it's mostly down to common sense. After all, policy is written by editors like us and so isn't infallible. In this case it's really up to interpretation of the evidence as to whether lines have been crossed as regards the minimum standards we expect from administrators; policy is there as a guidance for editors to help them stay on the correct side of that line.

I apologise if I came across as a little confrontational - I'm unused to getting involved in such polarised disputes and I recognise now how it's far too easy to accidentally misinterpret things and see everyone as disagreeing with you, whilst simultaneously pushing too far beyond your position, expecting people to lean back against you (a striking comparison to the case, in fact).

Thanks for taking the time to talk to me. I know from experience many people ignore IP editors and it's always gratifying to find people who don't treat those of us who choose not to have accounts as second class citizens. Yours, --129.67.162.133 (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks. As regards IP: I see what you mean. Given what background research I've done on this case I'm entirely unsurprised that people would not want to reveal themselves when getting involved, given the apparent potential for backlash. I'm not experienced in the sense of having an account (though I've edited WP for years in various areas), and normally I'd avoid politics. I'm only involving myself in this case because I have encountered a number of the involved editors before on various pages over the years, and because I can see this having fundamental implications for policy in the future provided Arbcom actually makes definitive findings and rulings regarding this. Perhaps I'm a closet metapedian, eh?

I'm sure this case will turn out to be very interesting. Let's enjoy the ride. :) --129.67.162.133 (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

G'day dorf....

hope you're good.. I wondered if I might bug you for a bit of advice / help?

I'm currently recording brief conversations with each of the candidates in the board elections which just started, and I wondered if you might have any ideas or time to help out making a suitable 'episode' page for them - p'raps some way of splitting the page up so the potential listener can just quickly hear the interview they're interested in? - let me know if you've got a mo, and are interested! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 05:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Will look into it right away. dorftrottel (talk) 06:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Just curious

How is this guy perfect? :D Enigma ^message 06:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

He isn't. He's an ass for stealing my idea long before it ever occured to me... dorftrottel (talk) 06:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Xenocidic RfA

Hi, it appears you have voted in support (#46) and in oppose (#8) at the above RfA. Regards, EJF (talk) 09:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the note. dorftrottel (talk) 09:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

NTWPW waaaa

hmmm xD,, What im I going to--·Ãḍď§ђɸŗЄ· ^†дŀќ 18:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

? :) Not such a biggie, I suppose. dorftrottel (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

** /me has an idea ** brb. ·Ãḍď§ђɸŗЄ· ^Talk 18:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me about my error :> I added this to all of the talk pages.

Hi there, I would just like to point out that this is a slight error, Although the page has now been created ready for the sound files the sounds are not currently there and all link to episode 16. Sorry for this message, I will resend a remind once the files are confirmed and uploaded. Thanks. ·Ãḍď§ђɸŗЄ· ^Talk 19:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Again thanks for telling me ·Ãḍď§ђɸŗЄ· ^Talk 19:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

RFA conduct

Can you please cool your jets on DHMO's RFA? Your comments are becoming unconstructive and abrasive. Thank you, Lara❤Love 13:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Userpage

Sorry to be a pain, but I figured I'd ask; can I pinch the design? I'll attribute it to you if that be your wish. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops, my bad ^^; I thought I'd ask anyway (I knew you wouldn't mind) in case you did. Thanks a bunch! weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey Dorftrottel, I just wanted to thank you for your recent participation in my RFA. Note this is not spam - I'm typing this by hand! Also, I've taken steps to address the various concerns that were raised - especially the username issue as you noted this was the tipping point for you. Your further comments would be welcome here. Thanks again, xenocidic (talk) 03:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hrm, good point - didn't even think/know about that. I've refactored your comment to the analysis page. xenocidic (talk) 04:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Protection of Julian Baggini

Thanks for the heads-up. That was very strange since I can't see why the protection lapsed, I'd set it to end in July. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

various places

Dorftruffle, as I just now said to Casliber also, it really isn't a great idea to go pick a fight with each other on somebody else's web page. And its not that great to do it anywhere actually. Each of you has said quite enough in the last day to come near a block for NPA,. trying to get the last word is a pointless game.DGG (talk) 05:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. But I'm not picking a fight, nor trying to have the last word. He just decided to butt in unasked, as he has done before, and I finally asked him to leave me —the fuck— alone. Which I meant, primarily because it's not the first time he picked on me. (and my username is Dorftrottel, not "Dorftroffel", not "Dorftruffle", and certainly not "Dorfy", I wonder why so many people have such difficulties with that name? incidentally, what are people expecting from someone whose username is German for village idiot, where Dorf=village and Trottel=idiot?) dorftrottel (talk) 06:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I kinda like "village mushroom". Nice ring to it. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Mushroom? Who said anything about mushrooms? You're speaking in tongues again! Ah, I get it. Actually, you're right! Dorftruffle. Not too bad, really. dorftrottel (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Incivil

This is obviously incivil [1] to all those who signed up to support my remedy. You may not like it, but a number of people do rather feel that FM and others are doing much mor good than harm. I haven' gone around telling you that you're out of your mind; please don't do the same to me William M. Connolley (talk) 06:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

In case you're not trying to misunderstand that statement: No, it does not say that anyone who opposes those proposals is out of their minds. It says that they probably didn't look at the evidence. If however they closely looked at the presented evidence and oppose those proposals, then there is definitely reason to worry, and I'd assume inability rather than unwillingness. (btw, laughably naive is also not a milestone in civility) dorftrottel (talk) 08:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Offering me the alternative of not having to look isn't an improvement. But you've made yourself quite clear; thank you William M. Connolley (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say the evidence has made things quite clear. dorftrottel (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Makes you think, doesn't it?

Your user page and its links made me really think about (meta)WP for the first time. Thanks. Dhatfield (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks for taking the time to look at it! dorftrottel (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Bagginin and Slim

Hullo Dorftrottel,

Thanks for your thoughts. As I noted elsewhere, I accept that my first effort was 'inappropriate' and that much of it could have been removed. But not neceessarily all of it: viz

I'm quite happy to accept that I went too far in my enthusiasm for editing Bagginni (who incidentally, I do not know, have never met or spoken to, and do not think is very interesting):

1. The source for the 'plagiarism' dispute 'The Philosopher' is not reliable enough, it may not accurately reflect Bagginni's words as the site is edited by someone involved in the dipute. So I think it si right to drop that.

2. The Blog quoted on Baggini is amusing but again, not a proper source, esp. for this critique of a 'living person'.

3. However, I still consider that the quotes from Baginni's writings are legitimate, they accurately convey his style and his views, even if should not have been presented with such dismissive language.

4. The indication that he is a contorversial figue who suported very publicly the Iraq war, and defends the activities of the Far Right British National Party, as indicated in the quotation added to the page, are in line with Wiki policy (quoted above) and I still thinkshould have been allowed - perhaps subject to minor edits.

No one has attempted to explain why tampering with the edit history is legitimate. These pages are the 'audits' of Wikipedia life - falsifying them seems to merit more attention than it gets here....?

It's easy to say 'I don't agree with that comment - it must go', and that's fine. Everyone can and should do that (giving reasons, accepting arguemnts etc.) . But why have these self-appointed administrators manipulating procedures clearly desinged for different purposes (eg. blocking is to prevent someone who repeatedly edits a page 'back', or editing a history page is (presumably) to remove vandalism, not to falsify the chain of events).

Does no one recognise the dangers of cheering on this kind of practice!

86.220.76.189 (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

summary quote

I just found this on the 'arbitration' page - and it sums up the 'real issue', I think!

" Administrative tools may not be used to further the administrator's own position in a dispute."

86.220.76.189 (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to confirm the above two messages are mine

oops!

Just to confirm the above two messages are mine

Wikigiraffes (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Replied at User talk:Wikigiraffes. dorftrottel (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)