User talk:Linuxbeak/Archive8

WP:RFA/HolyRomanEmperor3

Hello Linuxbeak, thanks for taking appropriate action over there on the HolyRomanEmperor's RFA. It really isn't fair that there is an ethnic dispute on an RFA. I know you were really close to restarting the RFA, and I think that would be the most fair thing to do right now. Maybe something like restarting it, informing everyone involved on the RFA so far (excluding the abusive users) and semi-protecting the RFA. Well, thats just my suggestion of course.. Moe ε 01:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll keep a look-out. ;) Moe ε 01:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err... sorry to disturb you again, but do you mind closing out Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/kku2 and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pegasus1138 2. They are starting to pile on oppostion at this point. Moe ε 02:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pegasus1138's RFA

I don't know if you missed it, but Pegasus has specifically requested his RFA not be removed by a crat for pileon until/unless he withdraws. It's in the comments on his RFA as well as WT:RFA. NSL E _(T+C) at 02:20 UTC (2006-04-23)

HolyRoyalEmperor's RFA (cont.)

Maybe you should start to redo the RFA now that this question was asked by Hipi Zhdripi. Moe ε 03:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Linux! Good work on the HRE RFA, keeping things real. Mind you, you would also want to watch for Albanian voters, as HRE has done extensive editing on Kosovo-related articles, which are, of course, a minefield.

Also, I'm quite sure that you will find a number of socks in this case. On the contentious issues, there are plenty of suspicions of socks in casual editing. In this regard, I'm curious what you will do with possible socks (and their masters). Any ideas yet?

Again, good work! Cheers, The Minist e r of War ^(Peace) 10:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there... I must say that I undestand you are under much pressure over HRE RfA and that it is by no means easy to keep that RfA away from becaming just one of numerous Balkan (edit) wars, so please take this notice of mine as a good faith advice: you might want to change BUREAUCRAT'S NOTICE: on top to include (ethnic) Albanians too. While we're at it, I'd like to say that I find your comment a bit discriminanting, but I also understand that this notice of yours is not intended to offend anybody but is an attempt to cool things down... --Dijxtra 13:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Adminship

First of all, I would like to thank you very much far watching over my adminship. It was being blown away by User:Hipi_Zhdripi and his suspected sockpuppet. If there is a way for me t repay you, just tell me.

Next of all, why not crossline the invalide votes? I've got 11 Opposes, and only 4-5 of them are valid. I'm fearing a feeling of stereotypics, that a voter may emerge and see 11 votes and just say "Bah, this one is not worthy for an admin", before even reading the horrific situation regarding several votes. --HolyRomanEmperor 10:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a campaign to discredit HolyRomanEmperor by certain extremists going on. Hipi Zhdripi was previously banned for repeated use of AOL sockpuppet accounts, page-blanking and vandalism (including vandalising many other wikipedians' userpages [1] [2] [3] [4]), leading to a request for semi-protection for several articles from myself. Since then, he insists on calling everyone involves in fighting his vandalism (including people merely using AntiVandal software) are sockpuppets. Would it be possible to ~~strike out~~ votes you say will not be counted?--Asterion 11:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:87.116.154.180

I shortened the block to six months, you shouldn't block IPs indef short of open proxies Will (^E_@) T 11:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About you disclaimer in the RFA of HolyRomanEmperor

What caught my attention is this:

"If I catch anyone ... calling on friends to vote one way or the other...". Since when is campaigning illegal? I hope your comment applies only to ethnically motivated campaigns, not general promotion, because then you are in trouble. Not to mention there's no way to police extraneous communication, such as email. Even so, how is that not restricting freedom of expression? FunkyFly 16:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads-up, Linuxbeak: I've left a message related to HolyRomanEmperor's RfA at the RfA talk page. Your comments would be appreciated. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Campaigning is illegal, and fortunately evidence of it is quite obvious and always in plain sight (a benefit of non-anonymous "voting"). We don't have votes on Wikipedia, only discussion-based strawpolls, so campaigning is very strongly frowned upon by the community. (Even a whiff of it is often enough to fail an RfA.) And there is no free speech on Wikipedia. Johnleemk | Talk 17:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you refer me to a policy about campaigning? Thanks. FunkyFly 20:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please view my RfA? It's going a little silly. User:Sceptre attempted to stroke most biased edits, but an unclear image was shown regarding which votes should be stroked out as can be seen here. Perhaps you can interviene? --HolyRomanEmperor 20:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In light of your somewhat aggressive questioning of Lethe at the restarted RfA, I have posted at RfA talk with a request that you recuse yourself from further b'cratic involvement with HRE. I'm sure you'll agree that b'crat's impartiality must be impeccable. I cannot understand the motive for your harshness with Lethe, a regular RfA participant unlikely to be swayed by wrongful ethnic prejudice. I believe the RfA is best handled by another set of eyes. Best wishes, Xoloz 03:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hipis Rebelion

Sorry, you have a mesege here.

Rule 2a

Hi,

Can you clarify what you mean by rule 2a of HolyRomanEmperor's new RfA? - Richardcavell 04:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay have a look at the talk page

I think that makes more sense - Richardcavell 04:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HolyRomanEmperor's RFA

I've been watching this RFA, and while I think your actions may have been justified, they still concern me a bit. This is coming from an HRE supporter, but after all this controversy and especially your responses to oppose voters... you're not planning on being the closing bureaucrat, are you? I think that'd be a really, really, really bad idea, and neither of you need that stain on your respective reputations. (If you weren't planning on doing so anyways, my apologies--just trying to make sure here.) Anyways, cheers, happy editing, and you might want to consider taking a nap, eating some nice cheese, or something along those lines. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said that you restarted it, but it appears that you closed it for good... What happenned? --HolyRomanEmperor 10:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFA comment

Hi Linuxbeak, I've reworded my oppose vote at your request. Note that I didn't mean to imply HRE himself would have been a 'stinking great shitstorm'; I was/am concerned that a situation where a guy engaged in so many hotly-contested POV disputes would degenerate into a stinking great shitstorm. But I have reworded to ensure this is made clear, and there's no further risk of misinterpretation. Please call me on any other bone-headed errors of judgement I make. Proto||type 14:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recusal

In light of this comment:

"As a side note, I just want to make a note that a large portion of the 235 edits to Demographic history of Bosnia and Herzegovina was from him creating the article itself. See here to see what I'm talking about. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 04:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)"

which actually constituted a firm argument in support of HRE's adminship, I must reiterate my call that you recuse yourself from this RfA. Under no circumstances could I consider a closing by you in this instance legitimate. Best wishes, Xoloz 14:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, and no. I stated a fact. I'm not going to recuse. Period. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 14:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is one thing for which I'd like to apologize. By posting nearly identical remarks at your talk and RfA talk nearly simultaneously, I didn't intend to "agitate" you with repeated requests. I thought this was the polite thing to do, so that you would be aware privately of what I had posted elsewhere. If my point in so doing was unclear to you, I'm sorry. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kill my RfA

I am sorry to admit, but I've been just pressed to much because of just a simple Adminship nomination that's not even worth the trouble that it's making You, me and the entire Wikipedia. I am very, very grateful to you for keeping an eye from all the sockpuppets, vandals and POV-pushers that vote my Request_for_Adminship, but the situation has gone well beyond all reachess of one man' comprehension.

Please place this on my talk page:

This user has voluntarily retired, and this account is inactive. You may leave messages on the talk page, but they probably won't be answered.

I need a long wikibreak; I have just been stressed, and I will not allow myself to contribute in this form, since my contributions would be biased. All the best, my freind and thanks again! --HolyRomanEmperor 17:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on a second!!! --Asterion ^{talk to me} 17:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And frankly, I've just discovered that they have been inviting people to vote against me... So I think that it's really going beyond all reaches of reason. Regards, good friend. --HolyRomanEmperor 17:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these people can sleep at night. In any case, isn't it against regulations to canvass that way? --Asterion ^{talk to me}

18:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope my conscience will henceforth be left out of your domain. --VKokielov 15:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linuxbeak, if I may make a last ditch effort to appeal to you and save this RfA. It's a shame to see a potential admin candidate (who has garnered the support of some well respected people) ditch his RfA over the antics of a few. Whether it succeeds or not is of no importance to me (heck, I'm still neutral on him), but the fact of the matter is, opposes such as, he attracks controversy, shouldn't be legit and obviously I'd trust that you would discount something like that. However, if this RfA ends early, it would be quite shameful for the reasons surrounding it. Pepsidrinka 17:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HRE says here above: "I've been just pressed too much". He's been pressed too much? If HRE doesn't like his dirty laundry being discussed in detail, he shouldn't have applied to become an administrator in the first place. --Zmaj 08:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed something incredible: he's asking YOU to put HIS retirement notice on HIS talk page. But why doesn't he do it himself? Because he doesn't want to, that's why! All this is a despicable trick to elicit your pity, and Asterion has already fallen for it. --Zmaj 08:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Linuxbreak, Zmaj has called me a liar in the talk page for this RfA. I have privately requested and apology and removed the comment from the project page as it does not do any good there. Whatever his feelings are, I expect some respect as for Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy. Regards, --Asterion ^{talk to me} 15:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I said Asterion made a false statement, which he did. Don't expect me to apologize for telling the truth. --Zmaj 06:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asterion said Zmaj called him a liar. That is a true and that was Ad hominem but this section is about HRE's asking about retirement notice and not about Zmaj's personal attack on Asterion. Therefore, I conclude Asterion made that statement about Zmaj to discredit Zmaj's arguments above. I think that is ad hominem too so Asterion should apologize to Zmaj. Am I right? Jakiša Tomić 01:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you had bothered to check the history of the article, you would have understood this much better: I removed Zmaj's comments as I took them as totally unrelated to the RfA -and therefore a diversion- and duely informed LinuxBreak and Zmaj about it (as otherwise, it could have been taken as a random deletion of someone else's comments). Then someone else restored them (I would not have objected to Zmaj doing this himself as he was an involved party). Regards, --Asterion ^{talk to me} 05:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Roman Emperor's adminship note

You write:

3.) You MUST give a valid reason to support or oppose votes. Regarding oppose votes, you MUST provide a diff and/or specific example of why you are opposing. I will immediately strike out any votes that are ethnic-related. Do not take this personally. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 02:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

Be that as it may, "Some people who oppose RfAs do not explain their opposition", nor are they under any obligation to do so either, though I understand that the situation on the page has created an air of fractiousness which makes it hard for bureaucrats to work with. --Knucmo2 23:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HolyRomanEmperor3a

Please let me know if any action I take on this renewed RFA is out of line or unneeded.

Mostly what I have done is ask users to explain thier oppostion. Another edit was striking an opposers vote because of the failure to meet you're minimum standards for this RFA and removing uneeded edits. Response confirming you're approval/opposition of my actions are needed. Thanks! Moe ε 01:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the youngest admin?

Well are ya? :) --Andeee 06:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder where he's at. :S--Andeee 15:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot

Hello Linuxbeak, just now I received a last warning and "no personal attacks" warning on my talk page from your bot, Hornwynn. [5] I do not know what I could have done to trigger this, and am extremely concerned - please could you explain what I did. Thank you, Tangot a ngo 11:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Linuxbeak, having looked closely at the bot's contributions, it obviously doesn't belong to you - it must be a rogue vandalbot using your name. It is doing some terrible vandalism/page moving, will make sure it is blocked soon. Again, sorry to cause you trouble. -- Tangot a ngo 12:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user continues to vandalise pages and add user article bans around the place (see their contributions). Most likely not a bot. WP:AIV time yet, or do they require a warning or two first? cBuckley (Talk • Contribs) 12:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I agree with you - probably not a bot. It's been indefinitely blocked for now. -- Tangot a ngo 12:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You told me that you were going to take a look at User:Medule. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restrictions for HRE RfA

Although I understand the reasons behind these restrictions, and support your right to use your own discretion here, I am concerned with the specifics of the restrictions you have chosen. The edit count restriction is reasonable, but the requirement that oppose votes cite specific examples or diffs seems to poorly chosen. This would disallow ALKIVAR's oppose vote, which really isn't an appropriate thing to do, without disallowing many of the less legitimate oppose votes that took care to follow the restriction. Furthermore, the restriction on sock puppets is poorly worded, in my opinion, in a way that I could be blocked for my vote, since I am using a sock puppet by the definitions given in the current WP:SOCK. If you could change "use" to "abuse" in this restriction, this problem will be solved. If you can remedy these issues, I will most likely change my vote from Oppose to Support, but I cannot support the nomination in its current state. --Philosophus 01:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Working Man's Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		I hereby award Linuxbreak the Working Man's barnstar for his work in HolyRomanEmperor's RFAs. While I feel some of the steps you took were a little extreme, most of what you did was correct and demonstrates fine dedication to bureaucratering (is that really a word?). I know you've been through a lot of hell over this, but thank you for handling a job that, in all honesty nobody would want. Borisblue 10:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Force FX

I think I'm going to steal your light sabre. Thank you. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 18:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it's 92?

You updated twice yesterday, was this because you recalculated it or something? NoSeptember ^talk 17:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Half-Life 2

You said on the talk page that you would like to bring Half-Life 2 to featured status. I nominated it twice on the FAC and it failed both times (and said I wouldn't do it a 3rd time), so I would like to help out a bit. Thunderbrand 20:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, hopefully the 3rd time will be the charm. The first time, I can see why it failed, but after the second one it really got me irritated. I dunno, a lot of weird oppose votes and people who never come back to check on the status of the page after fixing it some. Glad to see someone taking an interest, too! Thunderbrand 20:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a good game, that is why I tried to get it featured...and no, I won't be at Wikimania. Unless it comes to Pittsburgh, I doubt my parents would let me go anyway. Thunderbrand 00:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BuddhaWheel Stub

I'm very new to Wikipedia. I've contributed a few small edit before, only one of which has been allowed to stand, which I can take.

But I recently submitted a new article on BuddhaWheel, a board game I and my wife have made. It was deleted so quickly for "advert" status that I was really shocked, and responded by carefully removing all even slightly non-verifiable material, leaving only facts. The article was almost immediately deleted again, and a further shock came when I realised that I couldn't find it to edit it again. I hadn't saved it elsewhere because I wasn't expecting it to just vanish like that. On the face of my experiences so far, it seems almost impossible to contribute to Wikipedia under these terms.

So anyway, I've now written a stub to see if it will survive. Please could you point me to some information to learn how to expand the stub without it being killed by people with absolute power who don't communicate with me first? And are they misbehaving? Beeflin 13:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Unblock

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing this in regards to a note saying that this IP address has been blocked from editing in Wikipedia. Apparently, the reason was given that there have been too many attempts to remove an image from your articles on Route Irish and the Green Zone.

I am assigned to the Geospatial Information Service of the 4th Infantry Division. There is information contained within these images that is relevant to ongoing military actions. It is protected under sections 641, 793, 794, 798, 952, and 1924 of Title 8, United States Code; section 783(b) of Title 50, United States Code, and the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. This has been brought to the attention of several people, but the information was never removed.

I ask that the image which appears in both articles be brought down from public viewing. Feel free to write back if you have any more questions.

214.13.163.10 20:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on block

Dear Sir/Madam,

I want to thank you for being open to discussion on this topic. Unfortunately, I cannot specify why the pictures in question should not be publicly displayed, except to say that they display information that we are not allowed to show to Iraqi police/military units, much less to the general public. The same goes for the names of the routes. The first article that I mentioned has the names of three of them, as well as their locations.

I understand that this information can be readily accessed through other means, but all we ask is that Wikipedia kindly exclude itself from them. I apologize for any inconvenience that this may have caused, but I hope that you can understand our dedication to protecting our brothers/sisters who put their lives on the line every day.

214.13.163.10 18:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Daniel Brandt

I'd like to invite you to review and participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Daniel Brandt. This is not a request for your endorsement, simply a request for your participation in the discussion. Thank you. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 18:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HL2 FAC

Wow, you really worked hard on it yesterday! Sorry I missed out on it (I was out with my friends seeing The DaVinci Code), I probably could have helped a bit, but you seem to have done some excellent fixes to it. Thank you. Thunderbrand 15:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think it was neccessary, ewven theough I think there are too many sister articles, but I guess it was inevitable for a game with so much information on it. Hopefully the people who opposed will change. Thunderbrand 15:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the help! Thunderbrand 00:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For making my "dream" a reality, I award you the Original Barnstar! Thunderbrand 00:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Burnitz

Howdy. You accidently protected Mark Burnitz. The page was protected after the user recreated it -- I can't list it for speedy.

I am not exactly sure the user gets the distinction between userspace/encyclopedia. So, I have been trying to explain it to him... I don't know the best way other than talk pages. He seems to monitor Talk:Mark Burnitz, so I posted there. Any tips?

Thanks! -- Irixman ^{(t) (m)} 03:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of weapons in Half-Life 2

I've reworded stuff and tidied it up a bit (diff), nothing drastic but it's better than it was. See what you think – Gurch 17:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good so far. Granted, we could probably take it a step further and put in pretty tables that include their damage count, ammo capacity, etc. However, for now it's a great start. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 22:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knickers!

Looking at the article on Fencing (sport) I feel that some attempt to 'internationalise' the English language must be made.

In America they call them knickers (probably a shortened verion of knickerbocker) but in England we call them breeches. What we call knickers in England is what girls wear.

The first time I came across knickers was when i was travelling to the USA and wanted to bring my fencing kit. Discussion with a US based clubs had them going on about knickers - and at first I was perplexed, until I queried what they meant and it was then cleared up. Good job, otherwise I'd have arranged clean underpants :)

BTW - if my assumption is true that knickers is short for knickerbockers, then as that is German, then the correct word in English would be breeches...

199.172.169.7 14:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC) sww[reply]

Re: New table

It looks a bit better than having the whole series in a table, although I think going vertical would take up too much space. Thunderbrand 15:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a Heads Up

Just as a heads up, there is at least one issue at the bureaucrats' noticeboard that needs some attention and you seem to be one of the most active at this time of day. Your assistance would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. joturn e r 13:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented on the noticeboard, discussion seems warranted. - Taxman ^Talk 13:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buddy

How you been? I was off Wiki for a week, updating my compu system. On May 11, I made my first successful admin nom. He is User:Joelr31, great guy. My e-mail address is NMB 2418@aol.com. hey, you already know my son, come over here User:Marine 69-71/Autographs and meet my wife. Take care! Tony the Marine 19:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day counter

Have you considered using an automatic countdown? Take a look at this one. NoSeptember ^talk 12:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Half-Life 2 limerick

There was once a sequel to Half-Life

Feat'ring death and destruction and much strife

Though to play it was fun

Once the player was done

He, depressed, spilled his bowels with his knife

It's a bit hard to fit three usernames within the limerick meter so I went this route instead. Enjoy! — Philwelch t 02:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup Taskforce

Greetings. You are receiving this boilerplate notice because you have a task on your Cleanup Taskforce desk that has not been updated for over 30 days. If you do not wish to complete this task please assign it to another active Cleanup Taskforce member who has space on their desk. If you do not wish to receive cleanup requests on your desk any more, you may remove yourself from the membership list. If you or someone else has completed the task, you can close it by adding {{cleanup taskforce closed|ARTICLE NAME HERE}} to the article's talk page and removing it from Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce. If you have a status update (e.g. you intend to work on it in the future) or need help, you can update the collaboration page (which is linked from your desk). Also feel free to reply to the person who left you this message. --Randy 19:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mentorship Committee

Would it be possible for me to assume one of these open roles? Thank you, and awaiting your reply. Ian13/talk 22:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. Do I just be bold and add myself, or is there some way I am to be appointed? Ian13/talk 22:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linuxbeak, a reminder of our blocking policy:

If you disagree with a block placed by another admin, do not unblock without discussing the matter thoroughly in advance with the blocking admin, and with other admins on WP:AN/I if appropriate. [emphasis in the original].

That is a policy, not just a guideline. I know there are a lot of policies, and it's hard to keep them all straight, but following this one will help prevent disputes. Cheers, -Will Beback 02:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Internal review

Hi. Were you aware of some of the more questionable activities taking place on Wikipedia Review? How clearly was Jimbo informed concerning these details? What can you offer for the public, onwiki record on these two fronts? Please help me understand what happned by providing a carefuly documented account. The one provided on ANI falls rather short, I'm afraid. Are there IRC logs I can review? Thanks in advance. El_C 07:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've stayed away from WR for over a month now, and I've only just found out about this situation, but you have my full support in unblocking Blu Aardvark. NSL E _(T+C) at 10:09 UTC (2006-05-29)

NLSE, you're a discredit to this project. El_C 10:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that's your opinion, I certainly don't mind, El C. NSL E _(T+C) at 10:18 UTC (2006-05-29)

If? Now you have a month to catch on Wikipedia Review. El_C 10:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I'm not quite sure I understood that? (Let's take it away from LB's pages, please) NSL E _(T+C) at 10:22 UTC (2006-05-29)

You are beyond contempt. El_C 10:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is rich coming from El_C aka Pavel Novak, the bourgeois who roleplays a progressive. -Dna4salE 10:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sockpuppet, again, I am not Pavel Novak. Is he fluent in Hebrew, too? El_C 10:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<--- unindent Wait, let me get this right... I'm a discredit to the project because I participated at WR? Is that what you mean? NSL E _(T+C) at 10:27 UTC (2006-05-29)

I'm no longer interested in speaking to you. El_C 10:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback forum inquiry.

Hello,

Do you have a forum for discussing the issue regarding the sysop appointment process which you mentioned on your user page? I would like to participate in that conversation. Cheers. --Folajimi 12:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blu Aardvark and Mistress Selina Kyle

Blu_Aardvark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Mistress_Selina_Kyle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I beg you to reconsider carefully your decision to unblock these problem editors. I believe that their attacks on Wikipedians from Wikipedia Review are strong evidence that they act out of malice and their private expressions of regret cannot be trusted. --Tony Sidaway 13:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. I find it ironic that you're begging Phaedriel not to leave, when she is one of the people that WR has singled out for unfair scrutiny and harmed... These two editors are part of WR and part of the problem there. I think you really do mean well, but that this action is terrifically ill advised. ++Lar: t/c 16:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking outside the box here, and maybe I'm thinking wrong, but it might be interesting to discuss things with several of the people involved in this situation. Are you folks all on irc? Kim Bruning 16:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see this as a decision to make this a better encyclopedia unless you have a different understanding of human nature than I do. You've heard the old tale of the frog that took a scorpion across a stream for a fly based on the idea that if the scorpion stung they would both die, yet the scorpion stung, the frog asked why, the scorpion said I am a scorpion - it is what scorpions do; right? WAS 4.250 21:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tony. The unblocks are read as a slap in the face at the users who worked hard to clean up the mess left by these vandals, and against whom these vandals still have an axe to grind. I suggest that you try to get in touch with SlimVirgin to apologize. It seems as she's planning to leave Wikipedia, while will be quite a shame, as she's one of the site's best contributors. 172 | Talk 22:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to pile on Alex, but I agree with the lot above. I hope there's a way out of this that doesn't cost us our best editors permanently. I trust that you mean only the best. I really do hope there's a way out of this mess. Good luck. Guettarda 03:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm less hopeful, but, maybe things will work out. I second what Guettarda has said, but I also hope that this will be a learning experience for you. Unbridled hope in human nature is pure folly, and only the realisation that some people are irredeemable can save one from causing great harm in the name of good. Call me cynical if you wish, I prefer to think of myself as experienced. Jim62sch 20:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IRC

So one of your many IRC supporters (I'm unable to tell whom) banned me from IRC. I think that reflects very poorly on the IRC cabal. El_C 01:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to privately discuss some of these pressing issues on IRC with me in a civil and substantive way. ~~I hope some of what we discussed can find positive expression, in at least partially, helping to diffuse this crisis.~~ El_C 03:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

I apology if anything I said or did caused you stress or frustration. That was never my intention. I hope that we can work together to find a solution to the serious problem of harassment that is coming from Wikipedia Review. Regards, FloNight ^talk 02:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no cabal

Several people have voiced their concern about discussing this situation on IRC. I hope that you will limit your discussion on IRC to brain storming and carry on the main discussion on the 'pedia. There is no IRC cabal. Regards, FloNight ^talk 03:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Half-Life 2 revert

Why did you revert G.Freeman's edit? It was a perfectly valid edit, you know. I'm not going to re-add it now, but you really should give a reason. The only "reason" I can think of would be vanity, but, you know, he just named himself after the fictional character. --71.98.6.173 21:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship and responsibility

LB, I haven't heard from you any acknowledgement that you directly violated the blocking policy by unblocking without prior consultation. Without that acknowledgement I question whether you should be acting on that policy by blocking and unblocking users. All admins make mistakes, and all good admins are willing to recognize their mistakes, apologize, and correct the problems that result. I'm sure you're a good admin, and so will take the time to review the policy, note where you have made mistakes and do what is right. If not, perhaps being an admin is not the right job.

Aside from the technical (though very important) matter of the blocking policy, you have also exhibited poor judgement by making a committment (unblocking) on behalf of the community without making sure that the community would support that promise. You neither discussed it beforehand to gain support, nor worked to defend it afterwards. This is reminiscent of your involvement with Brandt. In that case you apparently personally assured the user that his biography could be deleted, you deleted it, and then the community overturned your decision. Your efforts to use personal diplomacy are commendable, but you mustn't make promises that can't be fulfilled. Broken promises are worse than no promises.

No one questions your good intentions. But actions have consequences, even when we don't intend them. Our lack of intent doesn't lessen our responsibility. -Will Beback 22:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Nods to the above*. I was coming over to your talk page to say something pretty similar. Whilst there is no doubt in my mind that you had the very best of intentions, you did directly violate the blocking policy. I am very concerned that you don't seem to see this as an issue, especially as I would have thought common sense would suggest the unblocking was potentially controversial, and therefore would merit discussion *before* unblocking. I don't directly blame you for anyone leaving the project because of your actions. You rightly point out that it is their decision to make. However, it is my opinion that you made a pretty big mistake here. I am bothered that you seem to be rather more concerned about how this incident can damage you, rather than the other editors involved. I also realise that I am far less experienced as an admin than you are, and I have certainly not been involved with the history of this case, but I still thought it was worth you hearing that Will Beback is not the only one concerned about this aspect of this incident. Petros471 22:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clueless, eh?

Wildly clueless? Completely and 100%. The evidence is not merely your believing-your-own-PR St. Francis-of-Assisi act, your utter lack of transparency, your complete misreading of community reaction, and your perverse equation that the worth of the those two trolls you tried to bring back somehow outweighs the damage wreaked by them; it's also your complete inability to recognize that you did wrong and your strained defensiveness. I'll grant you that maybe I'm wrong: maybe your proclamations of righteousness is due merely overweening pride or an overdeveloped sense of self-righteousness. But I'm not betting money on it. --Calton | Talk 23:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you're a bureaucrat: I don't know how you got the job, but your demonstrated lack of judgment certainly calls into question whether you're qualified to continue holding it. --Calton | Talk 23:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calton, I'm not in the best place to say this but may I remind you to please try to remain civil, cheers. NSL E _(T+C) at 23:56 UTC (2006-05-30)

I wasn't aware that "Honesty" = "Incivility". --Calton | Talk 04:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

You put your most recent clarification/apology in the wrong place, at the very end of the whole board, in another section.--Anchoress 00:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibreak

Have a good break, mate. Remember, you still have friends and people who supported your actions here. Don't let the criticism get to you - it's part of the job. Take care during your break. NSL E _(T+C) at 00:55 UTC (2006-05-31)

Actually, at this stage I think you break is a cop-out. You can't rip the community in half and then complain about the "drama and hostility". You're responsible for this fucking mess, the least you could do is have the decency to stick around until it's cleaned up. Guettarda 01:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIV, please. NSL E _(T+C) at 01:44 UTC (2006-05-31)

What's incivil about what I had to say? I'm just describing the situation. Guettarda 03:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I specifically came back to work with you to get a compromise that would bring the community back together. Please reconsider. I need you to help me. FloNight ^talk 01:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope your wikibreak allows you to relax from your stressful situation - enjoy the calm! And here's something to help in recharging those batteries. ;) -- Nataly a 21:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Email or phone

If you can hop on IRC, we can talk. I don't want to deal with any more on-wiki stuff for now, because I'm getting nothing but a bad attitude and a broken will out of it.. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 01:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't do IRC because of privacy concerns. This is even more important now that Brandt is determined to monitor all the Wikipedia related IRCs. I am available by email or telephone. (NSA listening?) The last plane already left for RI today. I'll email you in the next little bit. FloNight ^talk 02:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What privacy concerns do you have with IRC? Do you have a cloak? Have you considered using Tor? Freenode has a very nice system especially for tor users, which reduces latency enough that the difference is hardly noticeable. --Philosophus ^T 19:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Linuxbeak

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Linuxbeak and comment there. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]