User talk:OpenTheDoor

Welcome!

Hello, OpenTheDoor, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Best wishes, Travb (talk) 06:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sock

Howdy! Are you another sockpuppet of Rootology? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are so paranoid. (In case you don't understand that answer, No) Can't you use the magic fairy dust you used before to determine that? What kind of fairy are you.. --OpenTheDoor 22:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make personal attacks, it's incivil. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was trying to address your behavior. I didn't mean to suggest you were "a paranoid" I was only suggesting that you were behaving in a paranoid way. --OpenTheDoor 22:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I asked is that another admin rolled back text identical to the ones you made and identified that other user as a sockpuppet of XP/Rootology. I wasn't making an accusation, just asking a question. If you feel my actions have been in violation of any spirit or letter of the Wikipedia policies, I invite you to make use of either the WP:RFC procedures or request external review via either WP:AN or WP:AN/I. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I restored those edits precisely as they were because it was an act of vandalism that deleted them. As for the RfC and the like, I think your work and the work of several other admins have made mockery of all of Wikipedia's procdures (claiming to have magic fairy dust that implicates XP, come on!). I've decided since I have an infinnite ability to evade blocks to simply post whatever I feel like posting and in any tone I feel is appropriate to improve Wikipedia. I presume you're familiar with the WP:IAR policy since you follow it to the letter, though certainly not in its spirit. --OpenTheDoor 22:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mention that you can 'infinitely evade blocks', but I'm confused. The block logs don't show you as being blocked, are you claiming to be a sock puppet of a blocked user? Also, you haven't specified which parts of Wikipedia policy you feel I have violated. In regards to the data used to identify a sockpuppet of an indef blocked user, as usual the details of the process are private. This is standard practice, so you may be operating under a misconception about how WP works. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have checkuser authorization? If you don't you have no business with any other information than can be discussed in open Wikipedia forums. Otherwise you or the checkuser authority who shared the information with you have violated Wikipedia's privacy policy (and you both should be decommissioned). So you are the one under the misconceptions about Wikipedia policy (or pretending to to have misconceptions). The claim that presenting your evidence in an open forum would simply "teach" blocked users who to evade their block is simply ridiculous and indefensible. If you have evidence that User:XP is a sockpuppet of User:Rootology then you should post it publicly. If your "evidence" cannot withstand public scrutiny, in my experience that means it's typically just bullshit. I'd be willing to bet your magic fairy dust (.nytimes) is bullshit.. --OpenTheDoor 23:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may have missed my other question above where I asked about your comment regarding blocks. I would enjoy the pleasure of your response on that. Regarding the XP/Rootology issue, if you feel that I have violated policy, please make use of the WP:RFC or WP:AN/I processes. If you don't, then it seems clear that you lack confidence in your assertion. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've never been accused of lacking confidence, so I don't think that could be it. As I said, those procedures have been corrupted by you and some others. It's best to adhere closely to WP:IAR as I'm doing. I did see your question regarding blocks. I think those sorts of questions come from a certain paranoid mindset. I would recommend a wikibreak or something along those lines so that you don't unravel. When you're so steeped in violating policy and inappropriately blocking users, everyone you contend with starts to look like a past enemy that you yourself created. And I'm surprised you didn't look close enought to know that I'm blocked. A seasoned administrator shouldn't make a mistake like that. That is conduct so unbecoming an administrator.. --OpenTheDoor 01:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may also note that most of the issued raised on WP:AN/I are deleted immediately. This stuff is too sensitive to be exposed it seems. --OpenTheDoor 01:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, uh, that's an evasion on my question? Well, thanks for clearing things up. Simma down now. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is it an evasion of your question. If I hadn't been blocked why would I have drawn your attention (with your bag of fairy dust)?. Why don't you just ask your question clearly?--OpenTheDoor 02:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked by another admin well after I asked my question, and well after you evaded answering it. I guess your moral authority in this issue has been well established, I won't lose any sleep tonight, nor will any other admin. You do not appear to be acting in good faith, a fact your edits illustrate. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you won't lose any sleep tonight. I never wished that upon you. Perhaps this is more of my acting not in good faith, but would you care to explain how my edits demonstrate I'm not acting in good faith? It's not at all clear to me. Perhaps this too is not acting in good faith in your opinion, but could you simply and clearly restate the question you asked that you believe I've evaded. I still don't know what question you asked that I have not answered. Why is so hard to simply restate your question? --OpenTheDoor 03:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, you haven't answered my questions, so I'm going to go ahead and unwatch this page. If you were serious and really felt there was an issue, you would have made an honest effort, and it doesn't look like you did. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

test

OK, so sleep well tonight. --OpenTheDoor 04:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what's with this insidious cookie creation anyway

This is just a test. But why create a .nytimes cookie that you cannot access? That's the weird part. --OpenTheDoor 04:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi sock?

Hi sock, if you are Rootology, you deserve to be booted. Work within wikirules OR leave. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 06:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I always work within wikirules. You should think about it too. Have you heard the one about not taunting users who have been blocked? --OpenTheDoor 08:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is it Rootology or Cplot? Make up your minds!

Really now.

You know you don't have to fight over me. Why don't you just place OpenTheDoor on both sockpuppet pages (why doesn't Rootology have a page). There's more than enough of me to go around. --OpenTheDoor 20:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]