Admin status - do you want it again? |
No edit summary |
||
Line 142: | Line 142: | ||
If you don't then much of the stuff on the RfC page is moot as far as I am concerned. The stuff that ''is'' relevant, IMO, is no worse than what Lir or Wik have done (probably much less so when volume is considered). So if you state that you will not pursue reinstatement as an admin (at least for the next month or two), then I for one will start to concentrate on other cases (Lir and/or Wik). Otherwise I will continue this case all the way to the arbitration committee if need be. We can always return to the more mundane edit war dispute issues some users have with you - but for me at least that isn't as high a priority (esp. since others are worse in that department and some have spurred you on - if those other disputes are taken care of, perhaps that will take care of your alleged revert/edit war issues). What do you say? --[[User:Maveric149|mav]] 23:30, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC) |
If you don't then much of the stuff on the RfC page is moot as far as I am concerned. The stuff that ''is'' relevant, IMO, is no worse than what Lir or Wik have done (probably much less so when volume is considered). So if you state that you will not pursue reinstatement as an admin (at least for the next month or two), then I for one will start to concentrate on other cases (Lir and/or Wik). Otherwise I will continue this case all the way to the arbitration committee if need be. We can always return to the more mundane edit war dispute issues some users have with you - but for me at least that isn't as high a priority (esp. since others are worse in that department and some have spurred you on - if those other disputes are taken care of, perhaps that will take care of your alleged revert/edit war issues). What do you say? --[[User:Maveric149|mav]] 23:30, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC) |
||
I want to be reinstated with full status and a very big formal apology from you ASAP. I wouldn't mind if you felt obliged to resign from the arbitration committee as well. [[User:168...|168...]]|[[user talk:168... |...Talk]] 00:44, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:44, 19 February 2004
Hi, and welcome to my talk page
Archives
- Miscellaneous old posts No.1
- Miscellaneous old posts No.2
- DNA discussions
- Copies of quality musings of mine from the Talk pages
- Metadirectory
Administrator
You're now an administrator -- Tim Starling 00:32, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)
Paper and scissors department
Thanks. I've cut and pasted you to Ed...lacking your qualms about Ed's time, after he found time to cast aspersions on me. I'm glad we share similar feelings about Lir's anatomy, neuro and otherwise. BTW, no need to lock your socks away. Your GI tract is safe in my reliable, unsocked hands. Or, you know what I mean.168... 02:25, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I have no more desire to cast asparagus or any other vegetables at you. I wish I could eat my words about the "sock puppet" thing, I've kind of taken a cotton to you and I'm sorry anyone pulled the wool over your eyes; maybe we can iron this out, or should I just fold? ;-) --Uncle Ed 15:28, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I am not voting in support of deleting your directory. I did not propose it. I am simply enforcing established procedure.--Jiang 02:36, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
FYI, I have opened a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Metadirectory. I think that page needs to be renamed. Unlike Taku, I don't object to your project generally, and if my concerns are addressed, would certainly reconsider my opinion of linking this on the main page. --Michael Snow 07:17, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Please don't keep adding those links until there is more of an agreement on whether the directory is staying under its current name. It is highly annoying to have every page in my watchlist changed as a result of you adding links to these things, and I don't want every page coming up again when the titles change, or when Taku reverts you. Mediation might be necessary, after a poll (I think you've requested it soon for now), but until then, can you just slow down on the linking please? So far, you've already appeared about 200 times on my watchlist. Is a link from all these places really necessary? Angela. 09:09, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
Well, I am pissed off. Would you ever listen to anyone? -- Taku 16:47, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)
WikiCivics
Good job; I like it! Now if only we can get it off VfD... :) --Ryan 10:27, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
Yellow Pages? Better than Metadirectory, but are you sure? This name sounds like the place you would find links for various services being advertised, if we had any commercial advertising on Wikipedia. --Michael Snow 01:50, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- It does sound like something that would contain adverts. It's not a page I would think of going to to find help and policy pages. Angela. 03:47, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)
M 01:00 Nucleic acid (cur; hist) . . 168... (Talk) (Reverted edits by Cyan to last version by 168...) Sneaky... (Although I think this action might justified) Be careful, that page is still protected. You aren't going to be making friends by doing this! Stewart Adcock 01:12, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Please read and understand Wikipedia:Protection policy as you probably are in direct violation of it. Thank you. Dysprosia 06:20, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
please explain your actions
Why do you continue to edit a page that is protected? Why do you feel it is important that a protected page NOT have the "" message? Kingturtle 06:34, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
At this point there appear to be enough admins unhappy that a developer will accept a request that you be deysysopped for 24 hours as an emergency measure, solely to give the aribtration and mediation committees time to react. Please cease what you're doing, to prevent the straw poll to confirm that from being necessary. Thank you. Jamesday 06:43, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Since you offered...
Isn't this comment on your DNA reversion a little out of line? It makes it sound like your opinion is the only one that matters and you don't care what the majority indicates on a Talk page: (I never agreed to this paragraph or to a vote, as I have made clear all along. I am happy to remind people of my reasons for my various preferences and to hear counterarguments) - Texture 18:46, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
No, I don't believe it's at all out of line. I value everyone's opinion but Lir's. Unfortunately, everybody else feels obliged, because of Wikipedia ideology and the difficulty of banning undesirables, to compromise with Lir. It's a long story, but you might work your way backwards starting here.168...|...Talk 18:55, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I'll do that. Thanks. - Texture 19:03, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Mediation or arbitration - your choice now
If I request mediation on the points I've listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/168 would you enter mediation? If not then I'm going to request arbitration. --mav 05:48, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Would you like to express any preferences regarding who should mediate your dispute with mav? The members of Wikipedia:Mediation Committee are the recommended choice, but you may ask anyone if you like. You may tell me any mediators that are acceptable to you, or ones that you would refuse to accept. You may also e-mail me if you do not want your concerns publically posted - I will keep all communication as private as you like. (Tucci528 AT yahoo.com). Tuf-Kat
I'll start shopping tomorrow, to see what kind of opinions the various mediators have posted, but who I'd really like is Jimbo.168...|...Talk 06:44, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Lir's Triumph?
[Peak:] Why are you so eager to be Lir's greatest triumph yet? I hope it's not because you're acting on the theory that if you behave like Lir, then there will be two Lirs to contend with, and that Wikipedia simply cannot afford to ignore two Lirs. Peak 06:34, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- [Peak:] This is just to let you know that I added the following text to
- Wikipedia:Conflicts_between_users#Lir_(many_people):
- WARNING: Like many others before me (as I have since found out), I gave Lir the benefit of the doubt, only to find that it was not just a tremendous waste of time for me, but for many others as well; worse still, Lir has discovered how to take advantage of Wikipedia's generous policies to create havoc on a large number of Wikipedia articles. It's hard to understand why anyone would go to all the trouble of creating such chaos and distress over a long period of time. Some interesting theories have been proposed. Possibly Lir suffers from an unusual constellation of problems. But whatever the cause, the main problem is that Wikipedia remains vulnerable to Lir's brand of subvandalism. Until someone can attest to Lir's having been cured, perhaps the best is to ignore everything he writes on Talk pages, and to seek help in keeping articles free of any of his edits that don't clearly improve them. Volunteers may be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lir. Peak 06:21, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
By repeatedly deleting that page, you may be causing damage to database efficiency. The database was not designed to have pages continually restored/deleted like it is now. You may want to stop deleting for a minute, regardless of whether the page is appropriate or not, and take a break. Thanks Dysprosia 01:48, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Is deleting any more of a drain than editing? BTW, I wouldn't have to repeat myself if Mav didn't repeat hisself. You could talk to him as well. For the moment I am editing instead of deleting, as per your request, but I will resume deleting if you don't clarify your computer point. 168...|...Talk 01:53, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- A developer may want to further clarify/confirm, but fragmentation occurs in moving the large amount of data from an article between database tables. The database engine will eventually be able to "defrag" things, and does so when there is low load on the system, but I have been informed by Pakaran who is more knowledgeable in database matters that the POSIX standard does not allow for inserting in the middle of files, this makes the job more difficult. Dysprosia 02:01, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Hi. The Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia - we're here (or should be here) to write and edit it. Do you think you could concentrate on that rather than deleting content from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/168 and suchlike (which isn't what people want, and which isn't winning you any friends). --Camembert
You wrote on Talk:DNA: Since you have been so forthright with me (snip).
So, I will state my frank opinions here (I don't think they are useful on the DNA talk page).
When I see a vote asking whether Lir should be banned, then I'll say yes. When I see a vote asking whether you should be banned, then I'll say no. In both cases I'd be prepared to state solid reasons. (Note that I don't agree that you should keep sysop privledges though -- but I'll abstain on such matters because I have empathy with your cause). My continued efforts at reasoning with Lir, as I would reason with any spoilt little child, seemed to be the best option at the time. I tried my utmost to ignore any past disgressions and take everything at face value. Your stubborn behaviour irritated me immensely. Having said that, over the past two hours or so, upon reviewing the various request for comment pages and in particular the articles that Lir claimed to be his significant contributions, I think that a change of tactics are in order on my part. I still don't agree with your "civil disobedience" but you can now consider me an ally for the "ban troublesome users" crusade. Stewart Adcock 02:47, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
User:Tim Starling has requested that the arbitration committee remove your administratorship rights (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. If you would like to be represented before the committee by an advocate, please see Wikipedia:Office of Members' Advocates. -- Emsworth 16:52, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)
- To be absolutely accurate, Tim asked for the arbitrators to look at the issue and decide whether your admin rights should be witheld or restored - he isn't actually taking a position on the issue himself so far as I can see. --Camembert
- My apologies for the inaccuracy. -- Emsworth 18:27, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)
Believe it or not, I consider myself quite sane and an articulate advocate for myself. You can call off the suicide watch as well. 168...|...Talk 21:37, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Medation
Hi, thank you for responding on the Requests for mediation page. The problem is Anthere is currently on holiday. She went away on the 6th and I don't know when she is expected back. Are you willing to postpone mediation until she is back, or would you like to choose an alternative mediator? Angela. 19:15, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I'll stay out of the dispute and leave you and mav to work it out. - snoyes 23:48, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Good evening 168... Do you have an email adress to offer me, or can you write to me at anthere8 at yahoo.com ? I prefer not to use wikipedia mail, as it does not preserve a copy :-) thanks :-) fr0069
I'd rather discuss this out in the open. Could we? BTW, I am going to log out in just a couple minutes, but I will be back later. 168...|...Talk 00:06, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Hello back 168. Well, just for 2 minutes because I need to go to bed. We think that sometimes it is best to discuss some topics more privately. Because people can express things more freely perhaps, without fear that it will stay available forever. It also help to avoid that other users jump in a disagreement and fuel it. Sometimes, it is best to take a break and breath. But perhaps you have some reasons to want to discuss openly ? Can you explain ? fr0069
1)I have nothing to hide and I wish that to be clear. 2)I did what I did as a political act of martyrdom in an effort to change the system, therefore I want a public trial in which I will be able to give my reasons for what I did and to talk about pathological behaviors of the group which I believe led to my punishment. You can talk privately to my adversaries, if you like, but I would rather talk publicly.168...|...Talk 02:41, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Hello 168... Please read my comment here http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010653.html
and Mav answer
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010654.html
Also please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AMediation
The page is not finished yet, that is a work in progress, but perhaps can it be enlightening ?
And then, tell me what you think. Please.
thanks for the links. They seem to be changing all the time :-) ant
Hello 168. I thank you for the comment. I have seen all current states of meta pages, and history of article pages. I will go through history of comments/168 now, and discussion of DNA.
I noted with interest you considered comment/168 and comment/mav as fair from your point of view. Here what I suggest would be great : that both parties agree on the facts as they are reported. I asked Mav to review both of these pages, and give his opinion on their relevance, accuracy and completeness. Once you both agree on the report of facts; I would like that report is freeze, so we can say that you agree on the facts reported. Do you think you still have to work on these pages in terms of "fact reporting" ?
Thanks.
I had been done, but after Peak's edits, I felt I needed to make more changes. Right now I'm done, but I'm not sure at all that Peak will be satisfied with the modifications I've made. We seem to have disagree on structure and how to achieve neutrality.168...|...Talk 15:59, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Admin status - do you want it again?
If you don't then much of the stuff on the RfC page is moot as far as I am concerned. The stuff that is relevant, IMO, is no worse than what Lir or Wik have done (probably much less so when volume is considered). So if you state that you will not pursue reinstatement as an admin (at least for the next month or two), then I for one will start to concentrate on other cases (Lir and/or Wik). Otherwise I will continue this case all the way to the arbitration committee if need be. We can always return to the more mundane edit war dispute issues some users have with you - but for me at least that isn't as high a priority (esp. since others are worse in that department and some have spurred you on - if those other disputes are taken care of, perhaps that will take care of your alleged revert/edit war issues). What do you say? --mav 23:30, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I want to be reinstated with full status and a very big formal apology from you ASAP. I wouldn't mind if you felt obliged to resign from the arbitration committee as well. 168...|...Talk 00:44, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)