User talk:El Sandifer

If you are interested in making personal attacks against me, I encourage you to visit my new subpage at /Personal attacks.

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5 /Archive 6 /Archive 7 /Archive 8

I archive when I feel like it. Depending on my whim, your comments may or may not be archived. The odds of being archived are inversely proportional to the amount you annoy me. Please do not annoy me.

Can you help ?

Hi. I've been doing some edits to the micronation article recently, and I've run into some issues with a couple of editors who seem to be on some sort of crusade to delete some information that I think relevant to the article, and for which I've cited references. I can't see any logic in their actions, and one editor in particular seems unwilling or unable to discuss things in a rational manner (see this exchange). Looking through the edit history I noticed that you've arbitrated some issues there in the past, and so I wondered if you could cast your eye over this one too. --Centauri 02:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

I have absolutely no faith whatsoever in any Wikimediation. I went that route with Wareware, and it got me absolutely nowhere. Besides, there is nothing to be mediated. And, no. I will not play nicey-nice with someone the likes of what's-his-face (I honestly can't think of his name at the moment) who prides himself on being "politically incorrect" and then presumes to tell me what I can and cannot say. I appreciate your well-meaning input, but it means nothing to me. (Since when is being "gruff" a crime? You think you're going to change me?) I hold my tongue on this racist web site more times than anyone knows; this matter never should have gone up for mediation in the first place. The complainant's points are flimsy and totally ridiculous. As far as I'm concerned, the matter is closed. deeceevoice 10:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you can try all you want, but you can't block me.

Sorry, you can try all you want, but you can't block me. You can waste your time trying, though. :-) The initial block was immoral, and thus I refuse to heed it. Get mad if you want; I am practicing civil disobediance, and will continue to do so till the Wikipedia system comes to it's senses. Notice how I am CONTRIBUTING and being productive? Why would you want to block such a person? It's ludicrous.

Oh, well. Maybe it is too much to expect sensibility from Wikipedia? Well, I will continue to be sensible, even if many of the "admins" on here are not. Deal with it.

Have a nice day.

The above was added by 203.162.3.77 (talk · contribs).

Oh yeah, you fight that power, man! Show those Wikipedians who's boss! They can't hold back the revolution forever! Death to the pigs, or whatever! --Ardonik.talk()^* 05:50, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

That's similar to how I felt about my block. But hey it gave me an excuse to go to the beach! :D Thanks for the block. --AI 20:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Civil Disobedience" means abiding by the block and protesting it non-violently. Refusing to be blocked isn't civil disobedience, you moron.

response

This is in response to your recent post on my talk page.

So far as I can see, the people whose policy pages were deleted were long established editors here, not members of any vandal group. Am i mistaken? See my recent contribution log for more info. DES 03:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: VfU

I just noticed you protected this. You can unprotect it if you want; as I said to Kim Bruning, I won't re-add the text (in general, I never revert to my version more than once, unless it is clear vandalism). However, as I'm not the only one who has restored the entry, someone else would probably replace it if you unprotected it, so assuming you want the entry off of there, you should probably keep it protected. We can't discuss it on the talk page—what Kim is opposed to is any discussion on the matter. If I were to bring it up on the talk page, he'd remove it. That's the whole problem. However, I've expressed my opinion, and I'm content to let others support or oppose this as they see fit. Finally, on Wikipedia:Protected page, you said "Astonishingly, people are edit warring on this page...I find this hilarious and appalling, honestly." Could you clarify what you find appalling? Are you appalled by my actions? — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Um, it doesn't look like the page actually IS protected. I forgot that it was supposed to be protected, and just edited it beofre I remembered. --Calton | Talk 06:42, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of which, you seem to have only protected it against page moves, as near as I can tell. —Cryptic (talk) 06:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment here, Cryptic. El_C 07:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion

Why did you reinstate the protection? This is an active project page, and needs to remain editable. Kim Bruning was blocked for his three-revert rule violation, so the dispute was not ongoing. —Lifeisunfair 15:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A candid note

Your defense of yourself to the arbcom right now seems to amount primarily to rules-lawyering. Denying the validity of the previous attempt at dispute resolution because of a quibble over one word isn't going to prove effective. I am not speaking, here, from a perspective of the rules. I am saying, simply put, that the arbcom isn't going to buy that. It's not going to fly. If you want to avoid sanction, you'll need to come up with a better rationale than that. Snowspinner 02:51, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Sanctioning a Wikipedia contributor because of other's lies. Are we getting paid to contribute here? --AI 03:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm remaining neutral on whether you did or didn't do things. I'm saying that a detailed evidence page that shows your positive contributions and justifies them as NPOV and appropriately sourced additions will help you, and that rules-lawyering won't. There's no ethical point being made here - perhaps the system is flawed, perhaps it's not. But it is what it is. Snowspinner 03:13, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice, I will listen to you as you are more fair than a few other who I decided to ignore after a few exchanges. --AI 03:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the mediation cabal! lol. It makes more sense in context. It was created at a time when the official mediation committee was wholly inactive. Its name is a joke, because a lot of the time people accuse admins of being part of a "cabal" that works together and decides the fate of users contrary to the rules. A common, if flip, response to that is "TINC," short for "There Is No Cabal." So when an unofficial mediation page was created, Kim Bruning, its creator, thought calling it the Mediation Cabal and redirecting "TINMC" (There Is No Mediation Cabal) to it would be amusing. In practice, though, it's just some users who are willing to step in when there's a dispute and try to resolve it to everybody's satisfaction - nothing shadowy or sinister. I promise. Snowspinner 14:59, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Heh. I have to admit I did not really read the page because I did not want to take the time from other things I am doing. I should have read it fully. That was my misunderstanding, I looked at it and thought, THIS IS WIKIPEDIA??!!! THIS IS SNOWSPINNER??!!! Thank you for your time to explain and your patience with me. --AI 20:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category creation

I may be missing something, but it seems like you created a bunch of categories with nothing in them. Is that the case? If so, they should probably be removed, and you probably shouldn't do that - the category scheme usually grows from the articles, and it's not certain that the first person to add something to a category about, say, Turkish artists will pick the same category name as yours, rending the category unhelpful. Or I may just not be understanding what you did, in which case I apologize for bothering you. Snowspinner 18:51, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Actually those categories are a result of the fooian. Examine the edit and take a look at how the fooian works. If you disagree with the Categories related to the fooian, then you should take that up with the creator(s) involved in related talk pages. No apology necessary, you are not bothering me. If I am incorrectly understanding your point, then give me a link to the exact instance(s) you are referring to. Aloha. --AI 19:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for sending that message to your user page. --AI 19:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fooian?

I'm not sure what the fooian is... Snowspinner 19:06, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

It's some kind of template that someone has created and it is being used all over people categories. I started copying it because I think it is a good idea. I could not find the source of it either because I wanted to work on it further. Here is one of the fooians.

If you can find out who is creating this it would be much appreciate because I could not find the source. --AI 19:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. OK. That's handy then. That said, the fooian should probably not be run over a set of categories until the categories have content. Snowspinner 19:27, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

I was only adding the foo to existing "[nationality] artists" (ie.U.S. Arists), in a few cases, "[nationality] people by occupation" showed up in red, so I just created the category so that the foo would be totally functional. In those cases, the "[nationality] people by occupation" had 1 sub category only: "[nationality] artists". That may explain why it seemed I was creating empty categories. --AI 19:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Makes sense. Got it. :) Snowspinner 19:43, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

LOL :) Btw, how can I find out more about these foos? I want to help with the process of creating/modifying these foos. There is another foo for "[Occupation] by nationality" but it seems it is only for Scientists.

I would like to create foos for all the other occupations and start putting them into the categories. I have no idea what "FOO" stands for anyway. Aloha. --AI 20:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They're all in the template namespace - look at Template:fooian for instance. Snowspinner 20:13, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

? (Category or Template:Redlink) Hey Snowspinner, sorry for bothering you so much, but I really have been wanting to help with this for a month or so. Thank you. --AI 20:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. The template you've been using is located at Template:Fooian fooers. You can look at it there for a better idea of how it works. Templates that accept arguments aren't my specialty particularly, and so I'm probably not the goto guy for more advice than that. Snowspinner 20:24, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much, you just gave me what I was looking for. I wont bother you any further on this. The contributors at that template will have to deal with me :) --AI 20:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! For some reason the example above is listing both of your talk pages in Category:Artists by nationality and Category:American people by occupation. Not the other art categories in the example, though. Weird, eh? I didn't check the psych categories. >>sparkit|TALK<< 06:35, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

He's right, sorry for this, Snowspinner. I would correct it for you, but since editing comments is so "controversial" I'll let you do it. Just remove from your talk page the ones that don't have the nowiki tags around it. --AI 06:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't feed the troll...

...let me do it.

For the sake of avoiding any appearance of a conflict of interest, it would probably be wise not to block users for personal attacks that target you directly. That type of thing leads to the usual chorus of accusations about an admin cabal and a flood of whinging on WP:AN/I. (Incidentally, I can't speak for the first block of Paul. I'm sure he richly deserved it, but I can't be bothered to figure out exactly who he was attacking.)

Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:48, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whoop, never mind. I forgot about the personal attack parole. It was a clear cut case, so block away. /me goes back to minding my own business. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:49, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LaLa'a block

Snowspinner, thank you for blocking User:LaLa, he has been a real pain in my side. But perhaps you would reconsider the indefinite duration, which seems to me a bit too harsh.. I suspect that LaLa is ultimately well intentioned, he just doesn't yet understand how things work around here. Perhaps you would consider changing the block to 24 hours to see if the message has gotten through? Cheers, Fawcett5 20:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Per Fawcett5's comments–he seems to be our local expert on LaLa–I've lifted the indefinite block of this user. I've left the autoblock that he triggered, however, so you can review my decision before he's actually free to edit again. He has made a number of good contributions beyond the copyvios; I think we're all hoping that he can reform. I seem to be showing up on your Talk page a lot lately...it's not my intent to step on your toes. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glad we're on the same page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Motion

Please take note of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2/Workshop#Motion_to_join_Huaiwei Fred Bauder 14:36, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Everyking

You moderate your actions, and I'll be happy to moderate my words. You make a controversial block every other day. Do you truly not see a problem with that? Everyking 18:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Harry Potter article seems to have a consensus to keep: the keep votes seem to far outnumber the delete votes. Therefore I'm undeleting. Everyking 06:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, someone else deleted it again (Angela), so I put it up on VfU. Everyking 08:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I call him Harry Pothead, and I demand that both of you do, too! El_C 20:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Monarchy

Please take a look at Talk:Commonwealth Realm Homey 14:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are ignoring a VFD landslide due to personal opinion.

What's your problem? It's obviously a vanity page, and a majority of people think so. You have no right to simply claim you will ignore the vfd. -GregNorc (talk) 22:12, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Well I left a message on Jimbo's talk page, we'll see if you're overruled. -GregNorc (talk)

I agree. If you're dedicated enough to wikipedia to have become an admin, why would you overrule a democractic vote just because you don't like the outcome? That strikes me as a clear abuse of powers. Tlogmer 06:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that a. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and b. consensus means something closer to supermajority (meaning 70-to-80%, the current tally is ~15 keep ~30 delete). Snowspinner can, in fact, be overuled by other admins, I think he's trying to advance an issue that's troubling him wrrttt hostile enviornment exhibited by this VfD, toward it creator. I think his comments were ill-phrased and somewhat misdirected (I certainly urge him for greater moderation), but nonetheless not completely devoid of merit as seems to be suggested above and elsewhere. El_C 06:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Racialism

You did a very balanced piece of work on this article once before. It is now in trouble again, and I'd apreciate if you commented. In my opinion one version of the article describes racism, and is thus redundant. Regardless of your assessment, I would appreciate your involvement. Thank you, ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 02:50, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would also very much welcome your opinion on this, as I do in general. Looking at your last edit to the article, I feel that my version is a balanced expansion of it; building especially on British, South African (and Rhodesian/Zimbabwean, Zambian, etc.) usages, especially with regards to policy dimensions/connotations. I, of course, dispute as simplistic the charge that it merely reiterates racism. I am hopeful you will find the time to join myself, Jayjg, SlimVirgin, and Sam Spade on the article's talk page. Yours, El_C 04:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The point is there is no need for such expansion on racialism, those topics are already covered on racism, or can be included on some other article, not uet designated. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 04:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Myself, Jayjg, and SlimVrigin (as well as other respected editors in the past) did not seem to view it in this way that Sam Spade does/has. The wiki is dynamic, and I do sincerely hope that eventually, a professional philologist would arrive on the scene and decisively improve the article. But regardless, let's refrain from discussing this on Snowspinner's page (which goes for me, too). El_C 04:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth Realm

Could you please take a look at Talk:Commonwealth Realm? We're close to an agreeement, the sticking point is the use of the term "British Crown" which I argue is both 1) a correct term and b) needed at least initially for NPOV purposes. Homey 15:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus Farivar

I am glad someone, you and others, is trying to stop these 5 minute old accounts from deleting an article about a person who appears to be a known and valid reporter. Please let me know if I can be of any help or if other articles are trying to be unjustiably deleted. --ShaunMacPherson 18:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking

I agree with your block on that Ed Poor fellow. You should have increased power, as illustrated below:

File:Blocktabs.png

Ask me, and I can help you install the Javascript into your monobook.js file so you can get the extra "did blocks" and "blocked by" tabs. Uncle Ed 19:16, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - Full Plot Summary

Dude, on Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - Full Plot Summary I count 53 keeps to 22 deletes (only "Votes made logged in" section). That excludes any explicit merges or transwiki, but that's nowhere near a consensus to delete... What's up? Cburnett 22:15, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

An interesting question, raised by cburnett. I have not counted the votes myself, but was he right? My own question was how a debate which relied very heavily on the argument that a long plot description was in fact a copyright violation, could result in the whole thing being transferred to another wiki. If it is a violation here, then it is a violation there, and still a problem for the wiki organisation. Conversly, if you think this argument was invalid and it was not a copyright violation (as implied by a decision to transfer), then surely you must have discounted all votes to delete based upon that argument? Sandpiper 14:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your supportive words. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greenlighting

Hi. I noticed your restored Greenlighting. I'm not sure if you were aware, but it went through the VfD process and the decision was to delete. If you feel the circumstances regaurding the deletion have changed (like it has become notable), shouldn't it go through VfU before being undeleted, as per the undeletion policy? Feel free to respond here or on my talk page. Thanks. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 13:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:1000 distinction

Did you know you have the unique honor of being listed on WP:1000 as #1000 on the list (that now extend to 1293 in the article space) with 1978 article edits as of July 24? What a deal! Congratulations. --Blainster 14:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tkorrovi thinks I should be blocked

See this. Paul Beardsell 01:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Placing users in danger

Snowspinner, FYI Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Placing_users_in_danger SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:28, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Human Rights Servey on Wikipedia (The final post of I_sterbinski)

Dear all,

Wikipedia was recently a subject of intensive research of an huge international human right organization. A team of people from different nationalities and ages were acting on Wikipedia for 20 days, investigating previously noted anomalities of Wikipedia free editing and forming a final report, which (between the others similar reports) will later be a guide to all future moves of the organization concerning Wikipedia. Acting under an account of a real person, their privacy is to be held private. Therefore, very few private information will be revealed.

Also, this is a result of the lack of final possition of the organization concerning Wikipedia and human rights, which was still not formed.

The team's final post on Wikipedia, where they explain their actions can be found on the following addresses:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:I_sterbinski

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonia#Human_Rights_Servey_on_Wikipedia_.28The_final_post_of_I_sterbinski.29

The team would like to thank to all the persons who took part in the correspondence with us.

We also want to appologise for keeping our identity secret for a longer period.

Best regards,

Aleksandar, Biljana, Asparuh, Christos, Valjon, Michael and Ana Luiza

I sterbinski 01:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IRC

Linuxbeak referred me to you when I asked about the process for becoming an op, etc. on IRC. If you get a chance, I'd like more information about it. Andre (talk) 17:58, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

I realize you're busy and haven't had time to respond to this. Could you tell me who else I should contact? Andre (talk) 19:14, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Care to intrude?

[1]

User:SchmuckyTheCat 135.214.154.104 22:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Informal mediation needed: Queen's Privy Council for Canada

Can you please take a look at the argument regarding Ted McWhinney's ideas at Talk:Queen's Privy Council for Canada. User:Gbambino and User:Peter Grey's hair-splitting arguments are trying my patience and it would be helpful to have an outside party come in and look around. Since McWhinney's theory regarding not proclaiming a successor to QEIII was the subject of a Canadian Press/Canwest article earlier this year it merits mention and as the QPCC is the body that proclaims the monarch I think it merits mention there. Thanks. Homey 15:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FYI... I think Mr. Treason is back, but is generally behaving better....

I just put a NPOV tag on the Essex County, New Jersey page, due to a rambling edit about 'current problems'. I realized that it may be the work of Mr. Treason, since it references "West Essex" numerous times, which is a favorite subject of his. He's editing other pages too. For instance West Orange, New Jersey now has a phone directory, which I am sure could be his work, tho I haven't looked into it yet.

Anyway, FYI....

Roodog2k (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreement over edits

Hello Snowspinner.

This is 'WikipediaEditor'; you will recall me as having recently edited the 'Whiteness Studies' page to your disliking.

First, as to my edition of the 'Whiteness Studies' page, I wouldn't have protested your edits, had they been limited to:

1) Slangy abbreviations like 'PoMo' are inappropriate for an encyclopedia article (mea culpa)

2) My having written 'PoMos' obituary (eg. referring to it as 'now largely discredited' - giggle - admittedly over the top).

3) The reference to the Alan Sokal affair was a bit much.

OK, FINE. I fully expected these comments to be toned down a bit (probably would have been by myself when I had time, believe it or not).

What I did object to very strongly is your removal of the two links critical of 'whiteness studies'. It is entirely appropriate, and in this case I would say necessary, to link external sources that provide some insight into the critical views of this 'field' that exist. I also think that the comment 'worst paragraph I have ever seen' is innapropriate for an 'admin'. "Most biased addition I have ever seen" would have been acceptable.

This doesn't mean I retract my suggestion that Whiteness Studies is an obvious outgrowth of PoMo thought (I doubt most Whiteness Studies advocates would even deny this). I am merely conedeing the obvious - that I had expressed the connection inappropriately.

In any event, I think the article is acceptable as is (as per your last edit), provided the critical external links (which I have restored) remain.

Peace?

Process or Content on VfU

I have responded to your comments on Wikipedia talk:Undeletion policy#Process or content with a revised proposal which I think deals with the problem you raise. i was and am honestly trying to deal with what I percieve as a distortion of the existing undeltion policy by taking a phrase from the policy page out opf context to jsutify significant changes in how VfU actually functions. I do not expect my proposal to result in much if any real change in the day to day functioning of VfU. If you think it will, either you have misread it, or I have badly miscast it, or i have seriously misestimated the actual effects. Please take a look through the discussions on Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion#The scope of VfU and WP:VFU#List of gags in Airplane! if you want to understand the origins of this proposal (assuming you havn't already done so). In any case, please take a look at my revised proposal and see if it addresses your concerns adaquetly. Thank you. DES ^(talk) 22:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Apparently my previous edit incorrectly picked up as an edit summery the rather offensive section header from the section above the one I created. I apologize, and i did not and do not endorse the comment of the person who posted that section. DES ^(talk) 23:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VfU comment

You said: If you think moving your trolling from IRC to Wikipedia proper is going to lead to different results, you are sorely mistaken. Care to elaborate on that? I'm just wondering if I should continue to trust my instincts and ignore this guy. android79 19:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

big mistake to unprotect Bogdanov Affair.

almost certainly this will devolve into an edit war because the subject (or object) of the article insists on authoring it and i, for one, will not let him. r b-j 23:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i hope your harpoon is sharpened because there'll be some people to shoot around the Bogdanov Affair. i think the easiest thing to do is protect the article from the very subjects of the article (or protect it from anyone). thanks anyway, and i'm sorry if you got stuck on an ugly "mediation". r b-j 06:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mike

As a heads up, the arbcom has previously established that they do not feel Mike Garcia is within their jurisdiction, as his parole is granted by Jimbo, who's decisions they do not have the power to overturn. Snowspinner 01:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give a link? I agree that the Board and Jimbo can overturn any arbcom decision, but it doesn't necessarily follow that the arbcom can't do anything barring intervention from Jimbo. Still, if that's their decision and they're sticking with it we'll have to see what else should be done. --fvw * 01:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Protection of Bogdanov Affair

Seeing as the main problem the article faces is information removal from anonymous IPs belonging to the subject of the article, I don't think a dispute protection is reasonable. Nor do I think vandalism protection is sensible - it's not as though we can effectively block off a huge IP range, nor as though the arbcom is going to be effective in prying the Bogdanovs off the article. Our best bet is to ruthlessly revert the Bogdanovs on sight, and render their POV vandalism ineffective. Continually allowing the article to be protected does not give them a persuasive reason to stop editing it, since protection means their critics are silenced also. Snowspinner 21:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly heavily invested in that article. I protected it on request from three different editors. If you think that protection will afford no benefit, feel free to unprotect; I won't be bothered one bit. Kelly Martin 05:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Snowspinner, may I know what means "vandalism" for you ? There are 2 versions of the text, now. I have edited one, and YBM has immediatly reverted it for the other. So, is it a "revert war" or vandalism from one of us, and in this last case, who is the vandal ? In short : which are the criteria about vandalism ?

Laurence67 13:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Snowspinner, we now have a real astrophysicist/cosmologist who has identified himself clearly, taken the time to come to WP, and clearly debunk the "physics" that the Bogosities have published. He says that it is not physics. He confirms that the "Bogdanov Affair" is not really controversial in the physics community. They have written off the Bogdanovs long ago. Can you protect the article for a week so that people who have work to do can, in good conscience, put this behind us for a week? We can do incremental changes, say every week, but Igor spends his time with doing PR instead of physics and it is tiring to have to always respond to him. From a scientific POV, this affair is over. The Bogdanovs are frauds, pseudoscientists, crackpots, quacks, (what else?). The physics community does not recognize anything in their work as having merit. r b-j 17:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another opinion on Bogdanov

I agree with you, and appear to disagree with the majority of Wikipedians. I think that article protection should be used only very rarely and for a very short time at a time. The proper way to deal with rogues is by banning them, not by protecting articles indefinitely. I hope that the ArbCom takes the case. In the meantime, I hope that the article is left unprotected. Robert McClenon 01:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom enforcement

I'm sure you recall Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2, which you originated earlier this year. One of the "Enforcements" that the ArbCom decided on was a ban on inserting "material which relates to Lyndon LaRouche into any other article". Recently, user:Herschelkrustofsky repeatedly added material supporting a theory which is apparently unique to LaRouche. (The American System is integral to LaRouche's message). When I asked him on his talk page to provide a non-LaRouche source, he called the request vandalism. See [2], [3], Talk:American System (economics), and User talk:Herschelkrustofsky/threats and insults. I believe that this user is returning to the behavior which led to the two previous arbitrations, and I think that the ban enforcement called for by the ArbCom should be implemented. What are your thoughts? -Willmcw 21:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in related incidents, the same editor pushed the LaRouche POV in this edit [4]. And an IP identified by the ArbCom as belonging to that user made this edit to a LaRouche-related article, [5], that user:Cberlet claimed inserted "unsubstantiated derogatory claims" into the article. So the occurence above is not isolated. -Willmcw 06:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know if you're not interested in enforcing the ArbCom's decision so I can seek other remedies. Thanks, -Willmcw 19:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK, I'll send it over to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. You may comment there if you like. Cheers, -Willmcw 22:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Since I can't communicate with you on AN/I, I'll have to ask you here to explain your block of User:Njyoder. Everyking 03:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop deleting AFD discussions

If you wish to close them as speedy deletions, then close them properly. Also, your deletions of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KDK and others is completely unacceptable. If you wish to contribute to the discussion to disagree with another editor, then do so. Deleting the entire discussion is wholly inappropriate. Uncle G 22:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

I've added a note to WP:AN/I to your AfD comment. Please be aware that my disagreement with you is nothing personal, I just don't think you did the right thing on this one. I hold nothing against you personally. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of AfD discussions, and formal request to give up adminship

Hello, Snowspinner. I think that your actions regarding your deletion of AfD articles is wholly inappropriate and warrants de-sysopping. I would support your regaining sysop priviledges in four or five months, but I do not think that your actions can stand and allow you to remain an administrator. I am taking this opportunity now to give you the chance to renounce your sysop rights for several months before I create a RfC, which I will if you decline this offer. Please note that I hold you no personal disregard, and hope that you regain your adminship after a little break. Yours, --Blackcap | talk 03:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Snowspinner,
I think that you made a mistake, and if you choose to take a break that's up to you. However, I believe that we should expect our admins to display leadership, and that's what you've done. I see nothing that indicates you had anything but the best intentions, and see no reason for you to give up your administrative responsibilities. Man, that was some serious chutzpa!
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 04:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I like how this section title says this is "formal", when it's not.

Remember, Snowspinner: Process is more important than Product! DON'T FOUL THE MACHINERY! - David Gerard 09:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Certifying RfCs

I hold no ill feelings towards you. The situation was resolved, and life moves on. It doesn't mean I won't participate in a process that invites comment from what you did. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 04:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to prosecute you. There are more than enough volunteers for that job. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 04:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And I'd like a well-done steak on Christmas Day in the middle of winter. :p --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 04:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfC

I have created an RfC here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Snowspinner 2. Nothing personal, I just think that this is appropriate. I hope you take this kindly, as I mean it that way. All the best, and take care, --Blackcap | talk 06:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your barnstar

You may find this useful - David Gerard 09:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreement

I consider it necessary according to our agreement that you refrain from mentioning me in discussions if I am also barred from mentioning you, especially if it's in a negative context. Everyking 06:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't criticize Jguk, I didn't even know he was an admin anyway. And I don't ask that you "don't make a habit of it", I ask that you not do it at all, or I'm withdrawing from the agreement. Everyking 22:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will not accept that the agreement restricts me if it does not restrict you. Therefore I'm withdrawing from the agreement, and you can "do what you will with that". Everyking 22:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs

Actually, neither was wholly on the grounds of notability. Luxurious was clairvoyance (the article was on a single that headn't yet been released), and Pucci Petwear was an advertisement; I made that clear in my initial nomination, and was more than a little surprised to see that you'd tried to remove them from the AfD process (especially without even leaving me a note to that effect). The lack of notability was a factor, but only a factor. Note also that the advice at Wikipedia:Deletion policy doesn't cover articles that are non-notable but for which there's no suitable article into which they can be merged (I think that that was clearly the case for "Pucci Petwear"). Wikipedia:Deletion reform/Brainstorming#Remove notable requirement suggests that most people feel that the notability requirement should stand, which means that the only option for non-notable articles that can't be merged is deletion. Vanity is vague, peculiarly defined, and often subjective, and unverifiability is often not a factor (I've little doubt that "Pucci Petwear" exists). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Get a life, Mel. --Anittas 15:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your RfC

Snowspinner, I am getting increasingly frustrated over here. I wanted to talk to you here first before I post anything there, so here I am. Please take the time to listen to me, if you won't do that, then at least I've tried.

I am feeling very ignored by you, which is leading to a great sense of frustration. Despite an RfC, you have not even acnowledged the existence of my opinions or points. When you wrote your response, your sixth word was "deletionist" and you said the RfC was "more sour grapes than content," a statement which I cannot for the life of me understand for the reasons I put forth in my response, which you have still not replied to. Half of your statement was about your opinions on notability, which are more or less irrelevant in this context. In your entire response, not a single sentence addressed the issues I explicitly raised in my summary and in the policies I quoted. When I responded to your response on the talk page, which was yesterday, I recieved no comment from you, and still have not. Despite all of my statements saying how I did not bring this up about deletionism or inclusionism, you still seem to believe that it is.

You lost my trust when you deleted those AfDs. You are now rapidly losing my respect. This RfC is giving you a chance to regain some of that, and it seems to me that you are turning that down. Please don't. If you don't care about whether I respect you or not, then at least care about yourself enough to reply to objections.

If you disagree with what I say here, please say so. If I am wrong about your thoughts, please say so. I would appreciate that. I could easily be wrong, as I currently am guessing your opinions because you haven't responded to the objections in the RfC.

Thanks for listening. Yours, --Blackcap | talk 17:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your puctual response. Please look at what I said: I asked you to give up your adminship voluntarily. That's not a demand, there was no demand in it. Regardless, would you please answer my objections about you rather than just ignoring the whole thing? It's not very civil or polite to, when someone disgrees with you, simply ignore them and go about your business. --Blackcap | talk 17:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Snowspinner, I'm going to just let the matter drop. I don't see the RfC going anywhere, and I think that whatever point or help that was going to come out of it already has. I'm here because I'd like to take the time to apologize for whatever actions I've taken that have made you take this seemingly so personally. It was never my intention to have this be a personal thing, and I though I had made that clear by saying so and by being as polite as I could (although I admittedly lost my temper at AN/I). I disagreed with your actions, and thought that a temporary removal of your sysop rights was warranted. I was wrong. You can count on that not happening again.

I believe that the right thing for me to do was to file an RfC. Again, this was not meant to be a personal thing or some court case, but a request for the community to say something. I hope that you understand that my actions were not intended as an attack, and I hope that I never came across as demanding (as you said to me in your reply) because that, too, wasn't my intention. Please understand that I did what I did with good faith and without malice.

I hope there aren't any hard feelings over this, but if there are, I hope that you at least feel comfotable saying so to me. I'll try to understand them and fix the problem.

Thanks for reading. Yours, --Blackcap | talk 20:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Regarding The Bogdanov Affair has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Regarding The Bogdanov Affair/Evidence Fred Bauder 15:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removing AfD notice from Luxurious

I notice that you removed the AfD tag from Luxurious. Is there a reason why I shouldn't put it back? The discussion, as far as I am aware, is still ongoing. Your edit summary suggests that Notability is not a reason for deletion, but surely the fact that the article is speculation (WP:NOT a crystal ball) means that a reader should be at least aware of the discussion. We've had a number of articles at AfD recently that are about "rumoured to be the next" releases lately, and I don't think that there's any good reason to not advertise discussions about whether these are appropriate. Jkelly 01:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else reinstated it. Jkelly 01:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Everyking et al.

Hi Snowspinner! I know we haven't had too much interaction (I know from wikien-l though :)), but it seems as though you're a decent admin :). Would it be OK if we worked out some kind of agreement between you and EK - say maybe no "criticizing" if its so upsetting to you two? How does that sound? I think it would really be in the benefit of the community if we were able to work out a solution outside of the arbitration committee, eh? Be sure to tell me what you think :)? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 08:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snow! As you can see from my talk page Everyking just wants to have the same "rules" as they were for the both of you concerning the criticism/attacks. Is that OK with you? If not what would you like? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again :). Well, and I'm in a hurry at the moment but I do think it would be best if you two both agreed not to get into situations that would lead to a arbcom hearing (such as criticism, I guess). I mean, is there a problem with you agreeing to do the same? I think it would be best this way, rather than dragging it to arbcom each time you mention him, don't you? Maybe if need be we can agree to some sort of way that one of you would be blocked for criticim/etc? It's really over-the-top I know, but its just an idea. Anyway, let me know what you think about this :). Take care! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 22:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you see? This blaming isn't getting us anywhere here! It doesn't matter whether you baited Everyking or Everyking isn't agreeing to whatever - the point is that its obviously not working in its current state so we need to work something out here. Taking this to arbcom like this could result in grave consequences such as banning for the both of you - I fail to see how banning either of you would be a good result. So my point is, lets try to get an agreement going that's good for the both of you - does that sound good? My point before is that you'd like to see Everyking not criticize you and Everyking wants the same agreement - if that isn't OK with you then what would be? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, my point is just to work out something that is OK with the both of you rather than having someone else (arbcom) decide for you :) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neolithic = Wik

User:Neolithic is User:Wik. Could this be brought to the appropriate person's attention? Thank you. JDR

Why? The character of his edits. I did not put in the sockpuppet notice @ his page, and it still is there (someone not Wik would remove that) ... and the user has not answered any question as to if he is or is not (but others have came to the same conclusion as I have). The edits are also of the nature by user:NoPuzzleStranger. JDR 20:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether he is wik or not, but his edits on Iraqi insurgency seem to be reverting vandalism. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 06:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As i told Tony @ the article (especially after he misread the article's history) ... the vadalism (eg., a sentence change that would make it different than the reference) was one occurance, his reverting to a pov verions .... it is the other edits that Neolithic has made. JDR 20:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC) (PS., He still hasn't removed the sockpuppet notice.)[reply]

Thank you so much for supporting me on my RfA

I would like to thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I am most honoured by the trust that you have placed in me, both through adminship and through making me an IRC chanop. I promise to only use my administrative privileges to assist the community in doing good work, and also to be calm, considerate and careful in working to make Wikipedia a better place. I am also most grateful to you for your assistance in the Bogdanov Affair saga - which burned out a record number of Wikipedians, although it appears to be more or less contained these days. I look forward to working with you on Wikipedia in the future. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 04:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom elections

I see you're running, and I notice we're the same age - neato! Now I don't feel so old anymore! Anyway, my edit summary on your statement page was meant to be a bit silly and all :). Anyway, good luck in the elections :)! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 22:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May I take you up on your offer to reveal to me (or anyone else who asks) what your sockpuppet is? Either email or talk page will do. As I'm sure you'll understand, the only real thing we have to go on is candidate's editing history, and knowing how you edit when you're not "Snowspinner" will no doubt offer some light on that. Thanks, jguk 22:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]