User:Grue/archive4

''These discussions are archived. Do not reply here. Use User talk:Grue instead.''

Your vote on the RFR poll
Hi, Grue, you voted oppose on the requests for rollback privileges consensus poll, suggesting that people who would like rollback should just become admins instead - that being an admin is "no big deal". While I think that in an "ideal" Wikipedia, this would indeed be the case, I believe that over time standards for becoming an administrator have clearly risen. This is apparent by looking at the RFA system throughout Wikipedia's existence - intially, all one had to do to become an admin was just ask nicely, now we have a complicated procedure. A recent proposal on the RFA talk page for requiring at least 30 minimum support votes and a significant number of existing contributions was given some serious consideration. There is frequent talk of "bad admins slipping through the RFA net", and while you may not agree with that philosophy of adminship it is undeniable that the standards have risen.

Because of this, candidates who pass are already very experienced with Wikipedia. While this in itself is no bad thing, it means that for the month or so before they become admins they are not being given the tools an admin has which would help them to improve Wikipedia, by removing vandalism and performing administrative tasks such as moving pages. The qualities which make a good administrator are not determined by length of stay on Wikipedia or number of friends you have, but by personality and character. Time at Wikipedia only gives familiarity with the way things are done here. However, being at Wikipedia for an extra month doesn't grant any special insight into the ability to determine which edits are vandalism and which are not. This is why I believe that we should hand out rollback to contributors who are clearly here to improve Wikipedia but won't pass the RFA procedure because of their percieved lack of familiarity with policy by some Wikipedians. I think that adminship should be no big deal, like you, however I see just two ways to make sure Wikipedians can quickly and efficiently remove vandalism - either by all those who believe adminship should be no big deal involving themselves much more in RFA, or by supporting this proposal and giving out rollback to good contributors who have not yet been here long enough to become admins. We have to remember that our ultimate aim here is to produce an encyclopedia, and we should balance the idealism of "adminship should be no big deal" with the pragmatism of granting rollback to our best non-admin contributors. I would be very grateful if you would reconsider your viewpoint on this issue. Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 13:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

My RFA
Hi, thanks for participating in my RfA discussion. Unfortunately, my fellow Wikipedians have decided at this time that I am not suitable to take on this additional responsibility, as the RfA failed with a result of 66/27/5 (71.0% support). If you voted in support of my request, thank you! If you decided to oppose me at this time, then I hope that if I do choose to reapply in the future, the effort I will make in the meantime to improve and expand my contributions to Wikipedia may persuade you to reconsider your position. All the best, Proto t c 10:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

thebroken
I am writing because you voted to keep the article on thebroken. The result of that AfD was keep and everybody was happy. Then some people with much higher edit counts than me came in and blanked it, replacing it with a redirect to Kevin Rose. I don't think what they're doing is justified at all, I wanted to let you know because I think blanking an entire page and replacing it with a redirect should not be done without some discussion at the very least. Also I don't really like deletionists and their chants of "non-notable". --TexasDex 07:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

My RFA
Hey, Grue, I wanted to thank you for your support of my (unfortunately unsuccessful) request for adminship. The final tally was 37/16/5, which fell short of the needed 75-80% for "consensus". I have a good deal of respect for you, and seeing you say "this guy makes sense!" was pretty cool. I don't know if or when I'll go up for nomination again, but even if I don't, I will try not to betray the trust that you and 36 others were willing to place in me. Thanks for having faith in me... and happy editing! Matt Yeager ♫ ( Talk? ) 00:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review#List of interesting or unusual_place_names
Further to your views on the undeletion, you may be interested that the page was relisted on Articles for deletion/List of interesting or unusual place names (2nd nomination). Regards--A Y  Arktos 07:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Russian admin
If my memory serves me right, you are the only Russian admin living in Russia. I might be wrong, though.&mdash;Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 19:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Jick
Thanks for catching that. I was totally confused with Articles_for_deletion/Zach_Johnson which I remember seeing a lot more recently than a year! I stumbled upon Jick from another article and thought someone had reposted it, and when I looked at the history didn't even notice the difference in the years. Anywho, good eye! &mdash;akghetto talk 06:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Wheel warring
What are you doing?? You undeleted Template:User freedom without any prior discussion. Did you not see Jimbo's message about wheel warring? --MarkSweep (call me collect) 10:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * good for you grue! Finally, an admin with some sense. Being a libertarian and all, you may wish to look at my manifesto. The Ungovernable Force 10:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Seriously, have the decency to undo your revert and discuss it first on the admin board. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 11:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No "prior discussion", eh? User freedom's entry on Deletion review/Userbox debates is going to a clear consensus - your speedy deletion was not justified. And to Grue: Good work and thank you! [[Image:WikiThanks.png]] Misza13 (Talk) 11:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Given that the box in question clearly expresses a sentiment contrary to established policy, the wishes of Jimbo, and sheer common sense, I'd ask that you reverse yourself. Best, Mackensen (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * sheer common sense, now that's a stretch considering how many people support that userbox. And established policy can and should change. The Ungovernable Force 05:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The only people here who act contrary to estabilished policy are those that delete userboxes without consensus.  Grue   17:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy deletion does not and never has required consensus. This is a red herring. Please see my comment below. Mackensen (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Little Dictator
I have only been here a short while, but I noticed that a few admins are seriously deluded by their own perceived power. MarkSweep has a major control freak problem. Dude, I sympathize with you and the other victims of this guys deletions and constant bullying of Wiki users and fellow admins! MarkSweep must be related to the originator of Wikipedia, or the dudes in charge feel sorry for the poor guy. Good luck in your endeavors, and may your edits and additions be five minutes old before MarkSweep discovers them!

ArroyoSeco Viva Mexico!

saying "You are not entitled to anything" and "Wikipedia is not a democracy." [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-July/025871.html This dates from even before my time here. Essential reading.] And this. AND THIS, DATING FROM JULY 6! shows that group conspiracies for unequal numbers over 3RR powers is already an old issue  "Don't bother reporting abusive admins"  also July 6
 * From a past fellow victim of this corruption. Look at all these: a voice from within Wikipedia's own system describes how the ArbCom and dispute resolution systems are rigged with discretionary catch-alls that always enable admin to win This earlier user, writing on June 1, read it,, on how force of group numbers dictates Wikipedia pages's content http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-July/025936.html this is actually called "don't bother reporting abusive admins"

Response
I think you misunderstand the situation. I'll quote from CSD T1: "Templates that are polemical or inflammatory."

I would think it obvious that I don't disagree with the article space being NPOV, and I'm frankly concerned that you'd even suggest otherwise. My disagreement concerns this bizarre assertion that the category and user namespace should contain POV templates. That's contrary to the spirit of the place and obviously encouraging the creation of templates contrary to a speedy deletion guideline that has Jimbo's full support. If that's not divisive and inflammatory then I fear nothing is. Please consider this. Best, Mackensen (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think T1 is fairly clear, but we can agree to disagree there. Regarding the community, those users who have voted to keep these boxes have also indicated that they do not accept the validity of speedy deletion in the first place, nor the authority of Jimbo. I find it difficult to accept the idea that these people are part of the Wikipedia community. Mackensen (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Restoring items
Hi. Re the 'freedom' template. Please do not restore something deleted by another admin without attempting discussion with them first. Most of the time, a resonable compromise can be reached - and the admin may have had a reason for his/her actions you aren't aware of. Discussion helps to avoid to wheel wars. In the recent pedo userbox case, which resulted in desysoppings, Arbcom defined wheel waring as 8.2) Wikipedia:Wheel warring (undoing an administrative action by another administrator) without first attempting to resolve the issue is unacceptable; see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes#Avoidance, "Do not simply revert changes in a dispute.". Yes, that came as a surprise to me too, but I thought you might like to know about it. Thanks. --Doc ask?  18:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Please do not attempt threats if you don't like them yourself. user freedom issue has already been resolved on DRV and you know that very well. Put it on TfD if you don't like it, though it has already survived one, IIRC. Misza13 (Talk) 18:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I was not aware of this ArbCom ruling, thank you for reminding. I saw my user page vandalised, so I reverted the change immediately. This was not an atempt to wheelwar.  Grue   19:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Russia
Hello, I didn't know that you live in Russia. Unfortunately, we don't see your that often on Portal:Russia/Russia-related Wikipedia notice board and Portal:Russia/New article announcements, where the Russian community gets together. Please be more active in Portal:Russia and check the notice-boards more often. Happy edits, Ghirla | talk 15:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Universism DRV
Hi, Grue, you voted to undelete the Universism article last year. The outcome of that VFD shelved the article until March 2006. However, the issue has come up again just shy of that date, the article is again undergoing a DRV. Since last year, Universism has been featured in many media outlets, including the LA Times and CNN's Anderson Cooper 360. Would you please vote again in favor of undeleting the article? --Mindbender 20:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
With apologies for the impersonal AWB-ness of the message... Thanks for your support on my recent request for adminship. It passed at 91/1/0, and I hope I can continue to deserve the community's trust. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help you, and if I make a mistake be sure to tell me. My talk page is always open. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your voting!
Hi, thanks for your voting on my RFA. It has finished with the result 88/14/9, and I am promoted. I am really overwhelmed with the amount of support I have got. With some of you we have edited many articles as a team, with some I had bitter arguments in the past, some of you I consider to be living legends of Wikipedia and some nicks I in my ignorance never heard before. I love you all and I am really grateful to you.

If you feel I can help you or Wikipedia as a human, as an editor or with my newly acquired cleaning tools, then just ask and I will be happy to assist. If you will feel that I do not live up to your expectation and renegade on my promises, please contact me. Maybe it was not a malice but just ignorance or a short temper. Thank you very mach, once more! abakharev 07:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Baba Yetu
Hi! I see you deleted the Baba Yetu article per Articles_for_deletion/Baba_yetu. I checked WP:DEL which reads: ''At the end of the discussion, if a rough consensus has been reached to delete the page, the page will be removed. Otherwise the page remains.'' I'm wondering if 3 delete vs 6 keep votes can be regarded as a consensus to delete the page. As for being "non-notable" - indeed, it's not as popular as many other songs, however I don't see why that could be a reason for deletion. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia (WP:NOT), I think we could afford a couple of bytes for a not very popular but a very good song. Deleting that page was a loss of information imho. I'd like like to see that article undeleted if it's possible, or another discussion opened about its deletion. Thanks! --Zoz 19:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC) I'm not absolutely sure if I should post this right here, please move this comment to a more appropriate place if this shouldn't be here. Thanks --Zoz 19:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

From User:Ztsmart
Ohh, free speech zone. That's nice. You deleted my additions to the ADOM page. Why? Also, how do I add things to my profile like you have? How can I message someone, and designate my page as a free speech zone.

Thanks!

-Z

Why is my templet different than yours?

Ztsmart 16:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

MSK
Hi Grue! FYI, you did not unblock MSK because you added a "User:" in front of her name. There is also an autoblocker. Usually the best way to unblock is to go to Special:Ipblocklist and use the unblock button there. I have not unblocked her, her editting behaviour is too strange for me to want to do that, but if you want to do so you should know. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah well, what the heck, since you're not logged in just now, I'll unblock. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support
r ƒa · ɐƒɹ Thank you for supporting me in my request for adminship! It ended with a tally of 39/5/4, and I am now an admin. I'm glad to have earned the trust of the community, and I will make use of it responsibly. Of course, you can let me know of any comments or concerns you have.

With a million articles in front of me, I'd better get mopping.

 r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  05:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC) 

debate-closing
You recently archived debate on about 30 or so debates, but you failed to render judgements, or re-instate userboxes per debate results. There is a policy poll going on, but until the conclusion of that poll (which seems to be becoming inconclusive), all these userboxes are in limbo. The one I care about is User Catholic Evangelical, but they all need looking at. Thanks for your consideration. I would do it myself, but I do not have such powers.   GUÐSÞEGN  – UTEX – 17:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * copying my response to your response from my user talk page:
 * You gotta be kidding. I didn't know about that TFD. It should never have been started because of the pending DRV that you just closed. How many votes must this userbox suffer? Perhaps before that vote ends Improv could speedy delete it again, and then that TFD could be nullified in favor of a new DRV. This is madness.   GUÐSÞEGN  – UTEX – 20:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Grue
I'm sorry, I'm sure you get this a lot:

My RfA
Thank you for your support in my request for adminship. I'm delighted that the RfA succeeded with a final consensus of 52/17/7, and receiving comments including having 'excellent potential to become a great moderator', and I am now an administrator. It did however only just pass, and I shall do my very best to rectify any of my errors, including the general belief that I should do more article work. If you have any concerns, or if you ever feel that I may be able to help you, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Again, thank you! Ian13/talk 19:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

AfD/Niggerball
Grue, Please don't add the "Niggerball" discussion on the March 7th AfD page. It is already listed on February 28th and the issue has since been settled. AfDs are listed on the day they are created, and it does not belong on the March 7th page. Thank you. Grandmasterka 19:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Here's a userbox for you. --Cyde Weys 04:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
I'm leaving this macrophage, a particularly hungry white blood cell on your talk page, I just finished a rewrite of its article and realized they're not so different from administrators, as they keep their surroundings clean, doing away with anything that's not supposed to be there... Anyway, with that short lecture on cell biology done with, I'd like to thank you for your vote on my RfA, which passed with (49/2/0), I'll do my best to not let you down, and if you see me heading towards a common newbie mistake, please nudge me in the right direction :) -- O bli (Talk) ? 20:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

My RFA
Nacon kantari  e |t||c|m 23:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:WF talk unblanking
I noticed your "unblanking" of the WP:WF talk page. I assume E.v.d.P. blanked this page on purpose. I think it would be a good idea to copy-paste discussion which is only related to a particular round to the talk page of that round, and to leave here (i.e. Talk:Wikifun) only discussion related to the current round and to WP:WF in general (of interest for future rounds). &mdash; MFH:Talk 21:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * maybe you're right with the WP crash theory, I also had problems, but (I hope) clicking "reload" worked some time later correctly also for editing sections...&mdash; MFH:Talk 22:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

My RFA
Thank you for supporting my RFA. I appreciated the show of support and all the kind words. If there's ever anything I can do to help with my new administrator status, please don't hesitate to contact me. --Myles Long 14:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Response to Requests for adminship/Samuel Blanning
I've never heard of anyone else with the surname 'Blanning' other than my family. Which Sam Blanning do you know? --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 15:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA


Thank you for your support in my RfA.

Sadly, my RfA failed (on my birthday out of all days!), mainly due to it's closeness to the previous one. I hope that in any future RfAs I'll have your support!

Nonetheless, if I can do anything for you don't hesitate to ask me.

Have a nice St Patrick's Day! Computerjoe 's talk 21:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

My RFA Withdrawal :(
Hello Grue, it is my apologies to bring you that I've withdrawn my RFA. Due to the lack of experience, I would go under admin coaching first before trying again later. I would thank you for your vote in this RFA whether you voted support, oppose or neutral for me. I appreciate your comments (if you do have) you made and I hope to see you here in future. --Ter e nce Ong 15:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Damaging edit
This edit did a lot of damage. I don't know if you were reverting to a previous version, or what, but please be more careful in the future. Raul654 09:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:User review
Grue, whatever the previous discussions, there is a clear majority supporting the deletion of this userbox, and an ongoing discussion at DRV. Your unilateral action, revertign another admin without discusion, is not going to help. Especially when you blanked the discussion into the bargain. What was that, an attempt to terminate a discusion that was going against you? Please redelete this userbox, pending an outcome to the deletion review. --Doc ask?  17:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Grue, you seem to be admitting on the one hand that DRV is the correct place for the discussion on whether Kelly Martin's deletion was correct. But on the other hand you tell Doc that it wasn't and that he, Doc knows this.  Where's your good faith?  Where's your respect for an ongoing discussion?  I'm not so much concerned that you have undeleted, but your attempt to close prematurely a debate that seemed to be going against you, well that does worry me a lot.  --Tony Sidaway 18:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't where my good faith has gone... Maybe it has something to do with some people unilaterally deleting things they don't like.  Grue   18:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

48 hour block, Deletion Review editing
Dear Grue: I really hate having to do this, because you're a very productive and valuable member of your community. However, your blanking of a DRV discussion here, your edit summaries containing things such as "you lose", "that's just laughable", "I'm doing the right thing here", etc. and your persistently abrasive discussion style at the userbox debates deletion review page are really not examples of acceptable behaviour. Especially, I might add, this is unacceptable from a Wikipedia administrator, whose duty is to keep Wikipedia's community processes running smoothly and in a manner conducive towards collaborative editing. I'm giving you a 48hr block to give you a chance to cool down, because your debating temperature is getting far too high - I'm of the opinion that an enforced break from the debate will give you the time to consider and think exactly how important the issue you're debating is, and whether it's worth such levels of incivility in doing so. If you want to discuss this with me, feel free to e-mail me at nicholas (dot) turnbull (at) gmail (dot) com, catch me on IRC at #wikipedia, use carrier pidgeon, whatever. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Please block User:MarkSweep too, because he just deleted Template:User review again. If you think such disruptive actions are acceptable and my actions were not then I just don't understand anything.  Grue   22:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't been following the activities of MarkSweep, admittedly. However looking at his contributions I don't see evidence of the same behaviour you displayed. Perhaps you might be so good as to explain to me why MarkSweep's deletion of User review is erroneous? If it is, I'll deal with it as necessary. I would note that the behaviour of others doesn't excuse you from following basic standards of Wikipedia behaviour. Regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * He deleted Template:User review because it was "undeleted out of process", ignoring the fact that it was deleted out of process in the first place. He reverted my administrative action (wheel-warring), deleted a useful template (disruption). Note that in undeleting the template in question I was following process to the letter. The only thing I forgot is to archive the discussion. Guess what? I'm blocked for carefully following WP:IAR, WP:BOLD and Undeletion policy. As for my levels of incivility, I don't think they're comparable to disruptive behavior and complete disregard to Wikipedia rules that the other side of the debate demonstrated. Yes, including this block. Do you know what 48hr blocks are for? I've been admin for 1.5 years and I pretty much know what I'm doing. I'm not sure if you are. I recommend you to read Blocking policy and reconsider your decision.  Grue   07:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Grue, I have lifted the block. At best, a 48 hour block for that without any warnings was excessive. Sigh... Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I've reinstated the block to its original duration. Sjakkalle reverted the block without even so much as notifying the blocking admin, let alone discussing it with him.  The Arbitration Committee has suggested, if not actually required, discussion before reverting administrative action; Sjakkalle's choice to revert without discussion was inappropriate.  Kelly Martin (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Here cometh the neutral party. I hope this is an April Fools joke, but sadly it probably isn't. There is a discussion on AN/I and pretty much everyone agreed that the duration of the block was off-limits.  Grue   20:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If the fact that Sjakkale didn't discuss it with Nicholas was your concern, Kelly, I hope you won't mind me lifting the block, since I did ask Nicholas on his talk page to consider lifting it. He hasn't responded so if it's a question of 'discussion' the ball is in his court. Consensus on AN/I seems to be behind Sjakkale and me that 48 hours is too long. (Copied to Kelly's talk page, Nicholas' talk page and AN/I so all bases are covered. Please take this to AN/I rather than forking it.) --Sam Blanning (SQUIDWARD!!!)(talk) 20:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Grue: Based on your assurance via IRC not to be involved in the mud-fight at Deletion review/Userbox debates in future, I've lifted the block that I placed on you. I'm glad that you're willing to step back from the debate; I look forward to working with you in the future, and I thank you for your cooperation. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Europe
In fact, there is a naming dispute over the name of that country. there is Macedonia and Republic of Macedonia. till the problem is solved by the diplomats, we have to make a distinction about what we refer to. i changed it according to an edit that a user coming from that country had made. --Hectorian 14:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Hi. I am sorry to bother you but I wondered if you might be prepared to take another look at my RfA nomination. The main reason that I ask this is because there has previously been some confusion as to my talk count and I also wonder if there might have been some confusion regarding the duration of my contributions. I would also like to comment on some of the concerns raised by others, which I have discussed on the nomination page, but which you may not be aware of.

Firstly with regard to my talk contributions and the duration of my contributions. I just wanted to clarify that I do have substantial numbers of contributions in the user talk namespace although significantly less in the main article and wikipedia talk namespace, so I do have a good history of interactions with other users but primarily on their user page (furthermore I have a good track record of warning vandals - something is often lacking for many vandal fighters both admin and non-admin). Regarding the duration of my contributions, I just wanted to clarify that I have now been contributing for 15 months in total and, although I have had a few "lean" months when my focus have been outside of Wikipedia, I had almost 2000 contributions before February and there have been 9 months when I have made 100+ contributions.

WIth regards to the concerns raised by other, which aren't covered by the above, they seem to relate primarily to my lack of contributions to the article talk and wikipedia talk namespaces and what this says about my community involvement and exposure to process. Firstly I would like to say that I don't think my contributions in this area are particularly low when compared to other current nominees and recently created admins who are/were heavily supported (I have provided some details on this in the comments section of the nomination) - as I said in the comments section this is not to say "they are supported so why aren't I", rather it is just to provide a benchmark to compare how common my contribution pattern is. Secondly I would like to point out that I do not typically revert vandalism in these namespaces which I believe play a significant part in the number of these contributions for vandal-fighter editors (especially in the article talk namespace). Finally I would just like to reiterate my personal opinion that, regarding edits to Wikipedia talk, contributing and understanding are different things (i.e. I do understand the policys and guidelines even though I have not actively contributed to them). With regard to my community involvement, I do have a fair number of edits to the mian Wikipedia namespace and also the user talk namespace as previously mentioned.

I understand that contacting you in this way may well be considered "campaigning" but I want to assure you that I am driven by good practical intentions rather than ego. As you will be aware, I am primarily a vandal fighter and I feel that the admin tools will allow me to far better serve the community in this area. Specifically I come across a lot of situations were there are very few editors on RC patrol and a lot of vandalism is being missed, this is compounded by the fact that AIAV is often not being heavily monitored during the same periods meaning that blocks are delayed and a lot of time is spent reverting vandals who have already received a final warning. This extra time spent reverting known vandals obviously mean that much new vandalism is missed - with the obvious effect on the quality and credibility of Wikipedia.

I would like to sum by saying that I feel I could make good use of the tools and that I have never done anything to raise concerns that I would misuse them. Cheers TigerShark 20:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

RFA Thanks
Thank you for your support vote on my RFA. The final result was a successful request based on 111 support and 1 oppose. --CBDunkerson 14:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Kusma's RfA
Thank you for not eating supporting my request for adminship, which has been successful. If you ever think I'm still in the dark about the use of my new buttons and use them in the wrong way, please don't eat tell me. Kusma (討論) 13:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the support
Hi Grue- thanks a lot for your support on my recent, (barely) successful rfa. Please feel free to leave me any comments or criticisms on my talk page! --He:ah? 22:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

My RFA
Hi, this is Matt Yeager. I wanted to thank you for your vote on my request for adminship. The count was something like was 14/20/5 when I decided to withdraw the request. My decision was based on the fact that there are enough things wasting people's time on the Internet that doomed RFA's shouldn't be kept up for voters to have to think about. Regardless of the rationale behind your vote, I hope you will read this note for an extended note and discussion on what will happen before I make another try at adminship (I didn't want to clog up your userpage with drivel that you might not be interested in reading). Thank you very, very much for your vote and your time and consideration of my credentials--regardless of whether you voted support, nuetral, or oppose. Happy editing! Matt Yeager ♫ ( Talk? ) 01:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for supporting me in my RfA. I really didn't think people appreciate my work here that much, but it's nice to see you do: my Request was closed with 66 supports and 4 opposes. I'll do my best not to turn your confidence down. If in any point in the future you get the feeling I'm doing something wrong, do not hesitate to drop me a line. --Dijxtra 11:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

My RFA
Many thanks for your vote on my recent RFA, which passed narrowly. I will try to be worthy of your support. Regards, Kaisershatner 21:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Master Jay's RfA
Hey Grue! Thanks for your support at my recent RfA. If you have any concerns, you can reach me here. Regards,  Jay  (Reply)  01:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Banned editors
Edits by banned editors are reverted without consideration of their value; this is done to encourage them to stop editing, and to avoid wasting the time of regular editors. If banned editors really wanted to edit unopposed, they'd stop editing like themselves. Reverting a banned editor is never considered vandalism, regardless of the alleged quality of the edit. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 09:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it's policy, done to discourage disruptive banned editors from editing. Please remember, if they don't edit disruptively, they're never noticed in the first place; the only reason they are discovered is because they continue the behaviors that got them banned in the first place. Wikipedians are not required to waste their time combing through the edits of banned, disruptive editors; the time of our good editors is too valuable for that. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 19:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

As Jayjg said above. Ekmai and all of the other trolls using variations on the name are the banned user Wik. Wikipedia policy is to revert all edits by banned users. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Gracias por su apoyo en mi RfA reciente. 8)--Rockero 23:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Waiting
Conversation on Wikipedia talk:Free speech is stalled waiting on your response. Please try to be as attentive in participating in discussions as you are in reverting the edits of other users. --Gmaxwell 01:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

rfa
Thanks for the support on my RFA. Unfortunately, it did not achieve consensus. I look forward to your support in a couple months when I apply again. Holler at me if you need anything. &rArr; <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> SWAT  Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  01:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The Game DRV part deus
Could you explicitly state if you want the article undeleted/restored/kept or deleted? Just "endorse closure" is ambigious, even if I think the rest of your comment shows which way you want. Kotepho 03:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Out of line
You're stepping way out of line again. You might want to read up on your block log to see exactly happened the last time you started acting up this way. -- Cyde Weys 19:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Content war on Graham Nelson
The dispute is a content war, your warning on Zoe's talk page was uncalled for, and I have therefore taken the liberty of removing it. Please settle edit conflicts constructively, not with spurious vandal warnings. JoshuaZ 07:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not a content war. The content is the same. The difference is in formatting and my formatting is obviously better. User:Zoe has been warned a number of times and by this time I cannot in all my conscience assume good faith in this case.  Grue   07:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It is neither a content war nor a formatting war. It's the fact the Grue doesn't believe in the Wikipedia policy that permablocked vandals are not allowed to edit.  I won't revert, but if you even attempt at blocking me, it will go to the ANI immediately.  User:Zoe|(talk) 15:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah I see, its a Wik sock. In which case even if the other version was better, reverting is very much not vandalism. JoshuaZ 15:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's one thing reverting Wik sockpuppets and another thing reverting my edits. The latter is most often not the right thing to do.  Grue   17:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Calling my reversions vandalism and threatening to block me over them is also not the right thing to do. If you want the edits to stand, and I have no problem with that, stop labeling the reverts vandalism, and claim credit for the edits.  User:Zoe|(talk) 18:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

ru:Шаблон:!
Привет!

Если тебе не нужен шаблон Шаблон:! из русской википедии, на который нет ни одной ссылки, то я на его месте сделаю копию английского шаблона !. --Zserghei 13:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)