User:Kww/diffs


 * 23:51, 18 May 2008 characterised as "nearly sanctioned". I'll let you decided whether 2 supports out of Arbcom for a topic ban opposed by friends and enemies alike constitutes "nearly sanctioned".
 * 20:22, 21 January 2009 characterised as "mockingly". No mockery that I can detect.
 * 16:30, 6 February 2009 characterised as being "dismissive of an effort at concession". Note that Randomran had inserted an edit here which was removed by Gavin Collins here, inserted by Ckatz here, removed by me here, inserted by Phil Sandifer here. It had also been discussed on the talk page. By this point, Randomran was well aware there was no consensus for the change.
 * 19:51, 16 February 2009 Characterized as "dismissive". What can I say? Read it for yourself. I think you will see that this was a valid and reasonable statement, not disrespectful to any group of editors.
 * 13:02, 12 February 2009 19 October 2007 21:18, 30 November 2007 19:31, 13 August 2008  14:52, 26 May 2008: I've never denied believing in WP:N, and won't start now. The second AFD on "Damn it, Janet" was so bad it earned this comment from the closing admin: "The reality is if I deleted it, enough people think AFD is a vote that it would likely be sent to DRV and overturned".
 * 11 December 2008 characterized as "holding a grudge". I can understand this interpretation, but please see my discussion with Casliber at his talk page.
 * 02:23, 27 March 2009 00:58, 26 March 2009 characterised as "improper rollbacks". An editor that consistently introduces different false figures into articles is not editing in good faith, and these edits are vandalism.
 * 15:37, 1 August 2008 Even brought this one up in my lead. I sincerely believe that people that are motivated by the desire to introduce false information into Wikipedia should be prevented from doing so. Sorry if that's a problem.
 * 22:29, 23 December 2008 Yes, I believe that bringing issues back to arbcom repetitively is disruptive.
 * 19:32, 6 April 2009 characterized as "misreading". Compare to this.
 * 21 September 2008 Characterized as a "threat". Read it for yourself.
 * 12:36, 19 November 2007 13:05, 19 November 2007 20:06, 19 November 2007 22:42, 19 November 2007 described as me trying to wiggle out of edit-warring. Personally, I always thought I showed great restraint in not making a bigger fuss over being blocked after an admin submitted a 3RR report with an edit duplicated to indicate I had violated 3RR when I had not. I would handle this better today, both in terms of how I handled the false report and how I handled the initial edits. This is in my lead, but notice my discussion with AuburnPilot.
 * 01:07, 5 April 2008. Characterized as having negative opinions about people with "alternate views". I accept many kinds of alternate views, but believing that your electronic equipment is influenced by supernatural sources goes beyond the range of what I can accept and still consider you to pass WP:RS. People are able to object to sources on the basis that that source doesn't have any credentials, has no credibility, and is either a fool if he believes the contents of his site or is attempting to trick people. If that source then opens a Wikipedia account, you can still object to his website on that basis. Getting a Wikipedia account doesn't make your outside activities immune from criticism.
 * 19:55, 21 September 2008 Characterised as a "crude attempt to intimidate". Again, I believe repeated dragging the exact same issue before arbcom is disruptive, and made no effort to intimidate anyone.
 * 21:30, 27 April 2008 was characterized as "uncivil haranguing". Looks like a request for clarification to me.
 * 25 January 2008 was characterized as a "personal attack". I was certainly pissed, I'll grant, and could reasonable be accused of not having assumed good faith. The admin in question had performed substantial controversial edits to an article while it was under full protection, and stated that she would do so again. I objected. The admin in question indicated support in my last RFA, and I will bet she understands better now about editing protected articles.