User talk:Aaron Schulz/Archive2

Comment
Voice of All(MTG), I noticed that you had high stress, probably some of it (if not most) stemming from your mediation application. You are a valuable contributor, and remember, processes such as RfA and other applications can be extremely stressful; this doesn't mean that you aren't valued - just the opposite. So, if your stress feels too high, take your well-earned WikiBreak, and come back refreshed. :-) Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 04:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Please check your email regarding an important matter. Thanks.
 * Thank you. The stress has many sources however. The pattern of slanderous votes(see Tony1's RfA and mine) that kill off good candidates at RfA really bothered me. I even got two; fortunetely, my RfA was almost over already, so the "pile-on" didn't hit yet. Then I get the same BS at mediation, which I thought should have been different, since the committee was voting. This is even worse than the "who you know not what you know" problem. You also have trolls that attack RfA nominees to provoke anger, which gives then a sloth of No votes for "not being perfectly polite enough to the guy who made perfectly good faith edits about you", even though they were obviously untrue/slanderous accusations. The stress also comes from annoying trolls claiming that my, and any other admins, little 24 hour blocks on them are "admin abuse", even though they obviously violated policy and they know it. Voice  of  All  T 05:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

NeoModus and NLP Weekly
Hello! I noticed that you deleted these articles after their contents were merged into other articles. Just to let you know, the correct post-merger procedure is to leave the entire edit history intact (because of GFDL concerns) and turn the page into a redirect to the destination article. Please undelete and redirect these pages accordingly. Thanks! &mdash;Lifeisunfair 12:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Done :). Voice of  All  T 18:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :) &mdash;Lifeisunfair 19:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

NLP Satire
Hello VoiceOfAll. Don't know if you have seen this before, but it gives a nice viewpoint of Tony Robbins/LGAT/NLP. Its long, but fun to read. Might brighten things up a bit. Regards HeadleyDown 03:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Conduct Complaint -- JPLogan
This post by JPLogan contains multiple personal remarks directed at my username. --Comaze 02:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Your Signature
I don't know if you're aware, but you have some HTML tags in your signature that are not closed. As a result, all of the entries on the Vandalism_in_progress in progress page under each of your posts get progressively smaller until they are illegible, and it also screws up the Wikipedia menus on the left of the page. This only happens in Firefox though, so if you're using Internet Explorer you won't even see it. Actually, I have just fixed it on the VIP page too, so you won't see it there either.

This signature works:

 Voice of  All  T

--Craig (t|c) 09:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

User Conduct complaint: Bookmain
This user is also making personal remarks directed at my username. --Comaze 12:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Fir e  Fo  x RFA
 

Thanks for your support on my request for adminship.

The final outcome was (96/2/0), so I am now an administrator. If you ever have any queries about my actions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Again, thanks! Fir e  Fo  x  18:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Re:Med
Voice of All(MTG), have you considered joining the Mediation Cabal? I'm sure NicholasTurnbull and crew could always use more enthusiastic mediators. Thanks. Flcelloguy ( A note? ) 23:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * No, sorry. You can email me if you wish. Flcelloguy ( A note? ) 23:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Sexual slang
I believe that The Literate Engineer would like to enlist your support for implementing Freakofnurture's suggestion from Articles for deletion/List of sexual slang/2005-10-18. Uncle G 10:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding your Protection of John Kerry
Have you seen the multiple recent 3RR violations by Rex on that article? . Also are you aware of the previous Arbitration Committee ruling regarding this?: "7) In the event Rex071404 reverts any edit for any reason any administrator may impose a short ban (a hour to a day for first offenses and up to a week for repeat offenses).". Also you should see the most recent ArbComm on Rex: . -- Mr. Tibbs 08:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

On RfM
Voice, I don't mean to antagonise you. I don't feel that you're a bad editor, but I think you have some disagreements with us on the nature of mediation, and that introducing people who don't agree philosophically with the way mediation works isn't a good idea. I disagree with you on not discussing views on mediation -- just like with a job interview, applying to be a mediator should be viewed as a chance for both parties to see if they can productively work together. If your views are sufficiently different than those of the committee, it may be that you would be better off not being a mediator from your perspective as well. Now, to get to the meat of the viewpoint difference -- Mediation is by and large an activity that takes place outside the Wiki. Mediators, when they enter a dispute, act only to guide discussion between people in order to build good communication habits, clear out ego and partisianship, and come to an understanding with each other. In order to establish the trust needed to do so, mediators make a few sacrifices. These sacrifices are: When a mediator takes a case, they must give up all duties towards greater justice on the wiki, including obligations of adminship, for the case at hand, in order to not take sides and not judge. While mediating, the mediator is disinterested in the action of keeping the wiki clean, and should not work through other admins to block people, do reverts, or the like for those in the dispute because these actions show that the appropriate sacrifices are not being met in a way that violates integrity of the mediation process. If you come to understand this reasoning and were to agree to abide by these principles of mediation, I would support you as a mediator. --Improv 21:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * All of the fine detail of mediation is to be confidential
 * Mediators do not dig through the case history before it reaches them or look for information apart from that presented to them (no research). The disputants are the ones who bring up facts, which are then discussed. If anything, their eyes should be closed to the actions of the participants while mediation proceeds.
 * Mediators do not take sides (apart from the latent side of suggesting (but not enforcing) that policy be followed)
 * Mediators do not judge (or if they inadvertently do, they keep their mouth shut about it and do their best to ignore their judgement as to how it affects their mediation)
 * Mediators recuse themselves from a case when they can't effectively do their job for any reason (including being unable to do the above), still keeping on themselves the obligations from the case


 * I do owe you an apology for not explaining in more detail when I opposed during nomination. I should've been more forthcoming with my reasoning, and it was bad judgement to do as I did. I still don't think we quite agree on the philosophical points, but unless you run again, that's probably not particularly important. Your mention of independent mediation is an interesting issue that the committee has not, as far as I know, discussed. Given the existence of a board of alternate mediators, perhaps it's worth bringing up on our mailing list -- I am uncertain how we would or should look on current or would-be members who are also involved on that board. On the upside, it brings more experience to the position and mediation is a worthwhile activity, official or not. However, there is the concern raised that independent mediators, especially those connected to the board of independent mediators, may suggest to wikipedians, when handed a case, that they go with alternate rules rather than those which are managed by MedCom, and that may be undesirable. I also worry that the alternate board does not really understand how MedCom works because they portray things as a contrast to things that MedCom does not do anyhow (such as punish people). Then again, perhaps you're just talking of independently taking cases outside of mediation. That's an unexplored area for our policy, but is probably not as likely to be controversial. In any case, I again regret that I didn't explain things better, and understand if you were angry with me for that. Take care. --Improv 10:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

HTMLTidy
Several pages, due to signature errors (like &lt;sup&gt;) are diplaced in tiny font, check out Neuro-Linguistic Programming's talk page...hehe. Are these related to HMTL Tidy? Voice of  All  T 22:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, they are. All of them. I do not even need to look. --cesarb 22:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh the horror..:-). So does that mean something is wrong with my sig that the server does not autocorrect anymore? Voice of  All  T 22:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I can see no errors in your signature above. --cesarb 22:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

While you are fixing the sig, you may as well now use proper XHTML. We no longer use font tags as per W3C standards. For  Voice of All T the correct XHTML is...

 Voice of All T

You could cut and paste, then use notepad search and replace to do batch fixes.. I've fixed the NLP talk page. Best regards, --Comaze 02:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

My Sig
My signature does not work if I use ANY color tags, even with no text other than VoA. Whay gives?Voice of All(MTG) 22:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * If it's the one I can see two sections above this comment on my talk page, it's lacking quotes on  (should be  ). --cesarb 23:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

3rr by questor2
Hi Voice of All.

Hey Doc. A 3rr vio by user:Questor2 has reverted 5 times at the Muhammad article. . A 3rr rule violation. Regards -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 23:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Looks like another admin blocked him. Voice of  All T 00:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your defense
I do appreciate your defense. Radiant and the others have a right to voice their opinions and they are correct that I had no business removing their names from that project. From my vantage point, I did honestly believe that many of those users signed on just to disrupt and I felt that all that was counter active as I was trying to alter the direction of the project. Lulu did make alterations also in keeping with a redirection as did Hipocrite and I overlooked this. It is no wonder they resented that. Let sleeping dogs lie...I think I learned a lot from that ordeal and regardless of my bias that they were possibly trying to disrupt, I still had no right to remove their names. The RfA process is an examination of ME and MY suitability for adminship...no one else is on trial there so the dissenting voice has every right, so long as their evidence is factual, to raise issues of concern to my suitability. I addressed Hipocrites questions as I honestly felt that he and the others deserved an explanation and an apology. I am, however, disappointed that Rdsmith4 felt that I used a sockpuppet account to avoid a 3RR violation and hope he accepts my evidence as factual as I am hostile to the use of sockpuppet accounts and have not one used one or asked the assistance of a meatpuppet to back me up. Regardless, I appreciate your sentiments and your confidence in my abilities. Let's let the dissenters speak their mind and unless they present false allegations, allow them the opportunity to voice their dissent openly. Thanks again, my friend.--MONGO 02:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Voice, Mr. Tibbs citations were from three months ago. I agree that isn't that long, but it is longer than the total editing history of some admin nominees whose nominations have passed. There isn't a user out there with 6,000 edits who hasn't made a mistake or error in judgement and for me, those errors were 2,000 or more edits ago. I'm about to withdraw the nomination anyway as I would like to see a 90% approval level and that isn't going to happen.--MONGO 14:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't have to pass with a 90% or better, I just prefer it that way. As it stands now, with the increasing number of oppose votes, it may not pass at all. It still has to have 80% to pass without question, anything between 70-80% depends on other factors. I don't want a cloud hanging over me as I fumble around with new software. Besides, I will essentially use the tools to rollback vandalisms and to speedy delete nonsense. I have no interest in spending a lot of time in AfD, but will contribute there once I know I can do the job right. You're a great editor Voice, cheerful and polite and I can learn a lot from that.If the tend continues to spiral downward, I will probably ask that the nomination be withdrwn...the oppose voices are pretty strong ones and their evidence is accurate but it would be nice if they would have a little more faith, especially with the level of article creation and vandal fighting I do.--MONGO 18:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Dishonest arguments on MONGO RfA
I must confess that arguments that simply bristle with dissimulation and disrespect like this:


 * All of the people removed, by there comments there, where obviously against the project, so why did they "join" in the first place. I don't go over and join Moveon.org clubs and interest group sectors just because I oppose them, that is ridiculous. I can't say "I join and [tacitly] support this group because I disagree and oppose it". While I don't agree with edit warring over it, and it is a bit bold to remove names other than that IP troll, I can certainly see were he was coming from. Considering all of the "anti-censorship" argument venom, he likely saw this as a ploy ar the time, and not a good faith effort to join WfEM. I dont see this as a reason to vote oppose.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 23:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

...make me tempted to change my vote back to strong oppose (from weak). However, I will resist the temptation. If MONGO were himself writing such irresponsible misrepresentations, I would be absolutely vehement in opposition. But he's not you; fortunately, despite the earlier incidents, he seems to have matured since then (at least some). But you're certainly not helping his case with rubbish like the above. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, the whole insult of calling FCYTravis, Zoe, Ngb, Sdedeo, Morwen, Hipocrite, and me "trolls" and "IP vandal "members" with NO other edit history" is extremely bad manners. Frankly, the best thing I can imagine you doing is taking that absurd slander out of the RfA (specifically, following the votes by me and by Radiant). Inline commentary on other editors votes is a little bit rude to start with; to add flagrant insults within those comments is just awful. FWIW, I have about twice the number of edits that you do, which doesn't seem like "no edit history" (I'm not sure what it was exactly back in August, but the allegation is still absurd). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)



Thanks for modifications
I genuinely appreciate that you modified your responses on the RfA to remove the appearance of accusing me and other good-faith editors of trolling and vandalism.

George W. Bush
I have reverted all your edits to George W. Bush what you pretty much have done is transfer all the content over from the main article (now protected from vandalism) over to a template which in no way would make it easier to combat vandalism without any consensus or community support and at the same time you have circumvented the page protection which is in violation of policy, I'm all for trying to prevent vandalism but please don't do this without any support, especially on a protected page. Jtkiefer T 01:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Neither do I but this is most definitely not the way to go about it, if you want a vandal warning then propose on Talk:George W. Bush that one be put up, I appreciate you being bold but only god knows what reprecussions this may have had and I think that consensus should have been gotten before anything like this is attempted. Also, talk page discussion is especially needed before making such a major change since it's a protected page and even if you do decide that the vandalism is stopped and you can unprotect you shouldn't do it yourself just to make such a major change immediately afterwards since that could very easily be seen as a conflict of interest.  Again, my suggestion is to put up a draft copy of a header that could possibly used on the article on the talk page and wait to see if people support it before putting it up.  Jtkiefer T  01:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * A template MAY be a good idea, however again, however it should only be a template that creates a box at the top of the page that states that this article may be vandalized and before even doing that you really should propose it on the talk page, since I for one would remove it as unecessary if it was done without consensus. You have to do these things in order, here's my suggested order:
 * in your sandbox or whatever type up the code for a sensible box for the top of the article DONE
 * copy over the code to a new topic on Talk:George W. Bush for opinion of other users
 * IF AND ONLY IF there is a consensus to place it on the page then either place it directly or more practically put it in a template then protect it of course noting it on Protected pages and on the George W. Bush talk page.

If you do things this way it will give other people the chance to comment on the idea and of course it has the advantage of having full support instead of doing it the way you did which no doubt would have had people claiming admin abuse since you pretty totally redid a protected page which most users can't do. Jtkiefer T 02:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * A) I don't appreciate the obvious hit below the belt in regards to bringing up Boothy and I never said that I thought it was admin abuse and I don't think it is, I just said that some people would probably jump the gun and accuse you of admin abuse. B) In terms of where to suggest it I suggest you suggest it at Talk:George W. Bush. Jtkiefer T  02:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Hell hath no fury like calculus homework :). Jtkiefer T  02:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)