User talk:Scimitar/Archive 005



This archive covers my talk page from October 6 - November 7, 2005.-- Scïmïłar parley 15:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Erik Anderson
You deleted a previous version of this, speedy closing an AfD. Now it has been recreated with significantly different content, which i suspect is a hoax. Another editor has tagged it for re-speeedy, but it doesn't fall under G4, ans the current version makes (porobably false) claims of notability. I am not sure of proper procedure in this case. DES (talk) 00:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support
Thank you very much for your support on my nomination for adminship. Now that I have been made an admin, I will do my best to live up to the truest you and the community have placed in me. If you ever see my doing something you think is incorrect or questionable, or does not live up to the standards that should be expected of an admin, please let me know. DES (talk) 15:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Page on Mark Sanders
Since the bio is in a similar vein to other bios on the tracker page, AND contains external links that independantly verify the claim of notability I don't see any reason to delete the page. See my post on talk:Articles for deletion/Mark Sanders (2nd nomination). Doesn't seem to be much more of a vanity page than any other bio listed on the tracker page. (unsigned by Lonejack

Maoririder redux
Thank God you are here. I snuck in as an anon, found a sockpuppet of his, shut it down and he has gone completely ballistic. I put a three-month block on him but, of course, he can still edit the user page. I've been trying to leave word with him over what the hell has gone on but he keeps editing over me. - Lucky 6.9 20:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I wonder if he can be permanently shut down at this point, that is, before the ArbCom expires? He and the socks are making a shambles out of patrol work.  We're talking hours upon hours of tagging and bagging unless we just hit the rollback button on everything the socks did, especially that last one. - Lucky 6.9 20:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The "blocked sock" is User:Sandove89 and he really left some destruction in his wake with this one. If you feel that it's necessary and just to unblock him under the circumstances, I'll back you 100%. - Lucky 6.9 20:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I hope so. He seems to be kind of schitzophrenic at this point; take a look at what he did to his talk page.  I also unblocked him since it's only fair that he be able to defend himself at the ArbCom.  Thank God for your cooler head. - Lucky 6.9 20:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks a whole bunch for watching my back. I'm at work as well and I've spent entirely too much time on the busiest day of my work week trying to sort this mess out.  Man, did I pick a lousy time to sneak a peek at Wikipedia!  If you need anything at all, just holler.  Gotta run. - Lucky 6.9 20:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Somehow I knew this would happen... Do you think Maoririders defenders really believe that he isn't a problem? Or are they just being devil's advocates? ike9898 16:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: ArbCom

 * Hi Scimitar. The election page is here, the voting hasn't started yet. Candidate statements are here. There was an endoresements page here. But now it's "closed". Paul August &#9742; 22:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I was wondering
Did you want to be nominated for adminship? Molotov (talk)  18:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Crap, well here's a barnstar for your hard work on Wikipedia.



Take care, Molotov (talk)  18:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

George W. Bush
It is not partison that some people beleive that George Bush is responsible for muder. I can give you the phone numbers of 3 people who do; therefore, some people do. I made no claim that this was true. In fact, it is your removal which is blantantly partison. - (unsigned by anon vandal) Good day.

More like "good riddance," but I digress. Love his syntax and spelling. Anyway, I do think that the link you sent me about that suspected sock is more than interesting. Might be worth keeping an eye on. My God, what a mess this is becoming. Someone please tell me why I keep logging on to this site! :) - Lucky 6.9 21:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Maoririder: Oh, goodie. Just what I need. Sheesh. When the guy first showed up, he was posting those little nanostubs by the truckload. I had no idea what the heck the guy had in mind, but when I did, I tried to help him. Frankly, I feel like a crumb over this whole RfC and ArbCom thing. I don't think he's malicious so much as clueless. - Lucky 6.9 21:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Vandal
He created the nonsense article I linked after I issued my last warning. I know that because I was waiting for him :-). Although I think you may be right and not consider CSD page as vandalism no matter how contemptious it is. I'll keep looking out for this vandal, so thank you anyway. Cheers. -- Rune Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; | Esperanza 23:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey, no problem. Thank you! -- Rune Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; | Esperanza 23:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom
I'm happy to lend my support regarding Maoririder. I've had the proceedings on my watchlist for a while but just now noticed Tony's sudden and inexplicable defense of him. I couldn't just sit there and that continue. In any event, keep up the good work; I'll be watching. Soltak | Talk 23:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, am taking a time-out. First Tony, now that new sockpuppet. "Blah-blah is an elementary school in Portland, Maine." If I delete them, even under A1, I'll get reamed. I just know it. I hope never to set foot in Portland, Maine for fear of winding up in the screw factory getting rethreaded. My life is going in a rather pleasant and interesting direction, but this whole affair is really dampening my otherwise perpetually sunny disposition.

Drop me an e-mail if you need me. You da man. - Lucky 6.9 23:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

My RfA
Thanks for the support! I will not wield that dustbuster in any wild way, and I will try my best not to let you down. Denelson83 21:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry
Only logged users can vote I did not know. So must be logged in to vote?71.28.243.246 17:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Category Talk Christian Mythology
I can't seem to spell the link right, but if you check out the talk / discussion page for the Category page, Category:Christian mythology you should find links to tons of tons on two pages worth of archives, where this one user, Festival, (who I think is anon) is arguing against everyone else that "mythology" is the onlyappropriate category for scriptural topics. Have fun. Codex Sinaiticus 17:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

EKBK
Hi Scimitar, thanks. I'm getting so sick of this, I could literally weep. ;-( SlimVirgin (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

FSF RFA
My personal standards (and views regarding voting policy) on my userpage clearly state at least 1,000, not 3,000 edits. I also have rarely done "per user___" except on obvious vfds. My demands are minimal. Comics had 286 edits. This is not enough experience to become an admin. Comics has not raised an issue with this, and if you view his talkpage you will see that I have been quite cordial towards him. The rationale that I place to much emphasis on edits is, at best, unprecedented. freestylefrappe 01:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Four instances in the many RFAs which I have voted on. freestylefrappe 23:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

requested moves
Yes, if there is only one vote (or rather, none besides the nominator) then you go ahead and move it, which is standard procedure. Take care! Ryan Norton T 21:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Scimitar, thanks for your support on my RFA. I very much appreciate it. If you ever need anything, don't hesitate to ask. See you around! &mdash;thames 18:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Your RFA
Aghh...if I had known the user had changed their vote...I probably also would have. Let's let the past be past. P.S. my standards are fluid - though I'm pretty sure I haven't voted support for anyone under six months. freestylefrappe 21:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Did You Know for 21 October 2005
Hi, Scimitar. You left me a message on my talk page that DYK had been updated with a fact from the article Old Corn Meal. However, there is currently no such fact listed in that section of the main page. Do you know what happened? BrianSmithson 02:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Unilateralism
You claim that my actions tend towards unilateralism. Could you explain what you mean by that? I'm utterly flummoxed as to what you can mean by this. Do you simply mean that I make independent decisions--as all of us are indeed expected to by Wikipedia policy--or is there something else? --Tony Sidaway Talk 08:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

RFC
Hi there! I have openend an RFC on Tony Sidaway's frequent incivility and poor response to criticism. I would appreciate your opinion on the matter. If I understand correctly from his talk page, you have recently tried to discuss this very issue with him, and it didn't really resolve anything. I hope that an RFC may be more fruitful. Yours, Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 12:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Regarding your recent comments about "renewing" your adminship. It appears, from observation of WP:AN, WP:ANI, and various RfCs that while perhaps it's "no big deal" to become an admin, it's fairly comfortable once your there.  Perhaps if it were "no big deal" to be dead-minned, then our admins would would tread a bit more carefully.
 * I applaud the sentiment you've expressed, and wonder if you'd consider actually doing it? I mean, actually going and creating the page at WP:RfA and linking it to the RfC?  Of course, if you were just blowing steam I understand completely ^_^  brenneman (t) (c)  23:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * See what happens when I take too long writing something! - brenneman (t) (c)  23:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I've created a subsection Vote_of_confidence. I am trying to extract something constructive from this whole mess, and I think that it would be good for the entire community if you put your name down as accepting.  This is easy for me to say, of course. ^_^  brenneman (t) (c)  05:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Sylvanus Morley - thanks!
Scimitar, thanks very much for the barnstar award for Sylvanus Morley- much appreciated! Cheers,--cjllw | TALK  23:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

DYK
Congrats on the Ranford article...I'm mildly surprised we didn't have an article already. Ral315 (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

And here's another:

the wub's RfA
Thanks a lot for your support on my RfA, I really appreciate it. the wub  "?!"  13:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Advice?
''Hi, I was hoping you could help me out. This whole "gentlemans agreement" stuff wasn't my idea, and I'm opposed to it. I haven't asked for Tony to step down. The reason I endorsed it was that Tony came out guns a'blazing against myself and several other admins and editors over the Maoririder incident, and I felt he was being incivil. Now it seems, he's actually questioning my good faith. How can I function as an admin when my peers think I'm acting against the encyclopedia? I didn't realize that confirmation RfA's were against policy, and I regret the sideshow it's become. I want to be an admin, and I think I'm a good admin, but apparently I'm the only one who feels that way. What are my options? Thanks for your time.--Scimitar parley 15:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)''
 * I regret that I can't provide you specific advice on your situation; your conduct has come under question as a result of a matter which is presently before the Arbitration Committee, a member of which I am. Because of this, it would be premature for me to offer any opinion as to whether your conduct was correct or not.  More generally, I would advise you to take to heart the comments you receive from other members of the community and decide for yourself if your conduct has, in fact, harmed the encyclopedia, and if it has try to find a way to avoid doing so in the future.  If you are unsure how to do this, honestly talk to the people who have commented to you and ask them for advice (as hard as this may be to do).  Kelly Martin 15:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Scimitar, please don't think I'm attacking your adminship here. I did come out guns ablazing because you touched a nerve; I feel very upset about what I see as bad treatment of maoririder, who for all his faults was clearly not acting in bad faith, and in my opinion was making obvious good faith efforts to improve--efforts that might not have been so obvious at the time to individuals caught up in the situation.

I don't hold any one individual to blame, though you played a part in it, and as I've said at least you did think he merited a warning before being blocked.

For my part I've been criticised by several parties who think my criticisms are unjustified, and that I should pay more attention to group opinion and express my personal opinion in a more moderate way. There's a lot to be said for that; all I've achieved by this mode of engagement is to put you on the defensive. I've had to overcome a similar tendency in myself of late and I know how hard it is.

I want to make it absolutely plain that I regard you as a first class editor and administrator. I also acknowledge the good faith efforts you made to help maoririder. I have highly specific criticisms of your behavior at a point some months ago now, which is only now being addressed by the Arbitration Committee. I suggest that we should put our differences on this aside and let arbcom sort it out. If anyone raises this matter again I will refer them to the arbcom case.

If you like, we can make a joint statement as an outside view on the best way to proceed on this. Something like:


 * ''Tony and Scimitar recognise that their discussion of the maoririder affair became overheated, both sides acted in a defensive manner but now recognise that the best thing for Wikipedia is to set recriminations aside and permit the Arbitration Committee to do its job in the current investigation of the maoririder case. Each one recognises that the other is a good administrator and editor and no finding in the maoririder case will change this.

Feel free to edit, or reject, this proposed wording. --Tony Sidaway Talk 15:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

You write: Please, Tony, just answer the question that youve side-stepped to date- do you have reason to believe that I am willfully acting in bad faith?

Not for one second. I'm sorry I gave that impression. You acted in a way that occasionally made me want to gouge my eyes out, as I watched the drama unfold in the editing histories, but I never once doubted the good faith of anyone involved. I felt that the enthusiasm for defending the Wiki had spilled over into treating a relatively harmless newbie editor unfairly, and that hurt. Good people do bad things sometimes. -Tony Sidaway Talk 16:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I've waited a couple of days for everyone's ire to cool. I'm glad that this has ended on a positive note. I'm not sure how this came to be characterised as some sort of eye-gouging at twenty paces, that was never my intention. I had seen some continuing ill-will, and proposed what seemed like a simple and painless resolution. I blame your choice of a weaponised user name for putting everyone in a martial mood. ^_^ brenneman (t) (c)  02:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Titoxd's RfA
Thank you for supporting me in my RfA. I never thought I would get so much support! Thanks to your help, my nomination was the 10th most supported RfA in Wikipedia history. Now, please keep an eye out on me while I learn the new tools, ok? Thanks again! Tito xd (?!?) 17:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

re: Thanks
No problem. :D I'm glad to help. &hearts;&hearts;purpl e feltangel &hearts; &hearts; 19:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for your support! If you should ever have any concerns about my actions as an administrator, please be sure to tell me! Kirill Lokshin 13:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

A comment on Articles_for_deletion/Life_on_Forbez
I nominated the Life on Forbez article for deletion, and you rightly closed it as a no consensus. But in the summary you only counted 6 delete votes instead of 7, I'm not too bothered, but I just want to make sure that you haven't been accidentally systematically missing out the nominator's vote. - Hahnchen 13:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I got your message, maybe I will explicitly write delete in the nomination, but it's just that most admins seem to include the nominator anyway in my experience, unless otherwise stated. - Hahnchen 16:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Evidence of Tony Sidaway's Misconduct
I am currently amassing evidence of the misconduct demonstrated by User:Tony Sidaway and would appreciate your help in the matter. If you would please post any contributions you may have to User:TheChief/Evidence I would appreciate it very much. <font color=#0000ff>The <font color=#ff7f00>Chief (<font color=#0000ff>Pow <font color=#ff7f00>Wow ) 23:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

AGF?
No thanks. He's been certified as a sockpuppet. If David wants to retract that certification, I'll certainly retract my belief. Untill then, he's a sockpuppet. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 23:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

PS: Admins are editors with extra buttons. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 23:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I was hoping to accomplish exactly the same thing that the sockpuppet was hoping to accomplish, except in reverse, and it certainly appears that if I did not accomplish my mission, someone else did. I quote from WP:ADMIN when I write "Any user can behave as if they are an administrator, provided that they do not falsely claim to be one, even if they have not been given the extra administrative functions." I quote from the same place when I write "Administrators do not have any special power over other users other than applying decisions made by all users." Again, when I write "Administrators are not imbued with any special authority, and are equal to everybody else in terms of editorial responsibility." I guess that I should just let that page stand, because I shouldn't lecture you about the role of an Adminstrator. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 23:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * No, my idea of how to fight people who want to damage wikipedia, like anyone who sockpuppets to provide additional support for their views is to ban them - which is exactly what sockymcsock wanted to happen to myself and others. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 14:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You're right, my little victory party dance after the sock said not to post his IP information was juvenile. Apologies. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 14:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * None whatsoever. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 14:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding "Obvious POV removal"
I noticed your comment while re-inserting the Irving Dilliard quote in the Jehovah's Witnesses article. I'd removed the quote because a)who is Dilliard? b) it was floating loosely in space, unconnected to the paragraphs above or below it, and taking it out improved readability. If you look through the changes I made, I think you'll find that they're fairly balanced, and, if anything, made the article more sympathetic to JW's. (For example, I removed some out-of-place freedom of speech stuff Evident added to a higher paragraph, and clarified the freedom of speech stuff later in the article.) I also happen to agree with what Dilliard said, but that was outweighed by my earlier points. Regards, Scimitar parley 15:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Scimitar, I have decided to take an indefinite break from the JW article and related pages. --DannyMuse 17:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for joining in on the talk page of. I appreciate your help! &#10149;the Epopt 19:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I wish Lightbringer had realized that he could have worked with you folks instead of against you. He could have at least tried to prevail on the merits in the arbitration.--SarekOfVulcan 20:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

TheChief
You should probably post your evidence regarding TheChief not being Agriculture on User talk:David Gerard and WP:AN/I, if you feel strongly about it.--Scimitar parley 21:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I did add it to WP:AN/I. I wouldn't say I feel strongly about it. I don't have access to IP information and could not make any conclusions.  I just found David's statement to be unlikely and less so after finding out that the IPs are not identical.  (Tony recently admonished me for claiming two users were the same for the ISPs being an hour apart.) -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  22:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

195.144.131.4 at it again
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polypropylene&diff=27247630&oldid=27246357 —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you
I wanted to thank you for your part in arranging for justice in my case. I owe you no small debt of gratitude, but rather a very large one. Your efforts and motivation are appreciated, you are truly a king amoung men. I encourage you to ask any lingering questions or make further comments on my talk page. An open discussion about the issue at hand is most likely required and would be most constructive. <font color=#0000ff>The <font color=#ff7f00>Chief (<font color=#0000ff>Pow <font color=#ff7f00>Wow ) 16:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Atlas-style
Thanks for the compliment and advice. Right now I am taking a lil break from creating player bios, and focusing more on properly getting the categories on the List of NHL players (including my recent Major Junior creations). Also I actually quite enjoy doing player pages, and for me personally it helps to just have the randomization of which articles get created (I currently just run through my 2005 NHL Official Guide & Record Book for player bios and do it in order). But once again thanks for the advice and for putting some major junior alumni down into categories on the player bios, and keep up the good work! Croat Canuck 03:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

203.52.130.136
is not actually blocked; Journalist blocked him on November 2, but unblocked as insufficiently warned. Naturally, our boy/girl went at it again once unblocked. --Nlu 17:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Michelangelo vandal
Cheers - I wish there was some better mechanism to stop vandalism! Stephenb (Talk) 17:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oops - well spotted - hopefully I've got it right, now :-) Many thanks for that! Stephenb (User talk:StephenbTalk) 17:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm, obviously not - should have previewed first - back to the drawing board...! Stephenb

List of anarchist links
Just wanted to thank you for your quick application of wikipolicy. The anarchism article has been deteriorating for months because admins are unwilling to enforce wiki policy on a handful of trolls due to the page being hot spot", as if the trolls have nothing to do with this fact. Still, its good to know we have admins that will enforce the letter of the law while remaining too busy and aloof to pay attention to the consequences. Revkat 22:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Just for full disclosure here, yes I was being sarcastic, but I'm sure we can both move past that. I don't see what difference it makes whether or not you care about anarchism, I'm operating under the assumption that you care about wikipedia and thus would prefer that any given article on wikipedia is something other than an edit-war wasteland.  I am a good-faith editor seeking to improve wikipedia, so naturally I feel that our concerns should converge at some point.  I was aware of the policy you quoted to me, as indicated in the links I embedded in the text above, where I quoted just that policy myself in explaining my reasoning for creating the page.  Anyway, it took me more than an hour to carefully compile that list in an attempt to gently move the anarchism page toward stability.  I'm greatful that you let me know there was an alternate way to present the same information, though I'm a bit miffed that you did so after you deleted it and I was given no warning or notice on the issue, which would have allowed me to save the work by moving the page.  I would be even more greatful if you let me know where I can find a copy of the page so that I don't have to redo the entire thing when attempting to follow your advice.  Revkat 22:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * That would definately work, thank you. Revkat 23:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, thank you for helping me work within wikipolicy to improve the page. This whole thing started with a blunder on my part, but I'm glad we were able to move past the bad setup of my snide remark and turn the problem into a solution.  Revkat 05:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it'd be a good idea to look a little more deeply before applying your admin privileges. Revkat was plainly acting in good faith and a friendly suggestion as to another way to proceed would have been more helpful here than immediate deletion. Bengalski 23:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)