User talk:Snowspinner~enwiki/Archive 8

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)

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)

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.

© 2005, Pioneer-12
 * The above was added by .
 * 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)


 * "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)

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&mdash;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 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? &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 05:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

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. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 06:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


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

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. &mdash;Lifeisunfair 15:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)


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

Motion
Please take note of Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2/Workshop 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)

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)
 * OK, someone else deleted it again (Angela), so I put it up on VfU. Everyking 08:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I call him Harry Pothead, and I demand that both of you do, too! El_C 20:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Monarchy
Please take a look at Talk:Commonwealth RealmHomey 14:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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)

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)

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



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)

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

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)

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)

Tkorrovi thinks I should be blocked
See this. Paul Beardsell 01:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Placing users in danger
Snowspinner, FYI Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy 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)

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?
 User:SchmuckyTheCat 135.214.154.104 22:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 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 and WP:VFU 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)

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)

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. android 79  19:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)

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)
 * 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)

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)''
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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)

ArbCom enforcement
I'm sure you recall 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, , 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)

Also, in related incidents, the same editor pushed the LaRouche POV in this edit. And an IP identified by the ArbCom as belonging to that user made this edit to a LaRouche-related article,, 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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)

Please stop deleting AFD discussions
If you wish to close them as speedy deletions, then close them properly. Also, your deletions of 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)


 * Don't foul the machinery if you're an ordinary editor. If you're a member of the cabal, go for your life. Grace Note 00:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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. -- Spinboy 04:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to prosecute you. There are more than enough volunteers for that job. --[[Image:Ottawa flag.png|20px]] Spinboy 04:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * And I'd like a well-done steak on Christmas Day in the middle of winter. :p --[[Image:Ottawa flag.png|20px]] Spinboy 04:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Your RfC
I have created an RfC here: 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)



Your barnstar
You may find this useful - David Gerard 09:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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 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"). Deletion reform/Brainstorming 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)

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

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)


 * 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)

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)

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

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

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 08:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * 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 21:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * 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 22:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

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 23:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

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 23:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.)

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)

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 22:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Ditto. Please either post to my talkpage or email me. The email attached to this username works. Grace Note 07:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Grace Note 07:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Snowy, your candidate statement is about double the 250 word recommendation at the top of the Candidate statements page. Please use your Questions page for the lengthy version, but confine yourself to that rather fair guideline. -- Netoholic @ 14:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism
Please do not vandalize Wikipedia talk pages like you did here. You have already engaged in a personal attack on me before (accusing me of meglomania), now you're reverting changes on talk pages for no reason other than you disagree with what I said. That is highly inappropriate. If you continue this form of harassment against me, I WILL file charges against you.

I should point out that I noticed how you tried to get people to approve blocking policy on the no personal attacks page even after it was already rejected on the blocking policy page. It's not appropriate to try to revive rejected policies under the guise of them being new proposals. Given your history so far, I don't see it as long before your admin privileges are revoked.

Nathan J. Yoder 12:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Please stop removing content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Gator1 15:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Gator1 15:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Is this a joke? "file charges?" Is that a legal threat? Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 12:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Jacques Derrida
Care to talk about what you're going to gut before you do it? Buffyg 16:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * [Replying to your comments on my talk page...]


 * The de Man controversy is covered in the de Man article. I've started work on rewriting the deconstruction article and have already started work on defining deconstruction in the draft see Deconstruction/Draft. I've tended to think that the deconstruction article is the one most in need of a major overhaul, which was is one of two editing projects I had in mind for progressing this weekend. Without a doubt, the definition of deconstruction belongs in that article rather than in the one on Derrida. I would further argue that it is impossible to talk about Derrida without talking about relationships, although the article could probably better thematise this by way of his thinking on fidelity, inheritance, and tradition.


 * Also: did you read the archived peer review at all?


 * Not wanting to discourage you from being bold, I would suggest that the article has been sufficiently stable and discussion of a major edit sufficiently lacking that taking out an edit lock with a "gut" comment without prior discussion or working out a draft on a sub-page or the talk page would seem to land slightly foul of the guidelines to minimise recklessness. Buffyg 17:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[Replying to further comments on my talk page...]

Please offer your comments on the article talk page. If you want to negotiate, make arguments and suggestions, not threats. You have thus far neglected the former. The more I read your revision, the more I recognise it as awful, introducing a considerable amount of plainly incorrect information (e.g. Derrida's family did not move with him to France in 1949; it is not true that Derrida never used the term postmodernism in his work; deconstruction is not defined by opening up a text to multiple meanings; Derrida's place in the academy was never simply a red flag to the right, and removing references to the Enlightenment obscures what upsets people from most political and academic perspectives), leaving me with little reason to credit your command of the subject matter or otherwise take you seriously based on what you've said or contributed thus far. I would encourage you to reconsider trying to mandate edits based on the understanding demonstrated thus far. If you want to argue for your edits, I don't in any case consider this a matter that should be negotiated between the two of us. Buffyg 18:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * [Replying to your comments on my talk page...]


 * If you'd like to throw around these kind of remarks, please use the article talk page. You will note that I did raise basic objections about readability on the article talk page, at which time I noted that your revision required even further revision. I said I would put together a major edit and added a cleanup tag. When I had a chance to print the article out and read it in full, I began to realise how much mischaracterisation crept in. Things that were correct before were made plainly incorrect. I registered my objections about the results for the flow and clarity of the article, and another user has already indicated that they have reservations. Taken together, I would call that an awful edit. You can try to argue that the article too much reflects my POV and interests, but I'll note that people who have been watching this article over the last year or who participated in the peer review have given feedback that is thoroughly inconsistent with yours. I think you'll find that a credible and consistent reception of Derrida's work will credit Derrida's relationship with Heidegger as among his most profound. Thus far you are an island. That alone doesn't mean that you're wrong, but you are not likely to be right if you aren't even trying to account for the facts on the ground.
 * In any case, you are plainly incorrect on a number of even more basic facts: your edit was done on the 14th, not the 7th. Unfortunately I was ill in the intervening time and did not have time to look closely at your edits sooner. I do not understand why you think it is apparent, much less true, that I have spent so much (or any) time "seething" over your edit. I simply resolved to provide revisions; I don't know why you take there to be any animosity, so I am ignoring the baiting the follows except that it is no demonstration of good faith. I have stated simply that, if you wish to argue for what you insist must remain in the article, the argument needs to be better than your most recent edits or comments in our two recent exchanges: nothing more, nothing less. If you're going to argue good faith, you might also demonstrate it, minimally by arguing demonstrable facts where they are required. Moreover, if good faith is going to be your argument and you want to moralise about "a great disrespect for your fellow editors, and a frightening sense of superiority," perhaps you might consider that failing to argue for edits on the article talk page and threatening to revert without discussion of specifics is hardly consistent with good faith or otherwise respectful of other editors and can be taken to demonstrate "a frightening sense of superiority". I might note that the same complaint can be made about your "gutting" the article: it was preceded by no feedback at all or any other contributions to the article talk page that gave other editors a chance to collaborate. I've already noted that the be bold policy does not endorse this approach to editing. I can't imagine that it goes very far in the way of good faith. As for your threatened revert, the policy does ask you to do better there, as well.
 * Since you've not argued any of your edits on the talk pages, the quality of those edits are the measure of your credibility. You can bludgeon all you like about what needs to be done to make the article work for a generalist audience (I'm not sure that Derrida has a generalist audience in several senses of the word), but don't expect any support from me if the edits you make seem to involve presenting mischaracterisations intended for the largest possible audience. My aim seems to be right, even if the result is not entirely accessible and even where the expression can be ruthlessly inaccessible. I'm sure we can find some middle ground. On the article's talk page, please. Buffyg 23:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration reopened
Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3 has been reopened. Fred Bauder 20:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Blocks
I've unblocked User:Njyoder. The comment wasn't a personal attack and even if it was you should leave the blocking to someone who isn't involved. --fvw *  00:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with the assertion that I was involved - it was a straight-up attack on Hipocrite that had nothing to do with me, and accusing someone of signing an RfC out of malice towards a user who's not even involved in the RfC is a personal attack - it amounted to calling him a malicious and vindictive user, and was a declaration of extreme bad faith. Snowspinner 00:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You've been revert warring with the guy and the incident occurred on on the RfC he started against you. How much more involved do you want? --fvw *  00:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yoder's personal attack parole is a Really Short Leash for very good reason - David Gerard 15:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Not allowing admins to block people they're personally involved with is for a really good reason too. Grace Note 23:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Infinite Crisis Edit
Hey, Snowspinner. In the Infinite Crisis entry, you reverted my edit of moving the mention of Earth-2 Superman to below, in the plot summary. The reason I did this is because the spoiler warning comes later, and at this point, that certainly counts as a spoiler. I'm not going to change it back, but my opinion is that the detail is better placed where I had it. --Rocketgoat 23:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe a good compromise would be to say something like "Infinite Crisis is a sequel to the successful 1985 mini-series Crisis on Infinite Earths, with one of its central events being the return of character who considers himself a necessary force to repair the failure of many of the DC heroes to be sufficiently heroic. Many of the events can also be traced back to the 2004 mini-series Identity Crisis."? I'm wary that someone will complain about it being above the spoiler warning. --Rocketgoat 23:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway
There are a lot of people who have no respect for Tony Sidaway whatsoever, and consider him worse than a vandal. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * arbcom is that way >


 * --Tony Sidaway Talk 01:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

"If in doubt, don't delete" principle sneakily removed
Aaron Brenneman couldn't resist giving away the fact that he'd sneakily removed, from the deletion policy, without discussion, the small paragraph at the end of the opener which says "If in doubt, don't delete." This has been part of Wikipedia deletion policy for eighteen months, since it was added by a non-logged-in editor and then edited and compromised to its current wording by Theresa Knott. I have restored the paragraph. Please keep and eye on the deletion policy. There are some unscrupulous people around who find the current policy inconvenient and would do anything to traduce it. --Tony Sidaway Talk 16:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Deletion
Can you provide me with reasoning for deleting Image:CVU2.5.PNG and Template:Supertroll? I can see no evidence that the image was ever tagged with imagevio/Idw-cp or that the user that uploaded the image was ever notified of problems with it. The deletion of the template seems totally out of process as there was an earlier version to revert to that would have had no copyright problems. --GraemeL (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks you your response. I too have concerns that the CVU is taking on militaristic overtones and have been toying with the idea of proposing that it be renamed to something like "Association of Vandal Fighters". However, I am disturbed by the fact that all of the actions leading up to the deletions took place on IRC, leaving no record on Wikipedia of your attempts to deal with the perceived problem.


 * I ask you to issue an apology to both Cool Cat and Essjay (who uploaded the image and created the template), not for the deletions themselves as you were acting in what you deemed the best interests of the project, but for the manner in which they were carried out. --GraemeL (talk) 12:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I also object to your deletion of Cool Cat's logos. In cases where reasonable arguments can be made for or against deletion, it is not appropriate for a sysop to use speedy deletion, especially with images, where other administrators cannot review the deleted image (since images are permanently removed, rather than just hidden). The proper page is Images for deletion. The copyright status of the Wikimedia logos is known, and they have been frequently used in a community context.

Also note that one primary reason to use speedy deletion in the case of unlicensed images is liability; since Wikipedia is operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, this is hardly the case here. This was no matter that needed to be decided through quick action by a single user. Whether such use is appropriate must be decided by the community as a whole on a case by case basis, not by individual administrators. Please refrain from speedy-deleting such images in the future.--Eloquence* 20:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Re: your repsonse, I find it unlikely that it was anyone's intention to allege "Foundation support". Of course, an argument can be made that the logos would be perceived in this manner. But even in the former case, I would object to a speedy deletion without community discussion. Speedy deletion is a tool to be used with great, great care and only in absolutely clear cases. This was not one.---Eloquence* 05:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

As the creator of both images and the template, I am very distressed by these deletions. First, it was me, not Cool Cat, who should have been asked about permission for the images. Second, after giving notice on Wikipedia that you objected to the image, I should have been given the opportunity to respond and provide evidence that the Board had been made aware of the images and was given the opportunity to object.

I'm inclined to believe that this was a spur of the moment oversight, and that you certainly were not attempting to circumvent the deletion policy or offend other contributors. Being an admin myself, I realize that we are all subject to momentary lapses, and I bear no ill will towards you for it. I commend you for being concerned about the project's liability. The problems have been rectified, and I'm sure this will be a valuable learning experience. However, Cool Cat, who requested the images and was very proud of the work the CVU does, has been upset greatly by this, and I would appreciate it greatly if you would apologize to him and join us in asking him to make a speedy return. I know that you, like all good admins, don't want to see something like this cause a dedicated contributor (and regardless of any other circumstances, his work with the CVU and the vandalism IRC bot has been above and beyond the call of duty) to leave the project.

I look forward to seeing this incident put in the past in the very near future. -- Essjay ·  Talk 21:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I've replied at User talk:Angela. Angela. 05:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Here's some old discussions:, , ,

. Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 05:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Counter-Vandalism Unit (Cool Cat) RfAr
I'm glad that someone is taking the lead in monitoring Mr. Cool Cat. Thanks. &mdash; Davenbelle 06:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Uhh...I do not think there would be any more mentoring. He announced that he "left" Wikipedia and the projects, like CVU. Zach (Sound Off) 06:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * He's "left" many times before &mdash; stay tuned for more of his drama. FYI, I said monitoring, not mentoring &mdash; I was counseled to let others take the lead in monitoring User:Cool Cat. &mdash; Davenbelle 06:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Alright. I know there has been other users who left and came back a few times. Zach (Sound Off) 06:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

My answer when I was asked my opinion may be found here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthere#Couter_Vandalism_Unit Anthere 07:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * do not be too harsh on CoolCat. He meant well. I know I was not so happy about the Foundation logo being used as well as name, but it is now more and more frequent and it seems there is a general consensus over the fact the community can use the logo now. I also did not know yet exactly what use will be made of them (I only understood the bot, not the pages you mentionned). I left a bunch of questions such as "what did Angela and the community think ? "... but I never took the time to actually go back to the issue to see how it was proceeding. So I consider it my fault if he misunderstood my position on the matter as a frank support. I should have come back to the issue. We are also very late in setting up a policy for the logo and name use. Too many things to do I fear :-( I would recommand talking with CoolCat and other editors involved of the issue, rather than going to the arbcom. I am sure a middle path can be found. Anthere

Semi-automated template substitution

 * This page was modified to semi-automatically substitute templates using Pathoschild's template list. // Tawker 19:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)