User talk:Cyde/Archive010

[edit] Barnstar Barnstar Barnstar Barnstar

I, Minun award you, a barnstar, the barnstar barnstar for creating the barnstar barnstar, so that users can award the barnstar barnstar, and use the barnstar barnstar. I hope you appreciate the barnstar barnstar, and put the barnstar barnstar on your user page, happy barnstarring :P —Minun ^{Spiderman • Review Me} 10:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiquette

Could you please use your bot to orphan this redlink (which used to be a CNR and has more than 100 incoming links)? Unfortunately it was speedied (among others, by you) instead of going through a proper WP:RFD procedure where orphaning could have been discussed. Thank you, Kusma (討論) 13:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bot and WP:LIVING

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=TommyTheGun&timestamp=20060802183700

The user has written to OTRS and is, justifiably, upset. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately there's no way for a bot to distinguish between page blanking and justifiable blanking, and as occurrences go, vandalism accounts for 99% of all blankings. This guy should've used an alternate method to get the article deleted other than blanking - although it would appear that he has, he managed to contact OTRS. --Cyde Weys 22:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually there are lots of markers for that sort of situation that the bot could rely upon. This has been an ongoing problem and I've brought it up with Tawker before. We run in to several of these per week at OTRS. Here are some markers to think about:

1. The page title is the name of a person
2. The page or section being blanked contains obscenities or other phrases unlikely to appear in a legitimate article.
3. The section being blanked has a header that includes the words "controversy" or "criticism"
4. The page is short and has few edits. (Most vandalism is to higher-profile pages)
5. The page is in the "living persons" category.
6. The page being blanked contains a phone number or an address.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:user monty python

Your closure of this TFD appears to be a bit out of line. If the closure is "Userfy" that means "Userfy". Not "let someone else userfy if they want to or else delete". If a given template is not userfied, it should not be deleted. Period. If you want to delete a template from the template namespace, that is ok - but you must userfy it first. That is how WP:GUS works. Closing the debate the way you have is essentially a "delete" closure in "userfy" clothing. If you don't have time to close the debate properly, and implement the closure - then don't close the debate. Please, if there is a consensus to userfy, be a helpful administrator and carry out the consensus. Otherwise, any subsequent deletions of the templates will simply require a trip to DRV - and nobody wants that. --71.36.251.182 22:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The result was userfy, not "it can stay as a template indefinitely until someone gets around to userfying it, if ever". By the way, please get an account and/or login. --Cyde Weys 00:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Userfy means userfy, right? Not "let someone else userfy if they want, but I'm deleting it anyway". How hard would it be for you to implement your own closure of the discussion? Just move the pages to an appropriate archive in user space and be done with it. --71.36.251.182 17:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Stephencolbert

Howdy! Just a heads up, I posted a quick summary at WP:AN#User_talk:Stephencolbert. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fooly Coolit

Your charge against me is fair enough - what I did counted as spamming on a technical level. However, in my defense, I haven't gotten one complaint from anyone (yourself excluded). I think it was both benign (after all, someone touting a userbox with your cause is an ally waiting to happen) and brilliant. I mean, look at how well that worked! But it only needed to work once, and it did. It's a tactic I won't try again. Now, my twenty-four hours are up... and there is work to be done. -Litefantastic 02:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Editor review/Dalbury

If you have the time, I would appreciate any observations you may care to provide at Wikipedia:Editor review/Dalbury. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 14:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mindrot, AfD

I re-wrote Mindrot so as to meet WP:MUSIC. Would you please withdraw your nomination so we can speedy keep? PT ^(s-s-s-s) 19:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please delete

• Template:User atheism - 1 protected link. Rfrisbie^talk 20:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Template:User slm... - 1 protected link. Rfrisbie^talk 01:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Template:User religion Rfrisbie^talk 01:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Template:User religion interest Rfrisbie^talk 01:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Template:User religion psychological Rfrisbie^talk 01:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Template:User religion anthropological Rfrisbie^talk 01:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Template:User religion aesthetic Rfrisbie^talk 01:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Template:User religion metaphysical Rfrisbie^talk 01:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Template:User religion... Rfrisbie^talk 02:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Template:User religious pluralism Rfrisbie^talk 02:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Template:User zoroastrianism
• Template:User zoro Rfrisbie^talk 02:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Template:User Zen
• Template:User zen Rfrisbie^talk 02:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Template:User Mikkyo
• Template:User mikkyo Rfrisbie^talk 02:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Template:User Chinese Traditional Religion Rfrisbie^talk 02:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Template:User Hinduism Rfrisbie^talk 02:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Template:User ayyavazhi Rfrisbie^talk 02:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Template:User Chinmaya
• Template:User chinmaya Rfrisbie^talk 02:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Template:User bahá'í Rfrisbie^talk 02:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Template:User Christianity
• Template:User christianity Rfrisbie^talk 02:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Template:User Eastern Christian interest
• Template:User Eastern Christianity
• Template:User eastern christianity Rfrisbie^talk 02:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Template:User Judaism Rfrisbie^talk 02:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Template:User chaos Rfrisbie^talk 02:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Template:User unun Rfrisbie^talk 02:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Template:User angel Rfrisbie^talk 02:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Template:User destiny Rfrisbie^talk 03:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Template:User Ghost
• Template:User ghost Rfrisbie^talk 03:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Template:User Karma
• Template:User karma Rfrisbie^talk 03:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Template:User luck Rfrisbie^talk 03:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Template:User reincarnation Rfrisbie^talk 03:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Template:User pilgrim Rfrisbie^talk 03:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Template:User tarot Rfrisbie^talk 03:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Template:User no pet Rfrisbie^talk 03:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Template:User zodiac:Aquarius-3 Rfrisbie^talk 02:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 03:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Userboxes/Religion

This page is empty now, just waiting for everyone's favorite rouge admin to come along and delete it. ;) —Mira 13:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems that Wikipedia:Userboxes/Regional Politics is also empty. —Mira 13:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date linking

Whoops, my bad; I must have missed that. I thought only month/day/year dates should be linked. Looks like I'll have to revise my editing methodology. --ILike2BeAnonymous 18:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Did you coin "Colberrorism"?

I'm trying to track down the origin of the term, because I like it and I'm using it in an essay about coordinated vandalism that I'm working on. The earliest edit I've found so far using the term is yours. Did you coin the term, or did you see it elsewhere first? -- SCZenz 18:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't remember at this point, I may have either seen it in IRC or helped invent it in IRC, but I do think I was the first person to use it on IRC ... Cyde Weys 02:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Um...

I was just wondering why you deleted the "User:Plagiarism" userbox template. I find nothing inappropriate about it. Can you please undelete it or something? --Eugene2x 00:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:GUS. --Cyde Weys 02:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for August 7th

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unjustified Block

Last night you blocked me for 3 hours for the following reason: "Stop continuously trying to re-add yourself to a disruptive, deleted category."

The category is neither disruptive, nor deleted. The first CfD was closed prematurely (1) so I put it through DRV, which I notified you about on your talk page. You were on wikibreak and your bot autoarchived it, though. The CfD was reopened by another admin as it was closed prematurely and with "passionate comments", see here. I added myself to the category to avoid delete comments in the CfD being based on having no users in the category, which is not the case at all. The category is not disruptive, either, that is simply your opinion. If it really was disruptive, then you should have put a warning on my talk page telling me to stop disrupting Wikipedia. Thus, the block is entirely unjustified. I did not violate WP:3RR on my page either, as I only reverted edits by User:Drini 2 times, then we discussed the reason for my being in the category and the fact that the CfD had been reopened, so I thought that it was fine to readd myself to the category for reasons discussed above. I was also not warned in any way that what I was doing was inappropriate. Ergo, this block is not justified in any way by Wikipedia:Blocking policy. You also probably should not have blocked me due to being in a content dispute about that very category earlier, but instead asked another admin to do so. Naturally I must assume good faith and guess that you didn't know that the category was back on CfD now, and the block has obviously expired anyhow so it's not a problem any more, I just wanted to let you know this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Syphonbyte (talk • contribs) .

It's incredibly obvious to everyone what's going on: you and a few of your friends are trying to take over Wikipedia's processes to serve your own ends like keeping some incredibly stupid "Gangster Wikipedians" category. It's not going to work, because we are actually here to write an encyclopedia, and I see precious little of that coming from any of you. Your privileges of editing Wikipedia are actually in jeopardy right now so I would really suggest that you stop worrying about an unencyclopedic category. --Cyde Weys 17:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I see there have been problems here, but what is the justifcation for the second block? You assert disruption in the block log, but looking at the contributions in that time period, I don't see disruption. This looks a bit too much like an "I don't like you" block, don't you think? Friday (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Considering your past history of questioning me when I blocked a user who made death threats, I lack the ability to take any of your concerns with my administrative actions seriously. --Cyde Weys 17:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Huh?? What does that have to do with anything? Pretend someone else asked, then. Friday (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It has everything to do with this. Users who have consistently demonstrated poor judgement tend to use up their credibility rather quickly. As for this block: what we have here is a bunch of users who know each other goofing around on Wikipedia, making nonsensical categories and userpages and really not editing articles. They're grouping together to try to take advantage of our processes to continue to use Wikipedia for inane uses. I'd really be inclined to just block the lot of them and get it over with, as they're clearly not here for the right reasons; who knows, maybe that's next. --Cyde Weys 17:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, you're only stirring up more drama with a block like this. Was it was his edit to his user page that made you decide to block again? Was it that he had the nerve to question your block? Some kiddies playing with their user pages doesn't help, but it's not particularly disruptive either. It looked to me like the disruption wasn't an ongoing problem after the first block, and this lead me to question the usefulness of the second block. I think it's the job of admins to reduce drama, not increase it. I can understand your irritation with unhelpful editors, but responding by bullying them doesn't help diffuse the situation. Friday (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I just re-read User_talk:Cyde/Archive009#User:Erik_the_Rude and I don't see anything wrong with what I asked you. You might even notice that at least one other person agreed with me in that case. I do find it troubling that you'd forever write off someone as having consistently demonstrated poor judgment for simply repeating what the blocking policy says. Do you think perhaps you're being overly sensitive to criticism? We all live in glass houses here, and editors reviewing each other's work is a key part of what makes the system functional. Friday (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a lot more than just the Erik the Rude thing, it's a whole slew of situations that, when added together over time, leave a sour taste in my mouth. Speaking candidly, I think of you as someone who values arbitrary process provisions over common sense, which results in you defending, allying with, or appearing to defend or ally with, trolls, disruptors, and other problem users, over or against your fellow admins. That's never a good situation to be in. --Cyde Weys 19:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I figured it'd be exceptionally clear that I'm a product-over-process guy, every time. I guess I'll try to be more rouge. If it helps, I have a disdain for CSDs and delete things unilaterally whenever I think it's appropriate, armed only with my own judgment. I also redirect things that are on Afd, and sometimes kick puppies for fun. I do think blocks should always be well-justified tho- it simply causes too much drama to do otherwise. Even problem users deserve fair treatment. Admins should be a check on each other, and that's impossible when we assume no admin can do wrong. We should never support someone's action based on who did it- each situation should be judged on its own merits. Doing otherwise only lends creedence to accusations of cabalism. Friday (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Templates

You deleted the redirect from {{User bahá'í}}, but other userboxes have redirects to user space, see {{user anglican}}, {{user methodist}}, {{user episcopalian}}, {{user umc}}, {{user Jewish}}, {{user muslim}}, {{user Muslim}}, {{user hindu}} just to mention a few. There are many others. So delete them all, or allow the redirects. -- Jeff3000 19:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing those out. You're right, WP:GUS does not involve simply hard-redirecting to userspace, as effectively nothing has really changed. --Cyde Weys 19:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If you're interested, we've been keeping a running list of template space hard and soft redirects that are ready to be deleted at Category talk:Wikipedia GUS userboxes#Delete. —Mira 20:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikibreak

Hope you enjoyed your Wikibreak. Now it's my turn to take one. — Nathan ^(talk) _{/ 20:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)}

[edit] vandalism-only account

“This is a vandalism-only account” (source) Request: please read Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers and Wikipedia:Assume good faith and then list the reasons why I should view the edits by Stephencolbert as vandalism. Thanks. --JWSchmidt 00:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Saying "In conclusion, George Washington did not own slaves." and turning a correct statement into a false statement is vandalism by any interpretation of the definition. Do not discredit yourself further by trying to argue this futile point. --Cyde Weys 01:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

A new editor who was unfamiliar with Wikipedia's culture and rules might not have thought of these edits as "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia". For example, Colbert suggested that the "Oregon edit" would be a way of setting the record straight about how he views Oregon. This might be misguided, but if we assume good faith then we do not have to assume that it was a deliberate attempt by someone to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. --JWSchmidt 05:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

A new editor who chooses "Stephencolbert" as an account name, IMHO, is already demonstrating an intent to add unsourced, POV material to WP. Vandalizing WP because Stephen Colbert says to is definitely not acting in good faith. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 11:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] nudity

Here (Pioneer plaque)it sais that the initial drawing has a litel line for the vulva.But it was sensored by the director.Sensoring a picture that is intended to be send to extraterestials ,this has it place in the nudity article.--Pixel ;-) 04:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

At this point I would suggest getting a spell-checker or something. --Cyde Weys 13:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Best page edit war

I don't know what drew you to this page, but please be aware that this page has been the subject of an edit war initiated by vandalism by CRANdieter at the end of June. The poor flow of the introduction you cited is a direct result of the unencyclopedic edits by CRANdieter (Freezer Man is transparently a CRANdieter sockpuppet). Please see the history and especially Talk page, beginning at "disparaging remarks about cryonics."

At 16:49 on August 9, I restored the unvandalized version, and further improved the introduction per your comment about the need to more specifically emphasize the importance of the individual. If appropriate, I respectfully request that you remove the cleanup notice and consider locking that version to prevent continuing damage by CRANdieter/Freezer Man. Cryobiologist 17:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User UBX AGF

I don't see what's so divisive about this template. I undeleted it for the moment. --LBMixPro ^{<Speak|on|it!>} 21:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Please userfy it if you want it, just undeleting it really doesn't solve anything. --Cyde Weys 21:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template deletion

Um - you deleted the Template:User organ donor; please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 June)#Userbox discussions.—Chidom ^talk  03:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, what do I care about a DRV subpage from June? --Cyde Weys 04:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, why wouldn't you care that just over 2 months ago the consensus was to undelete this user template? Do these things get to be re-nominated or re-discussed that frequently? If so, why discuss them at all?—Chidom ^talk  05:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Everything has changed since June, see WP:GUS. We don't need advocacy templates. --Cyde Weys 05:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kind of stupid question...

I really like your name and was wondering what it ment? -X22oo 04:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

(Feel free to delete this if you want)

• Sideways, Side ways, Cyde Weys ....think about it--172.130.255.88 04:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{Template:User_monty_python}}

Cyde. Please understand, this is nothing personal, but you were specifically asked not to delete this template without moving it to a userspace userbox archive. Please restore the content of {{User monty python}} to an appropriate userbox archive forthwith. Thanks. --71.36.251.182 20:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

And you were specifically warned that you had one full week to userfy it, and that if nobody could be bothered to get around to doing it in the span of ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY-EIGHT HOURS, I would delete it. I cannot understand your incredulity; this is not coming out of the blue. I said what I was going to do and then I did it. --Cyde Weys 21:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, I know you live here, but some of us don't have access to the tools that you do. As an admin with a bot, userfication of the template would be very easy for you to accomplish. For me to do this would require hours of fixing the redlinks you created by deleting the template before userfication. If you still refuse to carry out your own closure, that is fine, but please be a friend and restore the deleted material so it can be moved to a userbox archive. Maybe 168 hours seems like a long time to you, but to me it is a moment. You were asked before you deleted this template to userfy it. You have spent more time here explaining your failure than rectifying it would have cost you. For the sake of efficiency, just restore it and userfy, or if that is too much to ask, find another admin willing to close the TFD properly. Thanks! --67.170.183.74 00:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You can't userfy anything to an IP address. If you had an account, you could have just copied the userbox to your user page. (Well, if you have a permanent IP address, you could have copied the userbox to the talk page for the IP address, but that would be unusual.) It seems that no one who had an account wanted to keep that userbox. You don't need any admin tools to userfy anything. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 00:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess I was just hoping that Cyde would take it upon himself to be proactive and userfy this to a userbox archive. I don't feel that this is asking a whole lot of him. Furthermore, deleting the template without userfying is a good way to break a whole slew of userpages. I asked politely that the template be moved before deletion - and the response was wholly negative. Now I am asking that it be undeleted so that it can be userfied. This is not a controversial request, and it is wikipedia policy that suggests such a solution. Please just undelete and userfy, and I'll stop complaining, because then the job will have been done properly. Thanks. --24.20.50.7 06:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI, there is a conversation also happening here. See my comments there. - LA @ 08:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cydebot

Is there anyway you could use Cydebot to replace every instance of See block log. with See (current autoblocks | block log) or something like that? It's virtually impossible to track down all uses of the block log by hand, seems like the kind of thing you could get your bot to do--172.130.255.88 04:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I need more information. What templates/pages is/was the text you want replaced use in? --Cyde Weys 05:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• That's the problem, the See block log. is used on virtually all blocking templates, a number of sharedip templates, and a whole host of other internal links templates. The problem is, it started out in one template, and got copied so many times, there's no way to know exactly how many templates currently use it. But ideally, the See (current autoblocks | block log) version is more useful, and I've been replacing it as I've run across it--172.130.255.88 05:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• For instance Template:Sockpuppet has the old version, whereas Template:Indefblocked-blanking has the new one--172.130.255.88 05:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• At this point I don't particularly think it's useful to modify all of the old occurrences of "See block log", as 99% of those cases refer to indefinitely banned users, for whom we won't need to be doing any sort of autoblock checking. I would just recommend making the appropriate changes to all of the templates that use this text, and within a month, the changes will filter down to all of the users who are temporarily but not permanently blocked, which is pretty much the only people for whom this change actually affects. Make sense? --Cyde Weys 05:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Well not really, since almost all of the collateral damage from autoblocks comes from permanently blocked users--64.12.116.9 11:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ah. Now back to business

Hi, SoaP here. Just wanted to touch base with you about my ban. Um...what's going on? First of all...I was making a reply to Myrtone, who does not seem to understand the difference between a chatroom and an encyclopedia. My apologies for my trollish tone. Also. You said you had a strong suspicion that I was a sockpuppet of a banned user. I was shocked at the insinuation. However, I am curious: What user?

Thanks again, SoaP 14:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ah. Now back to business

Hi, SoaP here. Just wanted to touch base with you about my ban. Um...what's going on? First of all...I was making a reply to Myrtone, who does not seem to understand the difference between a chatroom and an encyclopedia. My apologies for my trollish tone. Also. You said you had a strong suspicion that I was a sockpuppet of a banned user. I was shocked at the insinuation. However, I am curious: What user?

Thanks again, SoaP 14:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wikipediholism

Cyde, your deletions of the pages redirected to pages concerning wikipediholism was totally unwanted so could you undo them? Starhood` 15:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, can you provide me links to exactly which pages you're talking about? I'm not really sure what you want done. --Cyde Weys 15:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tor?

How do you know the latest IP reverting the galleries is a Tor proxy? Thatcher131 (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Tor proxy lists. --Cyde Weys 18:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

That's sort of pedestrian. I was hoping it was a secret decoder ring. Thatcher131 (talk) 18:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, nothing secret about this. Anyone could verify that that was a Tor proxy IP. Tor, by its nature, is very open about which IPs are Tor proxies - and it is very secretive, by its nature, about anything regarding who is using those proxies. --Cyde Weys 18:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "So, you stuck up for a guy who flagrantly violated policy ..."

I think you are confused. That was you when you stuck up for Kelly Martin. Johntex\^talk 04:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Au contraire, Kelly Martin turned out to be right in this, and you and your little sockpuppeting blocked "friend" turned out to be wrong. --Cyde Weys 04:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• I do not support in any way Cardsplayer4life using a sock-puppet to evade the block. However, a call for apologies from people who argued against the block ignores the time-line of events. The block occurred first, then the sock-puppetry. Therefore, the sock-puppetry did not lead to the block and the sock-puppetry is irrelevant is considering whether the block was valid or not. The sock-puppetry does not change the fact that the block was invalid. Johntex\^talk 04:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No, what the sockpuppetry does is establish character. Whereas you could possibly give the user the benefit of the doubt under WP:AGF and say that the block was unwarranted, now that we actually know what this guy was up to, it is quite clear that the block was correct. When I make mistakes I do apologize, believe it or not. By the way the current block is valid no matter what you may think of the previous one. --Cyde Weys 04:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

First, I agree on the current block. It is warranted.

However, unless Kelly can read the future, she can't claim that her actions were justified by actions that Card had not taken yet, and which he couldn't have taken if not for Kelly's prior action. If she hadn't blocked him, he couldn't have been evading her block. That does not make either of them right.

Please consider however the following hypothetical parable: Tommy saves up money to buy a bicycle. He rides it past Bobby's house. Bobby is greedy and wants the bike. Bobby gets his mother, the sheriff, to arrest the kid and impound the bike. But Tommy kid breaks out of jail and throws stones at the Bobby's house, both of which are against the law. The fact that Tommy behaved badly after being falsly arrested does not justify the false arrest. Bobby's mother should not get a reward based upon future bad behavior of Tommy. Johntex\^talk 05:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Your metaphor is flawed and doesn't correspond to real-world events at all. Here's what actually happened (no useless bicycle metaphor necessary): some users are edit-warring over the insertion of an against-policy fair use gallery. Kelly Martin leaves a stern warning not to do it or users will be blocked. So a user comes along and does it anyway, and not surprisingly, is blocked. Then, sometime in there, the user promises he won't do it again in an unblock request (which is accepted), while meanwhile logging out to make the same edit. Kelly didn't do anything wrong here while the user did everything wrong. --Cyde Weys 05:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. Thank you for your time. Johntex\^talk 05:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

"Keep throwing in your lot with fools and eventually you become indistinguishable from them" — good quote. --Cyde Weys 14:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm feeling generous so I'll just ignore your implied insult. Johntex\^talk 16:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, why don't you just stop. You seem to create more fires than you extinguish. David D. (Talk) 16:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I just want to know why some people are constantly siding with trolls and disruptors, and why they continue to do it for many months after pretty much everyone they "stuck up for" earlier was generally denounced by the community at large. Don't they realize that events are not considered in isolation? There are some people who've lost all credibility with the majority of the higher-up admin community because the only thing we've ever seen from them is consistently poor judgement. They might as well not be making comments, because most administrators just ignore them. Look at how increasingly irrelevant Grue has become ... all he seems to do these days is stick up for trolls and demand that every admin he disagrees with be desysopped. Johntex isn't there yet, but he's on his way. Our administrator community has some differences of opinions; that's natural. But it's a shame that we're allowing ourselves to be disrupted so much by outsider trolls. --Cyde Weys 16:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Who are the "higher-up" admin community? Johntex\^talk 16:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The "cabal", basically. You know, the ones making the decisions. --Cyde Weys 16:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've heard of the cabal, but I've also heard it does not exist. Does one need to violate policy and exhibit extreme rudeness to be a member? Johntex\^talk 16:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Violate policy? Care to give any examples? As for "exhibiting extreme rudeness" ... let's just say some people are more visible than others in getting things accomplished. --Cyde Weys 16:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

So the community has no say? What exactly are you implying here? There is a blacklist of those whose opinion counts for nothing? Not all who disagree with consensus should be considered trolls. So is wikipedia more of a monarchy that it admits too? David D. (Talk) 16:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No, not a monarchy. But it certainly isn't a democracy. You can see that in our processes; none of them are really votes. Lots of things are done because they are necessary, even if the community can't see it at the time. There's always going to be a lot of flak raised over new policies or procedures (userboxes, fair use, semi-protection, stable versions, et al), but I trust the people running Wikipedia to make the decisions better than a pseudo-anarchic-democracy of all users. If anything I guess you could say Wikipedia is a republic. --Cyde Weys 16:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm referring to your second to last comment, above, not your general opinion. It seems to be needlessly antagonistic and certainly is not productive given you had already made your point clear. Certainly it was counterproductive with respect to getting johntex to see things from your own perspective.David D. (Talk) 16:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I could have handled it better. But you must understand how annoying it is when we are constantly getting backstabbed by fellow admins whose choices of who they ally with are consistently poor. We basically have some "snipers" who latch onto situations with even the appearance of anyone in the "cabal" doing something wrong, and then defend, to the death, the other person, no matter how wrong they are. --Cyde Weys 16:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If this is a "republic" with the cabal being "the ones making the decisions" it seems we should be entitled to know who our leaders are. Can you please point me to the list of cabal members and also to the proceedure for becoming part of the cabal? Johntex\^talk 16:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Clearly you're looking for WP:RfCa. David D. (Talk) 17:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

(killing tabs) Wikimedia Foundation is set up as a non-profit foundation with a governing body of the Board of Trustees. It's all in the charter (you might want to read it). Ultimately they are the ones making decisions. If any local wiki (such as en-wiki) comes up with something that goes against our core principles, it will simply be overruled at the Foundation level. That's the real governing body of Wikimedia. The "cabal", as it were, is a group of users who have consistently demonstrated good judgement, and who are relied on by higher-ups for information and advice. Now, turning to Wikimania ... this was the first time in one year since all members of the Board of Trustees as well as many of the users they trust were all in one physical location. Of course they were going to get together to make necessary decisions. Discussions in person work at least ten times better than discussions online. We now sort of have a roadmap for the next several months on many key issues. A lot of it was mentioned in Jimbo's plenary (you might want to listen to that). As for the "cabal" ... there's no formal membership requirements, as it isn't really a cohesive organization. It's just a bunch of individuals who are trusted. It happens in any organization. If you want to be in the "cabal", as it were, prove that you can be trusted by demonstrating good judgement on long-term foundational issues. Here's a hint: sniping at fellow admins who are dealing with fair use issues is not a good idea, because the Foundation takes the whole free content movement very seriously and is more strict about copyright issues than probably most people realize. --Cyde Weys 17:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess that answers everything except who the leaders are. The board members are certainly known, but the cabal seems to be secretive. Who are the current members of the cabal that are serving as advisors to the Foundation? Johntex\^talk 17:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The "cabal" doesn't really consist of "advisors" per se, in either a formal or pragmatic fashion. The "cabal" is more about people who can get stuff done to further the Foundation's goals. Do you think it a coincidence that following Wikimania we are suddenly taking a much more strong approach on fair use issues? As for who is "in" the cabal, it varies depending on who you ask, but you might want to look over all of the images from Wikimania (both on Commons and on Flickr); that should give you a rough start. --Cyde Weys 17:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

There were two main reasons for me starting an RfC on Kelly Martin. I hope you will give them both a little more consideration. It would be easy for on onlooker to get the impression that what is happening is that "cabal" members like to circle the wagon around one of their own, instead of considering whether a "cabal" member may have actually made a mistake.

The first reason for the RfC is to encourage transparency of process. Surely that is a good thing. If 100 Wikipedia editors come together and have a good discussion on policy, surely they can at least take the time to codify the new-found policy into a policy page (not a Talk page) before they act on it.

The second is to encourage civility. Surely the project is not well served by a member of the "cabal" acting with such obvious rudeness.

As to "sniping" at people, the RfC on Kelly Martin is a valid process. It is the first I've ever filed, and I filed in in good faith. I think it is interesting that the "cabal" would now like to get rid of something that may occasional serve to point out their shortcomings. I suggest the "cabal" needs ot lighten up. No one is infallible.

If an editor messes up, I'll tell them/block them/report them as seems appropriate. If that person is a brand new editor, so be it. If they are a defrocked arbitrator, so be it. If that keeps me out of the "cabal", then I'll just have to stay out of that little country club. I won't compromise my principles to be part of the "in crowd". Johntex\^talk 17:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The process you're describing isn't how policy is actually made. And the fair use gallery thing has been festering for several weeks, with no one really willing to step forward and declare, "This is how our Foundation-level principles apply to this issue, and this is the way it will be from now on." Kelly did that. If some incivility is necessary to get the point across that the argument is coming to a close and things are changing immediately, so be it. I'm not necessarily say it was necessary, but what's done is done, and the climate has changed to the point where people should be realizing that fair use galleries go against our freely-redistributable encyclopedia principles. The RFC just turned into a battleground that caused more harm than good with lots of people sniping back and forth at each other in an unproductive fashion. If you take issue with Kelly's actions I would suggest that you contact her in private. RFCs inevitably never work on issues like this, as they just provide a huge forum for the trolls and distruptors to erupt dissension into, sowing seeds of malcontent. --Cyde Weys 17:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

As the RfC shows, I contacted Kelly on her Talk page and was not able to resolve the issue. The fact that he first post was under the heading "enough" and that a subsequent post basically said something like "discuss all you want but it won't make a difference", it was clear that one-on-one discussion with Kelly was not going to be productive. If Kelly doesn't like RfC's filed on her, then she can try being more conversive/constructive/collaborative to begin with.

As for contacting her in private, I have nothing to hide. If her actions are noble, then she should have no need to hide either. I prefer on wiki discussions for transparancy, accountability, etc. Johntex\^talk 21:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi there!

Hi! We've never met before, but I've seen you around and am looking for a bit of advice in regards to Category:Rouge_admins. Hopefully you can help me out (I was going to ask Lar about this, but it seems as if he's on wikibreak at the moment). I'm debating opening it up as a WP:CFD. I understand the humour, however is it really appropriate in an encyclopedia? I think you were involved in a similar discussion of Category:Gangster Wikipedians or a similar category, and am basically asking if you think it's appropriate. I'd rather just get an explanation from a user that places him/herself in that category before leaving it to process. Thanks in advance and I look forward to hearing from you. Cheers! hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 18:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about? You only provided a red link and no context? Please give me more information. --Cyde Weys 18:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The categories weren't linked properly (it actually put you in the gangster wikipedians category, Cyde). I fixed it :) Cowman109^Talk 18:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Bring it to Categories for deletion, I would support deleting it. Despite being in it, I really do hate all non-encyclopedic and non-maintenance categories. --Cyde Weys 18:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, things certainly move fast on your talk page! I just ran into two edit conflicts. Sorry, I just realised that I used a colon instead of a (whatever | is called). I'm not quite sure if you were involved in a discussion pertaining to a Gangster Wikipedians category, and I apologise if you've no idea what I'm talking about. Basically, there was a category entitled "Gangster Wikipedians" or something similiar and was recently deleted. I was wondering if the same logic applies to the Rouge Admins category. I hope this clears things up and thanks for responding so quickly hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 18:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll go ahead and run it through the process. Thanks again for the quick response and thanks to Cowman109 for fixing the redlinks! hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 18:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem! (Decided to spontaneously use a light red signature to make Cyde happy in case he stumbles upon my RFA *cough*) Cowman109^Talk 18:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was responsible for deleting "Gangster Wikipedians" (multiple times actually), and did take a fair amount of flak for it, though I think the main user who created it now does understand why it is inappropriate for Wikipedia. --Cyde Weys 18:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, technically you deleted the category itself only once, you removed it from my userpage a few times when it was back on CfD. Anyhow, I'm obviously not going to recreate it after being blocked twice over it. syphonbyte _(t|c) 21:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cards / AN/I

Cyde, I'm sorry if my comment on AN/I offended you; I certainly didn't mean to accuse you of anything else than getting a little overheated and bringing more heat than light to the discussion. That's why I would like to ask you to step back and let others handle this. As WP:COOL says, there are plenty of competent admins that can take care of cases like this. And let me repeat again, this case isn't nearly as urgent as the heated comments here make it look like. Wikipedia won't break if you let this one go, even if you feel your course of action is entirely justified. — mark ✎ 20:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

(I originally posted this comment on WP:AN/I, but then I realized your talk page is a better place for it). Kind regards, — mark ✎ 22:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

While I find it utterly ridiculous that there are people arguing to unblock this troll, I am not going to continue arguing over it; I've made my point that he shouldn't be unblocked and I'll leave it at that. Of course, I shall be watching him very carefully, and if he does the same kind of thing again he'll get an even longer block. --Cyde Weys 22:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

That was quick! Okay, thanks for your response. Kind regards, — mark ✎ 22:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ...that proposal

I put it up here. rootology (T) 22:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "So, you stuck up for a guy who flagrantly violated policy ..."

I think you are confused. That was you when you stuck up for Kelly Martin. Johntex\^talk 04:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Au contraire, Kelly Martin turned out to be right in this, and you and your little sockpuppeting blocked "friend" turned out to be wrong. --Cyde Weys 04:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• I do not support in any way Cardsplayer4life using a sock-puppet to evade the block. However, a call for apologies from people who argued against the block ignores the time-line of events. The block occurred first, then the sock-puppetry. Therefore, the sock-puppetry did not lead to the block and the sock-puppetry is irrelevant is considering whether the block was valid or not. The sock-puppetry does not change the fact that the block was invalid. Johntex\^talk 04:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No, what the sockpuppetry does is establish character. Whereas you could possibly give the user the benefit of the doubt under WP:AGF and say that the block was unwarranted, now that we actually know what this guy was up to, it is quite clear that the block was correct. When I make mistakes I do apologize, believe it or not. By the way the current block is valid no matter what you may think of the previous one. --Cyde Weys 04:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

First, I agree on the current block. It is warranted.

However, unless Kelly can read the future, she can't claim that her actions were justified by actions that Card had not taken yet, and which he couldn't have taken if not for Kelly's prior action. If she hadn't blocked him, he couldn't have been evading her block. That does not make either of them right.

Please consider however the following hypothetical parable: Tommy saves up money to buy a bicycle. He rides it past Bobby's house. Bobby is greedy and wants the bike. Bobby gets his mother, the sheriff, to arrest the kid and impound the bike. But Tommy kid breaks out of jail and throws stones at the Bobby's house, both of which are against the law. The fact that Tommy behaved badly after being falsly arrested does not justify the false arrest. Bobby's mother should not get a reward based upon future bad behavior of Tommy. Johntex\^talk 05:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Your metaphor is flawed and doesn't correspond to real-world events at all. Here's what actually happened (no useless bicycle metaphor necessary): some users are edit-warring over the insertion of an against-policy fair use gallery. Kelly Martin leaves a stern warning not to do it or users will be blocked. So a user comes along and does it anyway, and not surprisingly, is blocked. Then, sometime in there, the user promises he won't do it again in an unblock request (which is accepted), while meanwhile logging out to make the same edit. Kelly didn't do anything wrong here while the user did everything wrong. --Cyde Weys 05:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. Thank you for your time. Johntex\^talk 05:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

"Keep throwing in your lot with fools and eventually you become indistinguishable from them" — good quote. --Cyde Weys 14:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm feeling generous so I'll just ignore your implied insult. Johntex\^talk 16:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, why don't you just stop. You seem to create more fires than you extinguish. David D. (Talk) 16:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I just want to know why some people are constantly siding with trolls and disruptors, and why they continue to do it for many months after pretty much everyone they "stuck up for" earlier was generally denounced by the community at large. Don't they realize that events are not considered in isolation? There are some people who've lost all credibility with the majority of the higher-up admin community because the only thing we've ever seen from them is consistently poor judgement. They might as well not be making comments, because most administrators just ignore them. Look at how increasingly irrelevant Grue has become ... all he seems to do these days is stick up for trolls and demand that every admin he disagrees with be desysopped. Johntex isn't there yet, but he's on his way. Our administrator community has some differences of opinions; that's natural. But it's a shame that we're allowing ourselves to be disrupted so much by outsider trolls. --Cyde Weys 16:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Who are the "higher-up" admin community? Johntex\^talk 16:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The "cabal", basically. You know, the ones making the decisions. --Cyde Weys 16:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've heard of the cabal, but I've also heard it does not exist. Does one need to violate policy and exhibit extreme rudeness to be a member? Johntex\^talk 16:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Violate policy? Care to give any examples? As for "exhibiting extreme rudeness" ... let's just say some people are more visible than others in getting things accomplished. --Cyde Weys 16:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

So the community has no say? What exactly are you implying here? There is a blacklist of those whose opinion counts for nothing? Not all who disagree with consensus should be considered trolls. So is wikipedia more of a monarchy that it admits too? David D. (Talk) 16:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No, not a monarchy. But it certainly isn't a democracy. You can see that in our processes; none of them are really votes. Lots of things are done because they are necessary, even if the community can't see it at the time. There's always going to be a lot of flak raised over new policies or procedures (userboxes, fair use, semi-protection, stable versions, et al), but I trust the people running Wikipedia to make the decisions better than a pseudo-anarchic-democracy of all users. If anything I guess you could say Wikipedia is a republic. --Cyde Weys 16:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm referring to your second to last comment, above, not your general opinion. It seems to be needlessly antagonistic and certainly is not productive given you had already made your point clear. Certainly it was counterproductive with respect to getting johntex to see things from your own perspective.David D. (Talk) 16:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I could have handled it better. But you must understand how annoying it is when we are constantly getting backstabbed by fellow admins whose choices of who they ally with are consistently poor. We basically have some "snipers" who latch onto situations with even the appearance of anyone in the "cabal" doing something wrong, and then defend, to the death, the other person, no matter how wrong they are. --Cyde Weys 16:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If this is a "republic" with the cabal being "the ones making the decisions" it seems we should be entitled to know who our leaders are. Can you please point me to the list of cabal members and also to the proceedure for becoming part of the cabal? Johntex\^talk 16:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Clearly you're looking for WP:RfCa. David D. (Talk) 17:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

(killing tabs) Wikimedia Foundation is set up as a non-profit foundation with a governing body of the Board of Trustees. It's all in the charter (you might want to read it). Ultimately they are the ones making decisions. If any local wiki (such as en-wiki) comes up with something that goes against our core principles, it will simply be overruled at the Foundation level. That's the real governing body of Wikimedia. The "cabal", as it were, is a group of users who have consistently demonstrated good judgement, and who are relied on by higher-ups for information and advice. Now, turning to Wikimania ... this was the first time in one year since all members of the Board of Trustees as well as many of the users they trust were all in one physical location. Of course they were going to get together to make necessary decisions. Discussions in person work at least ten times better than discussions online. We now sort of have a roadmap for the next several months on many key issues. A lot of it was mentioned in Jimbo's plenary (you might want to listen to that). As for the "cabal" ... there's no formal membership requirements, as it isn't really a cohesive organization. It's just a bunch of individuals who are trusted. It happens in any organization. If you want to be in the "cabal", as it were, prove that you can be trusted by demonstrating good judgement on long-term foundational issues. Here's a hint: sniping at fellow admins who are dealing with fair use issues is not a good idea, because the Foundation takes the whole free content movement very seriously and is more strict about copyright issues than probably most people realize. --Cyde Weys 17:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess that answers everything except who the leaders are. The board members are certainly known, but the cabal seems to be secretive. Who are the current members of the cabal that are serving as advisors to the Foundation? Johntex\^talk 17:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The "cabal" doesn't really consist of "advisors" per se, in either a formal or pragmatic fashion. The "cabal" is more about people who can get stuff done to further the Foundation's goals. Do you think it a coincidence that following Wikimania we are suddenly taking a much more strong approach on fair use issues? As for who is "in" the cabal, it varies depending on who you ask, but you might want to look over all of the images from Wikimania (both on Commons and on Flickr); that should give you a rough start. --Cyde Weys 17:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

There were two main reasons for me starting an RfC on Kelly Martin. I hope you will give them both a little more consideration. It would be easy for on onlooker to get the impression that what is happening is that "cabal" members like to circle the wagon around one of their own, instead of considering whether a "cabal" member may have actually made a mistake.

The first reason for the RfC is to encourage transparency of process. Surely that is a good thing. If 100 Wikipedia editors come together and have a good discussion on policy, surely they can at least take the time to codify the new-found policy into a policy page (not a Talk page) before they act on it.

The second is to encourage civility. Surely the project is not well served by a member of the "cabal" acting with such obvious rudeness.

As to "sniping" at people, the RfC on Kelly Martin is a valid process. It is the first I've ever filed, and I filed in in good faith. I think it is interesting that the "cabal" would now like to get rid of something that may occasional serve to point out their shortcomings. I suggest the "cabal" needs ot lighten up. No one is infallible.

If an editor messes up, I'll tell them/block them/report them as seems appropriate. If that person is a brand new editor, so be it. If they are a defrocked arbitrator, so be it. If that keeps me out of the "cabal", then I'll just have to stay out of that little country club. I won't compromise my principles to be part of the "in crowd". Johntex\^talk 17:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The process you're describing isn't how policy is actually made. And the fair use gallery thing has been festering for several weeks, with no one really willing to step forward and declare, "This is how our Foundation-level principles apply to this issue, and this is the way it will be from now on." Kelly did that. If some incivility is necessary to get the point across that the argument is coming to a close and things are changing immediately, so be it. I'm not necessarily say it was necessary, but what's done is done, and the climate has changed to the point where people should be realizing that fair use galleries go against our freely-redistributable encyclopedia principles. The RFC just turned into a battleground that caused more harm than good with lots of people sniping back and forth at each other in an unproductive fashion. If you take issue with Kelly's actions I would suggest that you contact her in private. RFCs inevitably never work on issues like this, as they just provide a huge forum for the trolls and distruptors to erupt dissension into, sowing seeds of malcontent. --Cyde Weys 17:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

As the RfC shows, I contacted Kelly on her Talk page and was not able to resolve the issue. The fact that he first post was under the heading "enough" and that a subsequent post basically said something like "discuss all you want but it won't make a difference", it was clear that one-on-one discussion with Kelly was not going to be productive. If Kelly doesn't like RfC's filed on her, then she can try being more conversive/constructive/collaborative to begin with.

As for contacting her in private, I have nothing to hide. If her actions are noble, then she should have no need to hide either. I prefer on wiki discussions for transparancy, accountability, etc. Johntex\^talk 21:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi there!

Hi! We've never met before, but I've seen you around and am looking for a bit of advice in regards to Category:Rouge_admins. Hopefully you can help me out (I was going to ask Lar about this, but it seems as if he's on wikibreak at the moment). I'm debating opening it up as a WP:CFD. I understand the humour, however is it really appropriate in an encyclopedia? I think you were involved in a similar discussion of Category:Gangster Wikipedians or a similar category, and am basically asking if you think it's appropriate. I'd rather just get an explanation from a user that places him/herself in that category before leaving it to process. Thanks in advance and I look forward to hearing from you. Cheers! hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 18:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about? You only provided a red link and no context? Please give me more information. --Cyde Weys 18:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The categories weren't linked properly (it actually put you in the gangster wikipedians category, Cyde). I fixed it :) Cowman109^Talk 18:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Bring it to Categories for deletion, I would support deleting it. Despite being in it, I really do hate all non-encyclopedic and non-maintenance categories. --Cyde Weys 18:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, things certainly move fast on your talk page! I just ran into two edit conflicts. Sorry, I just realised that I used a colon instead of a (whatever | is called). I'm not quite sure if you were involved in a discussion pertaining to a Gangster Wikipedians category, and I apologise if you've no idea what I'm talking about. Basically, there was a category entitled "Gangster Wikipedians" or something similiar and was recently deleted. I was wondering if the same logic applies to the Rouge Admins category. I hope this clears things up and thanks for responding so quickly hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 18:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll go ahead and run it through the process. Thanks again for the quick response and thanks to Cowman109 for fixing the redlinks! hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 18:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem! (Decided to spontaneously use a light red signature to make Cyde happy in case he stumbles upon my RFA *cough*) Cowman109^Talk 18:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was responsible for deleting "Gangster Wikipedians" (multiple times actually), and did take a fair amount of flak for it, though I think the main user who created it now does understand why it is inappropriate for Wikipedia. --Cyde Weys 18:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, technically you deleted the category itself only once, you removed it from my userpage a few times when it was back on CfD. Anyhow, I'm obviously not going to recreate it after being blocked twice over it. syphonbyte _(t|c) 21:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cards / AN/I

Cyde, I'm sorry if my comment on AN/I offended you; I certainly didn't mean to accuse you of anything else than getting a little overheated and bringing more heat than light to the discussion. That's why I would like to ask you to step back and let others handle this. As WP:COOL says, there are plenty of competent admins that can take care of cases like this. And let me repeat again, this case isn't nearly as urgent as the heated comments here make it look like. Wikipedia won't break if you let this one go, even if you feel your course of action is entirely justified. — mark ✎ 20:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

(I originally posted this comment on WP:AN/I, but then I realized your talk page is a better place for it). Kind regards, — mark ✎ 22:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

While I find it utterly ridiculous that there are people arguing to unblock this troll, I am not going to continue arguing over it; I've made my point that he shouldn't be unblocked and I'll leave it at that. Of course, I shall be watching him very carefully, and if he does the same kind of thing again he'll get an even longer block. --Cyde Weys 22:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

That was quick! Okay, thanks for your response. Kind regards, — mark ✎ 22:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ...that proposal

I put it up here. rootology (T) 22:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "So, you stuck up for a guy who flagrantly violated policy ..."

I think you are confused. That was you when you stuck up for Kelly Martin. Johntex\^talk 04:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Au contraire, Kelly Martin turned out to be right in this, and you and your little sockpuppeting blocked "friend" turned out to be wrong. --Cyde Weys 04:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• I do not support in any way Cardsplayer4life using a sock-puppet to evade the block. However, a call for apologies from people who argued against the block ignores the time-line of events. The block occurred first, then the sock-puppetry. Therefore, the sock-puppetry did not lead to the block and the sock-puppetry is irrelevant is considering whether the block was valid or not. The sock-puppetry does not change the fact that the block was invalid. Johntex\^talk 04:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No, what the sockpuppetry does is establish character. Whereas you could possibly give the user the benefit of the doubt under WP:AGF and say that the block was unwarranted, now that we actually know what this guy was up to, it is quite clear that the block was correct. When I make mistakes I do apologize, believe it or not. By the way the current block is valid no matter what you may think of the previous one. --Cyde Weys 04:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

First, I agree on the current block. It is warranted.

However, unless Kelly can read the future, she can't claim that her actions were justified by actions that Card had not taken yet, and which he couldn't have taken if not for Kelly's prior action. If she hadn't blocked him, he couldn't have been evading her block. That does not make either of them right.

Please consider however the following hypothetical parable: Tommy saves up money to buy a bicycle. He rides it past Bobby's house. Bobby is greedy and wants the bike. Bobby gets his mother, the sheriff, to arrest the kid and impound the bike. But Tommy kid breaks out of jail and throws stones at the Bobby's house, both of which are against the law. The fact that Tommy behaved badly after being falsly arrested does not justify the false arrest. Bobby's mother should not get a reward based upon future bad behavior of Tommy. Johntex\^talk 05:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Your metaphor is flawed and doesn't correspond to real-world events at all. Here's what actually happened (no useless bicycle metaphor necessary): some users are edit-warring over the insertion of an against-policy fair use gallery. Kelly Martin leaves a stern warning not to do it or users will be blocked. So a user comes along and does it anyway, and not surprisingly, is blocked. Then, sometime in there, the user promises he won't do it again in an unblock request (which is accepted), while meanwhile logging out to make the same edit. Kelly didn't do anything wrong here while the user did everything wrong. --Cyde Weys 05:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. Thank you for your time. Johntex\^talk 05:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

"Keep throwing in your lot with fools and eventually you become indistinguishable from them" — good quote. --Cyde Weys 14:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm feeling generous so I'll just ignore your implied insult. Johntex\^talk 16:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, why don't you just stop. You seem to create more fires than you extinguish. David D. (Talk) 16:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I just want to know why some people are constantly siding with trolls and disruptors, and why they continue to do it for many months after pretty much everyone they "stuck up for" earlier was generally denounced by the community at large. Don't they realize that events are not considered in isolation? There are some people who've lost all credibility with the majority of the higher-up admin community because the only thing we've ever seen from them is consistently poor judgement. They might as well not be making comments, because most administrators just ignore them. Look at how increasingly irrelevant Grue has become ... all he seems to do these days is stick up for trolls and demand that every admin he disagrees with be desysopped. Johntex isn't there yet, but he's on his way. Our administrator community has some differences of opinions; that's natural. But it's a shame that we're allowing ourselves to be disrupted so much by outsider trolls. --Cyde Weys 16:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Who are the "higher-up" admin community? Johntex\^talk 16:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The "cabal", basically. You know, the ones making the decisions. --Cyde Weys 16:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've heard of the cabal, but I've also heard it does not exist. Does one need to violate policy and exhibit extreme rudeness to be a member? Johntex\^talk 16:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Violate policy? Care to give any examples? As for "exhibiting extreme rudeness" ... let's just say some people are more visible than others in getting things accomplished. --Cyde Weys 16:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

So the community has no say? What exactly are you implying here? There is a blacklist of those whose opinion counts for nothing? Not all who disagree with consensus should be considered trolls. So is wikipedia more of a monarchy that it admits too? David D. (Talk) 16:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No, not a monarchy. But it certainly isn't a democracy. You can see that in our processes; none of them are really votes. Lots of things are done because they are necessary, even if the community can't see it at the time. There's always going to be a lot of flak raised over new policies or procedures (userboxes, fair use, semi-protection, stable versions, et al), but I trust the people running Wikipedia to make the decisions better than a pseudo-anarchic-democracy of all users. If anything I guess you could say Wikipedia is a republic. --Cyde Weys 16:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm referring to your second to last comment, above, not your general opinion. It seems to be needlessly antagonistic and certainly is not productive given you had already made your point clear. Certainly it was counterproductive with respect to getting johntex to see things from your own perspective.David D. (Talk) 16:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I could have handled it better. But you must understand how annoying it is when we are constantly getting backstabbed by fellow admins whose choices of who they ally with are consistently poor. We basically have some "snipers" who latch onto situations with even the appearance of anyone in the "cabal" doing something wrong, and then defend, to the death, the other person, no matter how wrong they are. --Cyde Weys 16:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If this is a "republic" with the cabal being "the ones making the decisions" it seems we should be entitled to know who our leaders are. Can you please point me to the list of cabal members and also to the proceedure for becoming part of the cabal? Johntex\^talk 16:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Clearly you're looking for WP:RfCa. David D. (Talk) 17:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

(killing tabs) Wikimedia Foundation is set up as a non-profit foundation with a governing body of the Board of Trustees. It's all in the charter (you might want to read it). Ultimately they are the ones making decisions. If any local wiki (such as en-wiki) comes up with something that goes against our core principles, it will simply be overruled at the Foundation level. That's the real governing body of Wikimedia. The "cabal", as it were, is a group of users who have consistently demonstrated good judgement, and who are relied on by higher-ups for information and advice. Now, turning to Wikimania ... this was the first time in one year since all members of the Board of Trustees as well as many of the users they trust were all in one physical location. Of course they were going to get together to make necessary decisions. Discussions in person work at least ten times better than discussions online. We now sort of have a roadmap for the next several months on many key issues. A lot of it was mentioned in Jimbo's plenary (you might want to listen to that). As for the "cabal" ... there's no formal membership requirements, as it isn't really a cohesive organization. It's just a bunch of individuals who are trusted. It happens in any organization. If you want to be in the "cabal", as it were, prove that you can be trusted by demonstrating good judgement on long-term foundational issues. Here's a hint: sniping at fellow admins who are dealing with fair use issues is not a good idea, because the Foundation takes the whole free content movement very seriously and is more strict about copyright issues than probably most people realize. --Cyde Weys 17:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess that answers everything except who the leaders are. The board members are certainly known, but the cabal seems to be secretive. Who are the current members of the cabal that are serving as advisors to the Foundation? Johntex\^talk 17:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The "cabal" doesn't really consist of "advisors" per se, in either a formal or pragmatic fashion. The "cabal" is more about people who can get stuff done to further the Foundation's goals. Do you think it a coincidence that following Wikimania we are suddenly taking a much more strong approach on fair use issues? As for who is "in" the cabal, it varies depending on who you ask, but you might want to look over all of the images from Wikimania (both on Commons and on Flickr); that should give you a rough start. --Cyde Weys 17:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

There were two main reasons for me starting an RfC on Kelly Martin. I hope you will give them both a little more consideration. It would be easy for on onlooker to get the impression that what is happening is that "cabal" members like to circle the wagon around one of their own, instead of considering whether a "cabal" member may have actually made a mistake.

The first reason for the RfC is to encourage transparency of process. Surely that is a good thing. If 100 Wikipedia editors come together and have a good discussion on policy, surely they can at least take the time to codify the new-found policy into a policy page (not a Talk page) before they act on it.

The second is to encourage civility. Surely the project is not well served by a member of the "cabal" acting with such obvious rudeness.

As to "sniping" at people, the RfC on Kelly Martin is a valid process. It is the first I've ever filed, and I filed in in good faith. I think it is interesting that the "cabal" would now like to get rid of something that may occasional serve to point out their shortcomings. I suggest the "cabal" needs ot lighten up. No one is infallible.

If an editor messes up, I'll tell them/block them/report them as seems appropriate. If that person is a brand new editor, so be it. If they are a defrocked arbitrator, so be it. If that keeps me out of the "cabal", then I'll just have to stay out of that little country club. I won't compromise my principles to be part of the "in crowd". Johntex\^talk 17:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The process you're describing isn't how policy is actually made. And the fair use gallery thing has been festering for several weeks, with no one really willing to step forward and declare, "This is how our Foundation-level principles apply to this issue, and this is the way it will be from now on." Kelly did that. If some incivility is necessary to get the point across that the argument is coming to a close and things are changing immediately, so be it. I'm not necessarily say it was necessary, but what's done is done, and the climate has changed to the point where people should be realizing that fair use galleries go against our freely-redistributable encyclopedia principles. The RFC just turned into a battleground that caused more harm than good with lots of people sniping back and forth at each other in an unproductive fashion. If you take issue with Kelly's actions I would suggest that you contact her in private. RFCs inevitably never work on issues like this, as they just provide a huge forum for the trolls and distruptors to erupt dissension into, sowing seeds of malcontent. --Cyde Weys 17:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

As the RfC shows, I contacted Kelly on her Talk page and was not able to resolve the issue. The fact that he first post was under the heading "enough" and that a subsequent post basically said something like "discuss all you want but it won't make a difference", it was clear that one-on-one discussion with Kelly was not going to be productive. If Kelly doesn't like RfC's filed on her, then she can try being more conversive/constructive/collaborative to begin with.

As for contacting her in private, I have nothing to hide. If her actions are noble, then she should have no need to hide either. I prefer on wiki discussions for transparancy, accountability, etc. Johntex\^talk 21:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi there!

Hi! We've never met before, but I've seen you around and am looking for a bit of advice in regards to Category:Rouge_admins. Hopefully you can help me out (I was going to ask Lar about this, but it seems as if he's on wikibreak at the moment). I'm debating opening it up as a WP:CFD. I understand the humour, however is it really appropriate in an encyclopedia? I think you were involved in a similar discussion of Category:Gangster Wikipedians or a similar category, and am basically asking if you think it's appropriate. I'd rather just get an explanation from a user that places him/herself in that category before leaving it to process. Thanks in advance and I look forward to hearing from you. Cheers! hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 18:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about? You only provided a red link and no context? Please give me more information. --Cyde Weys 18:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The categories weren't linked properly (it actually put you in the gangster wikipedians category, Cyde). I fixed it :) Cowman109^Talk 18:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Bring it to Categories for deletion, I would support deleting it. Despite being in it, I really do hate all non-encyclopedic and non-maintenance categories. --Cyde Weys 18:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, things certainly move fast on your talk page! I just ran into two edit conflicts. Sorry, I just realised that I used a colon instead of a (whatever | is called). I'm not quite sure if you were involved in a discussion pertaining to a Gangster Wikipedians category, and I apologise if you've no idea what I'm talking about. Basically, there was a category entitled "Gangster Wikipedians" or something similiar and was recently deleted. I was wondering if the same logic applies to the Rouge Admins category. I hope this clears things up and thanks for responding so quickly hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 18:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll go ahead and run it through the process. Thanks again for the quick response and thanks to Cowman109 for fixing the redlinks! hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 18:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem! (Decided to spontaneously use a light red signature to make Cyde happy in case he stumbles upon my RFA *cough*) Cowman109^Talk 18:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was responsible for deleting "Gangster Wikipedians" (multiple times actually), and did take a fair amount of flak for it, though I think the main user who created it now does understand why it is inappropriate for Wikipedia. --Cyde Weys 18:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, technically you deleted the category itself only once, you removed it from my userpage a few times when it was back on CfD. Anyhow, I'm obviously not going to recreate it after being blocked twice over it. syphonbyte _(t|c) 21:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cards / AN/I

Cyde, I'm sorry if my comment on AN/I offended you; I certainly didn't mean to accuse you of anything else than getting a little overheated and bringing more heat than light to the discussion. That's why I would like to ask you to step back and let others handle this. As WP:COOL says, there are plenty of competent admins that can take care of cases like this. And let me repeat again, this case isn't nearly as urgent as the heated comments here make it look like. Wikipedia won't break if you let this one go, even if you feel your course of action is entirely justified. — mark ✎ 20:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

(I originally posted this comment on WP:AN/I, but then I realized your talk page is a better place for it). Kind regards, — mark ✎ 22:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

While I find it utterly ridiculous that there are people arguing to unblock this troll, I am not going to continue arguing over it; I've made my point that he shouldn't be unblocked and I'll leave it at that. Of course, I shall be watching him very carefully, and if he does the same kind of thing again he'll get an even longer block. --Cyde Weys 22:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

That was quick! Okay, thanks for your response. Kind regards, — mark ✎ 22:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ...that proposal

I put it up here. rootology (T) 22:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation/Apology

This will be long, please bear with me. I hope that you'll take the time to read this, as I think it will help immensely in resolving our dispute.

Now that your second block has expired, I'd like to explain my actions in hopes that you'll better understand what I have been doing and why I felt that your blocks had been unjustified. This is not an objective explanation, but an explanation of how I've felt and reacted during this situation, as well as my intentions during this time.

I first made Category:Gangster Wikipedians as a light joke, similar to a number of other "Wikipedian" categories, and I had hoped it would be taken that way. If I'd known then all the trouble that it would cause, I never would have created it, naturally. When it was put up for CfD, I figured that it would probably be deleted, but I saw the CfD as an opportunity to establish a precedent for similar categories, as they've been somewhat troublesome to decide a solution for at times. When you closed it after one day, I was rather suprised and contacted you to ask you to reopen the discussion so that we could figure out what to do with these kinds of articles, as well as let the CfD run its course, as I'm somewhat of a fan of process. I know that you were acting in good faith when you closed it and didn't intend to insult anybody with your closing comments, and I tried to express this. Your responses to my comments made me feel as though you brushed me aside as a problem user. I don't know if you intended them to come across that way; that's simply how they came across to me. I decided to bring the matter to DRV, where the CfD was reopened. I placed a notice on your talk page about the DRV, but you were on wikibreak and your bot archived the notice, and at any rate the CfD reopened after you returned, so you weren't able to comment at the DRV, unfortunately. At that time, I felt that it was a good idea to add myself to the category again so that it wouldn't appear to be empty to people who were discussing it. The Raven also added himself to the category. Drini, unaware of the DRV, deleted the category as well as links to it on our userpages as he was executing the decision of the first CfD. I notified him of what happened and he acknowledged his mistake, and The Raven and I readded ourselves to the category for the same reason that we did at first. (To keep the category from appearing empty to those discussing it and avoid misconceptions about its population.) After this, you reverted my edits to my userpage to Drini's, and after that you removed some boxes on my page that I'd located in seemingly odd places, then blocked me for 3 hours. I assumed this was because you thought I was simply edit warring with Drini. After the block, I decided not to replace the Lobster box that had been on the page as it could disrupt plugins that some users might have, however I put back the "users authorized to edit this page" box. I've decided that if I put that box back, I will name it "users authorized to vandalize this page," because that particular box was for notifying editors who might think that The Raven and other particular users' edits were vandalism. We'd had trouble with this before and I wanted to rectify it. During that time, I also removed the previous unblock request I had, as my block had expired by that time, so it wasn't neccessary. I then posted a comment to the CfD stating that some of the users involved in it often edit under anonymous IP addresses. I then posted a comment to your talk page outlining why I believed that your block had been unneccessary. After these actions, you blocked me for 31 hours for "edit warring" and "disruption," as well as stating that I was in a group of meatpuppets. I assume that the edit warring and disruption claims were based on my replacement of the box on my userpage, which I don't really see as edit warring, as it was the first such revert ever. I purposely didn't replace myself in the category again for fear of being blocked again, however that didn't seem to work. I also found that you blocked The Raven for 24 hours for reverting the edit you made to my userpage because he was "edit warring." Raven didn't attempt to contest the block.

That's basically how I've seen the events so far. I'd like to apologize for creating the category because of all the trouble it's caused both of us. I also would like to apologize for the actions of my friends (the "meatpuppets" as you stated) as they are not as familiar with Wikipedia policies as you or I. I didn't notify them about the CfD, The Raven did. I was hoping that my actions could be considered separately from theirs, as I never intended to "vote stack" in the CfD, which isn't really possible since the CfD is a vote. I'd rather not hold a grudge against you, nor have you hold one against me, because of this situation, so hopefully this illustrates better how I felt about your blocks. I would certainly like to hear your view as well, and more precisely the exact reason that you blocked me on both occassions, and why you felt that the block was justified although it violated policy. (Specifically, the part where it says that administrators in content disputes with users should not block those users.) I feel that it's more likely that you thought that the category was still deleted, although I had notified you that it wasn't. I'm still assuming good faith and hoping that this is a simple misunderstanding that was blown out of proportion, and not you blocking The Raven and I (the sole members of the category up for deletion) to make it appear that the category is empty and sway voters in that manner. I don't hold that view, however it appears that The Raven does, judging from his comments at the CfD.

syphonbyte _(t|c) 03:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks like you're not going to respond with your reasoning for blocking me on both occassions, since you've made a number of edits since I first posted this. syphonbyte _(t|c) 02:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Each time I blocked you it was because you had just re-added or re-created the category after warnings not to do so. --Cyde Weys 02:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, shit, I just saw that I did indeed add the category the second time around. That wasn't actually my intention, I only meant to add the box; I suppose I edited an old version, but anyhow I can't really change that. Still, I was re-adding the category because it was on CfD again. There's no reason that I can't add myself to a category just because it's on CfD, is there? I still believe that you should've had somebody else block me if it was that big of a deal, as you were indeed in a content dispute with me over that Category, and blocking a user with whom you're in a content dispute is, as I understand it, a big no-no. syphonbyte _(t|c) 02:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

A content dispute? Nope. That only applies to encyclopedia articles. If an administrator is having problems with something on a user's page and the user keeps reverting, the admin needs to do something. I would've protected, but you and Raven were re-adding the category to each other's pages. --Cyde Weys 02:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't find a specific place where a content dispute is said to only apply to articles. Categories are certainly content since they are part of the encyclopedia. Also, I did not add the category to The Raven's page on any occassion. He only added it to my page once, after which you blocked him. In fact, I only added the category to my page twice, and Raven did once. The other times that I added it were after Drini mistakenly removed it because he had thought that the first CfD was still standing, and didn't know about the DRV. I also added the category back to my page over such a period of time that on no occassion did I violate WP:3RR. I wasn't exactly edit warring either, as the situation with Drini was resolved, and thus cannot be counted in any "edit warring." Even if I were, there must be somebody to edit war with, which would've been you, so you can't really accuse me of edit warring without incriminating yourself as well. Blocking a user to resolve an "edit war" is not exactly conforming to blocking policy. Also, there was no reason to block me for putting the category on my user page, as it was a valid category that was up for CfD at the time as the previous CfD had been overturned. The fact that you didn't like the category is not a reason to block me for putting it on my page. syphonbyte _(t|c) 02:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you trying to say that the category "Gangster Wikipedians" is part of the encyclopedia and thus edits dealing with it are necessarily content disputes? I assure you, if I caught anyone trying to add that category to any encyclopedia article I would deal with them very unpleasantly myself. --Cyde Weys 03:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, not at all. I'm just saying that the category can't be put into userspace or anything like that, as you pointed out to me a while ago. I'm fairly sure that blocking policy means in that instance that admins shouldn't block users with whom they are involved in any sort of dispute unless it's blatant vandalism or something like that. Either way, the category was back on CfD and there wasn't any reason that I couldn't put it onto my userpage. syphonbyte _(t|c) 03:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The list...

...is getting rather long again, if you'd like to come help. ;) —Mira 07:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your bot screwed up my page...

Your bot did this to my Userpage. I'd rather you left a talkpage message for me to change whatever needs chenging than set a badly programmed bot to do it. (now to figure out now to fix it without reverting all the changes) - an annoyed MTC 15:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Those two categories were renamed per WP:CFD, which is a process for renaming categories. It works fine for encyclopedic categories, but every now and again it looks like some weirdly formatted userspace categories slip through. Again, why is it necessary to have user categories for stuff like "Wikipedians who play Mario Kart DS"? --Cyde Weys 15:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eh up.

Per the conversation about Gangster Wikipedians, Hoopydink nominated Category:Rouge admins for deletion. Not sure how you feel about that, he's implied you suggested or supported deletion. See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 10#Category:Rouge_admins. I think a rename would be good, but given the people in it there does appear to be at lest some encyclopaedic purpose to it. Just zis Guy you know? 16:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ???

[1] WHAT are you talking about. What edit of mine are you referencing? Karwynn (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologize, I took your delayed response to my comment to be an indication that you were just drive-by shooting me, of sorts. I restored your comment. Karwynn (talk) 17:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please discuss

This is currently being discussed in its talk page in the 23rd header. Please add your input if you wish to continue reverting. Karwynn (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

For helping out with your bot on CFD. Much appreciated! --Kbdank71 17:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)