User talk:Worldtraveller

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Having a break, while I ponder whether the community is now irrevocably at odds with its stated purpose of building an encyclopaedia.

Older talk: User talk:Worldtraveller/Old stuff 1, User talk:Worldtraveller/Old stuff 2, User talk:Worldtraveller/Old stuff 3, User talk:Worldtraveller/Old stuff 4, User talk:Worldtraveller/Old stuff 5

Good god, man, not you as well... I have clearly been here too long. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Regretfully, I believe you’re right about the impossibility to achieve a reputable encyclopaedia with the current setup. Still, the solutions you suggest do not strike me as unrealistic. As example, multiple views (included releases, typical in software development) are achievable. A small group of editors on given set of topics could from time to time incorporate the best contributions from the nightly builds into the releases…
In any case, every time a valuable contributor is leaving, the chances to get anywhere near the objective are fading. Best regards Eurocommuter 23:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit, I feel the same way some times. Too much pettyness, and not enough good editors working towards a better encyclopedia. These days I get the impression there aren't quite so many people patroling the routine vandalism, and rather more new editors taking advantage. Nevertheless its as well to remember that in many ways Wikipedia has achieved a lot even if it is not perfect. Its good to spend time on a WikiBreak reading articles which aren't your core subject. -- Solipsist 23:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Shame to see you go. I for one couldn't agree with your suggestions more - I think they would go a long way towards fixing the project's ongoing problems. Rebecca 01:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand how you feel as there are some flaws to Wikipedia. You may think that only like a 1,000 contributors alone are dedicated to Wikipedia, but over 120,000 active contributors (if the trend keeps up) are participaing to help Wikipedia. Sure there are low qualities of articles at times but we can make them to FA status if we have enough contributors. Low quality articles will remain low-quality articles if contributors like you decide to leave Wikipedia. Hope you come back from your Wikibreak and take care. See this page.--PrestonH 03:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Need for Suggestions

I believe that, prior to the deactivation of the portal proposal page, you were involved in the conversation on an Occult or Paranorma portal. To create a functioning and efficient portal, I'm ressurecting the discussion on my talk page. Please join, we are in need of ideas.--Whytecypress 15:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FAR

Hi, Worldtraveller. It's been almost two weeks since you nominated Dawson Creek, British Columbia for review. Can you let us know your thoughts on its progress? Also, your thoughts on Wikipedia:Featured article review/StarCraft. Thanks, Sandy 02:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your break

I do hope it's not permanent! Take care in the meantime. Marskell 08:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikireaders

I hope you are enjoying your break, when it's over could you please inform me on how you created such a wonderful wikireader? I just want to know the process you went though so I can start on mine.


[edit] Image:Hale-Bopp-large.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Hale-Bopp-large.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BigDT 16:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "dishonest edit summaries"??

What the Hell are you talking about? Have you even looked at the article's history? Have you read the manual of style? Do you care? --Justice for All 01:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured picture delisting

Hi, I've nominated a featured picture you uploaded, Image:Moscow Metro, Kievskaya station.jpg, for delisting. Please see Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Moscow Metro, Kievskaya station.jpg delist for discussion. Regards, howcheng {chat} 17:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

I saw your edits - you can't hide, you know :)

How are things? -- ALoan (Talk) 20:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

In the real world, all is very well and I hope the same is true for you. As for this place, I'm still not convinced it's worth my time doing any substantial editing. Difficult to go totally cold turkey though :) I won't return in any serious way until at the very least the much-vaunted stable versions system appears - it's too depressing watching fine articles slowly get wrecked. Worldtraveller 14:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If you happen...

…to stumble on irregular satellite, I would greatly appreciate your comments. It’s still in fact finding/reference collecting stage, poorly written (by me) and to be structured properly but the subject is of interest given the discoveries of the last 6 years and the theoretical puzzles involved. All comments, including anonymous edits, highly appreciated! Cheers Eurocommuter 12:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Very sorry, Eurocommuter, but I don't feel able at the moment to get involved in the project. I'm busy elsewhere and still stand by what I wrote on my userpage. Your work looks good though. Worldtraveller 14:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Öskjuvatn, Iceland.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Öskjuvatn, Iceland.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 14:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note to confirm request on Meta

I don't need admin tools any more. Worldtraveller 14:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Done as requested. Sorry to see you go. — Dan | talk 21:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leaving

I came across this news rather belatedly. Sorry to hear that you're leaving, WP will be the poorer for it. Best wishes for the future. --BillC 14:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Likewise.--Will.i.am 00:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you both - I hope my break won't be a permanent one but in the meantime, all the best. Worldtraveller 22:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crab Nebula

Thanks for intervening there - I was not sufficiently sure of my ground to jump in myself. It is good to see you around. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Hyakutake.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Hyakutake.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Image:Amazon at Iquitos.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Amazon at Iquitos.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --– Quadell (talk) (random) 19:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:NGC6543 infrared image.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:NGC6543 infrared image.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. Shizhao 05:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC) - Shizhao 05:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Hello Worldtraveller, I'm Träumer from the german wikipedia. To improve my english, I translated half of your featured articles within the last years - which are 90% of my translated featured articles. Sorry to hear that you're leaving. Your stop is not only a loss for the english wikipedia but for the german one, too. --141.53.11.111 15:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Planetary Nebula A39.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Planetary Nebula A39.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —Shizhao 16:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)--Shizhao 16:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good luck

I was surprised to find you on WP:MW, so I came on over to your user page to find out what was going on. I think you make some valid points: perhaps there might be less vandalism and more accurate articles if there was a bit more moderation, and an article shouldn't need to be long to be eligible for WP:FA. I've been an editor here for almost three years, and in that time I've been impressed at how Wikipedia has grown. Many articles are excellent, but unfortunately the nature of the Wikipedia project is that "professional" encyclopaedias such as Encyclopaedia Britannica will probably always be more reliable, though maybe somewhat less comprehensive.

Good luck, and I hope you return soon! Andrew (My talk) 23:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Photo Matching Service

Hi there,

I'm contacting you because you listed yourself at Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Photographers. You might be interested in a new wikiproject page that lists photographers and articles that need photos by location. The page is located at Wikipedia:Photo Matching Service or WP:PMS GabrielF 00:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good points

I'd just like to say that I agree wholeheartedly with most of what you've put on your user page. I still find Wikipedia very useful but became thoroughly disillusioned with editing some time ago now. It never ceases to amaze me just how much rubbish is allowed to slip through the net, how lax most editors are when it comes to basic academic standards, and how the quality of much of the content deteriorates over time instead of the hoped-for opposite. I don't think Wikipedia is doomed, as there are enough people with an interest in its success who know what they're doing to drag it out of mediocrity, eventually. I have a lot of admiration for the competent editors who continue to work here (Mark Dingemanse, SlimVirgin, AxelBoldt, et al.), and I hope you're aware of the value of the contributions you have made. Enjoy your break from editing. — Trilobite 06:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good to see you

It's great to see you around. Hope the break was relaxing, and that you're going to visit more often... as you pointed out a bit ago, we need more of your kind (namely, excellent contributors) around here =). --Spangineerws (háblame) 02:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It is very good to see you around, after such a long time. I am sorry that you have had such a bad experience on editing again. I wonder how many potential editors we lose as a result of that kind of experience. You may be aware that other long-term contributors, such as User:Giano II and User:Bunchofgrapes, have been having a hard time recently. Sigh. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the messages both of you. Sorry it took me a while to reply. Trust you've been well these last few months. At the moment I'm not planning any serious article writing but I may be around dabbling a bit - at least for a week or so as I'd like to see Comet Hyakutake remain a featured article, and if I manage that it seems some people have their eyes on Comet Hale-Bopp as well.
I've seen what's been going on with Giano - totally unbelievable and it really makes me wonder just how many people here are actually interested in producing high quality content. Didn't know Bunchofgrapes was having a hard time as well. I was pretty appalled when my IP got blocked, and if User:InShaneee is representative of administrators these days then I think it's a wonder there is anyone left with any faith in the project. Worldtraveller 02:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Glad to see you editing, WT. The FA process will certainly welcome you back; I've kept my GA potshots at a mimimum recently... Marskell 16:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Ha, well, from what of seen of the way GA has evolved, these days I'd probably agree wholeheartedly with your potshotting. I'm horrified at the waste of energy in 'assessing' ridiculously long articles to give them a mark that, according to Template:Grading scheme, means that 'other encyclopaedias could do a better job'. That was never even remotely supposed to be what it was about. Worldtraveller 11:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comet Hyakutake

Comet Hyakutake has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are hereJeffpw 09:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Energy: world resources and consumption

Could you please look at the brand new Energy: world resources and consumption and comment if it is ready to be a featured article? Thank you for your help.
Frank van Mierlo 13:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Planetbox tests

Hello. I'm currently trying to tidy up the astronomical templates, which are in quite a mess at the moment. I've come across Template:Planetbox begin test and Template:Planetbox end test, which were created by you back on the 23 April 2006. Do you still want these templates? If not, please could you tag them with {{Template:db-author}} so that they can be deleted? Thanks. Mike Peel 23:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Murder of Tom ap Rhys Pryce

I am hoping you're joking about considering this article for deletion. Not only is it obviously notible, its got GA status.--FabioTalk 08:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Why on earth would I joke about something like that? Worldtraveller 11:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Wikipedia talk:Notability (news)

In the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Tom ap Rhys Pryce in which you participated, some editors suggested the need for a guideline where a consensus could be reached regarding whether everything which is newsworthy is also encyclopedic. I have created a draft of a proposed guideline Wikipedia talk:Notability (news). Your input is welcome. Thanks. Edison 15:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

You linked the discussion for Pink Floyd trivia to The Beatles trivia. andreasegde 07:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Independent opinion

Hi, sorry to bother you :) It was suggested I contact you to get an outside opinion. I'm trying to get Hamersley, Western Australia to FAC, it's at the first draft stage at the moment. I would really appreciate your thoughts on it and what it needs. (Images have been put aside for now onto the talk page, will be placed back when prose is reasonably settled) Orderinchaos78 03:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jenna Jameson

Among other criticisms, you wrote "presenting quotes as if they are fact". I looked for instances of that, and could only find one that seemed to read that way, and, I believe, fixed that one. All the other quotes seem to clearly state that they are Jameson's statements, rather than facts. Are there others that I missed? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I hope I haven't been "vexatious" too... :-) AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Not at all! Got somewhat distracted by the unexpected reaction to my essay but I will come back to you on the comments I left - by tomorrow morning at the latest. Worldtraveller 17:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trusted editor concept

I believe you are one of those who support this idea (I've lobbied for this for ages). Do get in touch, i'm collecting names. Dbuckner 18:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to your essay are not "talk"

You removed my changes from your essay WP:WIF. You shouldn't do that. According to Wikipedia:Essays are not policy, if I disagree with your essay, I may:

There are a number of things an editor can do when faced with an unbalanced essay. An editor can:

  1. Edit the essay to balance it.
  2. Propose that it is too divisive and submit it to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion with a good reason for doing so.
  3. Write an opposing essay, detailing the other point of view.

The policy goes on to advise against edit warring and then advises me to take my contest with you to the Arbitration Committee.

So I am going to reinstate my changes. If you remove them, I will take this matter to the Arbitration Committee. Heathhunnicutt 20:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to remove them again. The reason is that this essay is written under a certain title to reflect a certain opinion. Discussion of that opinion is very welcome indeed on the talk page. I wrote the piece to generate discussion and I'm delighted that it succeeded. Editing the essay to insert your counter-opinion is not the best thing to do. We'll end up having discussion on the article page instead of on the talk page. Feel free to take this to the arbitration committee if you want, but I think it would be much more productive if you discuss the issues at hand on the talk page rather than trying to get the arbitration committee to do something here. Worldtraveller 22:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whoever slashdotted your essay has rocks in their head.

Whoever slashdotted your essay has rocks in their head. Unless they actually wanted to stifle the discussion by inviting a lot of vandals and drive-by two-centers in. Hesperian 22:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation filed

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia is failing, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

[edit] Request for Arbitration filed

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Current_requests Heathhunnicutt 00:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Did you submit your own essay to slashdot?

Sorry for the potentially rude question, but are you the person who submitted your essay to slashdot? Heathhunnicutt 02:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I don't find that a rude question at all. In fact, I think it's entirely reasonable to ask that. But I didn't - I had never even read slashdot until I saw the 'high traffic' tag on the article. Worldtraveller 12:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh my god. This lack of slashdot exposure must be why you have been acting so awfully. Having your WP:NPOV essay linked from Slashdot was awful. You moving all dissension to WP:WINF really gave the appearance of maintaining a WP:SOAPBOX since you had been slashdotted. The truth is, your article was unfair to the community because it became slashdotted and you and others maintaned it as if WP:OWN. But I don't think you get the gravity of harm you can cause via slashdot. Heathhunnicutt 16:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
With the sole exception of the question you initially posed here, you've been consistently obnoxious, aggressive and unpleasant in discussing this article, in sharp contrast to the majority of people who, even if they disagree strongly, have discussed the points raised sensible and civilly. Please try to be a bit more productive. Worldtraveller 18:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia is failing.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 08:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] The emperor has no clothes?

Gosh, your essay seems to be very popular! -- ALoan (Talk) 16:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's far exceeded my expectations of how much discussion it would provoke! I'd love to know what Jimbo Wales might think of it. Worldtraveller 18:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Have you asked him? Based on his comments at last year's Wikimania [1], he wants to change the focus to quality. I agree Wikipedia:Static version (or something like it) is an essential ingredient. I don't understand why it's taking so long to come up with a workable implementation. Attributed as Schopenhauer's law of entropy: If you put a spoonful of wine in a barrel full of sewage, you get sewage. If you put a spoonful of sewage in a barrel full of wine, you get sewage. I think we currently have over a million barrels open for anyone with a web browser to put sewage into. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd be interested in your comments about User:Rick Block/Keeping sewage out of the wine. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR on Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing

I've blocked you for 24 hours for your violation of the three-revert rule on Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing:

  1. [2]
  2. [3]
  3. [4]
  4. [5]
  5. [6]

During your absence, please reflect on the wisdom of edit-warring over a page so prominently linked to by outside sources. Kirill Lokshin 18:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If someone removes all the arguments presented in an essay, and replace them with their own which attempt to prove entirely the opposite point, is that not a bit like vandalism? If someone kept on replacing the article on evolution with text which attempted to show that evolution wasn't true, would that not be vandalism? Worldtraveller 18:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
There's a distinction between an actual article and an essay in the project namespace. Even in the former case, the rewriting would need to be truly egregious to not be considered a legitimate (if ill-advised) content dispute; in the latter, this is almost impossible, since essays are nothing more than opinion pieces anyways. (In other words, the "vandalism" is actually a question of removing sourced article content, not of changing the overall point being made; this doesn't apply when there's no article content in play.) While a certain amount of leeway is given to essays in one's userspace, an essay in Wikipedia: can be quite legitimately "edited mercilessly" by other contributors, even if doing so changes the overall meaning. Kirill Lokshin 18:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
You might note that the people who were destroying this essay have not made a single edit to WP:WINF. Their interest was not in presenting an opposing viewpoint but preventing the representation of this viewpoint. They did this by replacing it with their own essay which came to a completely different conclusion. I certainly considered this purely disruptive and essentially vandalism. Worldtraveller 18:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I support Kirill Lokshin's view that this was a valid three-revert rule block. Worldtraveller and Willow were engaged in an edit war and clearly violated policy. That said, I do feel that Worldtraveller started this edit war by deleting valid arguements and corrections which Willow placed in the essay. In addition, as it states in Wikipedia:Vandalism, "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." Worldtraveller should avoid implying that Willow was engaged in vandalism, which obviously wasn't the case.--Alabamaboy 19:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This essay is not part of the encyclopaedia, and WillowW was not trying to improve it but to obscure its essential arguments. I didn't delete anything; I moved it all to WP:WINF, where it was entirely appropriate and where WillowW's efforts would have been much more productively directed. Worldtraveller 19:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Kirill, this is absolutely, categorically unconscionable. Please remove this asinine block. This is a very unusual cercumstance and people were turning this essay into something it was not at all. CyberAnth 19:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

While the essay may not be an article, it is part of Wikipedia. As such, no one can "own" the essay. Others may edit it as they see fit and if there is a disagreement then consensus must be used to come to an agreement on what the essay should say. I've reverted the essay to Willow's last version, which contained views and points which shouldn't have been deleted. Reach consensus on Willow's changes, don't simply delete his/her points. Best, --Alabamaboy 19:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I think your revert was completely inappropriate. I moved all of WillowW's additions to the appropriate place, which is WP:WINF. Do you understand the reason for both WP:NGR and WP:WWISG existing? This is exactly the same. I don't think you fully appreciate the difference between articles and essays. Essays cannot reflect a consensus when people basically disagree, and nor should they try to. You must also have an interest in obscuring and suppressing the fruitful discussion that was taking place. Worldtraveller 19:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
If consensus had been to remove his edits to WP:WINF, that would have been appropriate. To simply do it was not appropriate. If you want to write an essay which no one else can edit, the Wikipedia is not the place for the essay.--Alabamaboy 19:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Alabamaboy, "consensus" equals much more than your own private fiat for your personal agenda. I think these actions of yours - and Kirill Lokshin's - are exactly reasons why WP is failing and will continue to fail until there is fundamental change. As for Kirill Lokshin, I predict his/her action in banning Worldtraveller in this circumstance will go down in infamy, and be fuel for further criticisms of WP in various ways all around the Internet for some time to come. CyberAnth 20:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR says that more than three reverts can be made in certain cases of vandalism. Under the rule, you can revert "simple and obvious vandalism, such as graffiti or page blanking." However, the rule goes on to say that "this only applies to the most simple and obvious vandalism." We've been discussing whether what WillowW was doing was "vandalism," "misguided," or "entirely appropriate." But it seems to me that if what WillowW was doing was debatable and apparently in good faith, then it couldn't be "simple and obvious vandalism." Therefore a fourth revert of those changes violated the WP:3RR rule, and a block seems appropriate. --TheOtherBob 21:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous.

Worldtraveller wrote an insightful essay setting out reasons why Wikipedia is, in his view, failing. Of course he does not "own" the essay, but the whole point of the essay is to have a POV - if others edit the essay to improve it, by, for example, correcting typos or add supporting justifications for that point of view - that is, that Wikipedia is failing - then fair enough; but recent edits to the essay have been obscuring that original view, submerging it below instant rebuttal and contrary opinoins. It makes perfect sense for contrary opinions and rebuttal to be in an essay with the opposite point of view - and one already exists at WP:WINF.

The contents of this kind of piece can't be determined by consensus - it holds out an POV, for goodness sake! Blocking Worldtraveller for defending the original content of his essay smacks of stifling his opinion, and an attempt to hijack the debate.

This block should be of withdrawn, and the essay reverted to its original contents. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


This (the reaction to your essay and esuing revert war) is a perfect example of exactly why Wikipedia is failing. FWIW, I've always found the "Discussion" pages much more interesting than their actual page. --Ricks99 21:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


Actually, the three-revert rule says "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period." 3RR isn't simply for vandalism; it's also to prevent edit warring. Worldtraveller was blocked for violating this rule, not for defending the original essay. If Worldtraveller had defended the original essay on the article's talk page and reached consensus that Willow's edits shouldn't be added, then there wouldn't be a problem.--Alabamaboy 21:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Then why did you revert back to Willow's last change and not Worldtraveller's They are both on opposite sides of the debate so why did you choose one over the other? That's why I think you and Kirill are incorrect here. MetsFan76 21:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR applies, and my personal opinion is that this essay belongs in userspace if the author doesn't want it edited in major ways, but given the overall situation and this user's long career here seemingly without prior 3RR issues, I would have warned both parties before imposing a 3RR block. (My apologies if a warning was given somewhere and I've missed it.) Newyorkbrad 22:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see any warning given to either Willow or Worldtraveller before their 3RR block. Was one even given? There was a strong, yet productive debate at the talk page. The block was uncalled for because now we lost our two main contributors to the discussion. MetsFan76 22:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
"Lost" is a bit strong - hopefully they'll be back. Even presumably, considering they feel strongly about it, and clearly each has supporters. I wouldn't want to "lose" either. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I meant "lost" as in the next 24 hours because that's how long this ridiculous block is for. I'm sure they will be back after the block is lifted. MetsFan76 22:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Powerful kudos to Kirill Lokshin for the 3RR blocks, although I doubt WillowW deserved it. For Worldtraveller to maintain this essay in violation of WP:OWN is the unconscionable act. Heathhunnicutt 22:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Neither deserved the 3RR block and I hope both will be back when the block is lifted. MetsFan76 22:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it was outrageous beyond belief for Alabamaboy to do what he did. ALoan is of course absolutely right - there is no NPOV to aim for, in an essay, and the attempts to add 'balance' were simply crude attempts to stifle criticism and debate. Why did WillowW not make a single edit to WP:WINF? Worldtraveller 00:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

What is interesting is every time I have called Alabamaboy out on something he has stated, he disappears. Yet he has found enough time to revert the article without any consensus. Typical. MetsFan76 01:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Called out on anything? Please. This was a 3RR case where Worldtraveller started an edit war over valid edits to a projectspace essay. If you create an essay in Wikipedia space, anyone may edit it. Now that the essay is in your own userspace, you may edit it as you please. As Cyde, the admin who moved this essay stated, "If no one else is allowed to edit this, as many of the 'Wikipedia is failing' crowd are asserting, then it is NOT a projectspace essay." The actions I did were to try and allow valid edits to be made to an projectspace essay. Now that it's in Worldtraveller's own space, he may do with it as he pleases. Because being in this space doesn't give the world the illusion that his view is the consensus of editors here.--Alabamaboy 02:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I called you out several times: 1) You mentioned that a consensus should be reached before editing parts of the article, yet, you clearly reverted the essay without any discussion on the talk page. You even mention on Willow's page that "your edits were deleted without cause". Well what cause did you have to revert the essay? Because you "liked" her comments? What kind of reason is that? 2) You supported the block of the two main contributors of the discussion. Instead of supporting the block, how about working towards reaching an agreement between the two editors rather than supporting their block? Kirill is another matter. 3) Should WP:NOTFAIL go in a user page as well?? You had no response for any of those. And don't "please" me. It is obvious that this is not about an edit war. Anyway, that's all I have to say to you. MetsFan76 02:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I reverted the edits because it was wrong to delete Willow edits without consensus or reason. I also supported the block b/c it is Wikipedia policy in cases of edit wars and 3RR. As for the page move, I support that also b/c it seems like a good way to end this issue and if people will not allow edits to be made to the essay, it can't remain in the namespace. I personally didn't care either way about the arguments over whether or not Wikipedia is failing. This type of thing is a tempest in a teapot, with people getting totally worked up over something they'll forget about by next month. What bothered me, though, is that Willow's edits were deleted without cause, which isn't done at Wikipedia. If someone did the same thing to you, I'd go to bat for your right to edit an article or namespace essay. Finally, I liked Willow's edits b/c I saw them as making the essay more reasoned and correct in why Wikipedia might be failing. I'd still recommend that Worldtraveller make use of Willow's edits because it made his essay stronger. Still, the issue is now resolved. Since the essay is in Worldtraveller's user space, he can do with it as he pleases. --Alabamaboy 02:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes he can. MetsFan76 02:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I've unblocked you. Since the essay is now in userspace these blocks no longer serve much of a purpose and you are clearly an editor in good standing. JoshuaZ 04:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your essay

Thank you for the thoughtful essay, and glad to see you back... even it it's just to share your concerns. I think the essay should be left alone the way you had it. Though, maybe it should be in userspace? I share many of your concerns. For me, dealing with vandalism (seem to be increasing), tenacious editing, and other non-constructive edits is taking an increasing amount of my time, detracting from article writing and editing -- including core topics that I'm interested in. These issues also discourage me from recruiting colleagues to help. But, I'm not ready to give up and would like to find solutions to make Wikipedia work better. I do hope you stick around, help come up with ways to address the concerns and if you feel up to it at some point, to work on articles again. --Aude (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, Aude. I would like to find solutions as well - that's why I wrote the essay, to stimulate discussion and hopefully encourage an awareness that all is not perfect and get people thinking about how things could be improved. Honestly, after being blocked for preventing people from emasculating criticism, I'm fairly convinced that the situation is beyond repair, and beyond parody as well. But we'll see. Worldtraveller 00:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, this situation of people fundamentally altering the content has been the final nail in the coffin to convince me that WP is beyond repair, except perhaps by long, costly lawsuit by someone upset at their WP "biography". CyberAnth 00:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let's move this to userspace to avoid all this trouble

  • User:Worldtraveller/Wikipedia is failing

CyberAnth 23:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what good that does, and it looks like an attempt to belittle the viewpoint. I know that's not at all your intention but I think moving it could give that impression. Worldtraveller 00:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Speedily deleted as a copyright violation. Worldtraveller and other authors of this essay retain copyright of it, but have licenced it under the GFDL, which requires that authors be acknowledged. Your copy-paste move violated that. If you want to move this essay, use the move tab. Hesperian 23:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've moved it here. Now you can make it whatever you want to say and not have to worry about what other people think. --Cyde Weys 00:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

How stupid can you get? Do you really not understand that rather than emasculate what they opposed, people should have been writing on the other essay? I see that you're trying to prevent people finding the essay now, by having written over the redirect. Worldtraveller 00:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
And how dare you put the emasculated version in my userspace? Worldtraveller 00:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
It is not stupidity. It is completely calculated. CyberAnth 00:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Kinda like pushing it under the rug or the uncle we never talk about. Ridiculous. MetsFan76 01:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Worldtraveller. While I provided some support for the concern of your essay on the talk page, my opinion of the essay isn't important. (In fact, I also agree with the users who are concerned about your evaluation of Wikipedia using statistics from the current article rating system.) But, I do think you've been treated unfairly. Wikipedia allows for the creation of "essay"s—a word with a specific connotation—and has a template for tagging essays as such. Yet a convoluted series of edits to an "essay" made by people with widely differing points of view destroys the "essay" concept. I would expect people with common sense, or courtesy, or any degree of people skills, to understand that. To disagree, they can use the talk page, or write and link to their own essay, etc. But they're reacting emotionally because the subject matter - and the attention it's received - upsets them, I suppose. So more wiki-lawyering goes on, the essay's now in your namespace, and the powers that be are happy that you've been put a bit more "in your place". (Admittedly, this is where wikis fail for me: "the community" has decided to edit your essay. That's all that matters. Here, I guess, you have no right to expect normal social behavior, where people respond to, but don't alter, other people's opinions.)
Cyde, editors could and were telling Worldtraveller what they thought, and he was responding: on the talk page. What's so hard to understand about the definition of "essay": "an analytic or interpretative literary composition usually dealing with its subject from a limited or personal point of view"? Nobody is accomplishing anything by group-editing an essay unless they are all in agreement as to the purpose. The conclusion I would draw, if I were drawing conclusions, is that the person who moved the page did so because he or she did not like the page. –Outriggr § 01:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
And we can all be quite sure that the same conclusion will be drawn by press outlets, Wikipedia critics like Wikitruth, etc. The handling of this will be used as further evidence that Wikipedia is failing. CyberAnth 02:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Autoblock

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Given that another admin has already removed the first block, I have removed to autoblock.

Request handled by: ALoan (Talk) 10:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another one...

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

I have removed the other autoblock too. I should have used the autoblock checker.

Request handled by: ALoan (Talk) 12:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this some sort of bug? Shouldn't auto blocks automatically be removed when a block is removed? Worldtraveller 11:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

Personal attacks are never acceptable. Do not engage in them. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

What are you referring to? Worldtraveller 18:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
this, focuses on the user as a bad adminstrator rather than actions they took that you argue were bad actions. Calling someone "a terrible administrator" is reasonably unnaceptable. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I said he's a terrible administrator if he can't be bothered to justify his actions. Taking my words totally out of context to accuse me of personal attacks is a bit out of order I think. Worldtraveller 18:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a dog in this race, but if you don't see that saying someone is evil unless they do what you want them to do is a personal attack, I'm gonna take sides. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I would have phrased the comment differently, but this doesn't strike me as a personal attack as we define it. There's the conditional wording, plus commenting on quality of adminship isn't the same as commenting on quality of the individual. It doesn't earn the Exemplary Civility Award but it's not a personal attack. Newyorkbrad 18:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
For illustrative purposes only:
Brad, you are an evil scum sucking bottom feeding New Yorker of an adminstrator, and you have demonstrated that you should never have been trusted with adminstrator tools at all. As an adminstrator, you are ugly and adminstrator. I take this all back if you shoot your dog and cut off your own leg. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
This analogizes "evil scum-sucking bottom-feeding New Yorker of an administrator" to "bad administrator", throws in "ugly" (and I think another word is left out there), and then analogizes "if you shoot your dog [I don't have a dog] and cut off your leg" to "explain your administrative decisions." Poor analogies in my book. But I admit that my book has contained misprints before. Newyorkbrad 19:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Further up the page you wrote, "How stupid can you get?" There were a number of similarly hostile comments on the 'WIF' page. You can quibble over whether 'stupid' referred to the actions or the person, but make no mistake... you passed the 'civility' line a good ways back. --CBD 19:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
For the record, such as it is, I was commenting on the specific diffs presented and not every word this user has ever said. Sanding down any rough edges is generally a good thing. Newyorkbrad 19:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on. Where did I say he was evil, exactly? Look, I was an administrator once, and I know that admins are supposed to be the most reasonable, sensible people on Wikipedia. If an administrator makes a block that causes controversy and disagreement, and then refuses utterly to make any sort of statement to explain themselves, then I am entirely entirely within my rights to call them a terrible administrator. If you take that personally on his behalf, that's not my problem. Are you seriously trying to tell me I'm not allowed to say someone is a terrible administrator? Evidence really seems to be mounting that criticism of the project or its functionaries is no longer tolerated. Worldtraveller 19:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More essay criticism

Personal attacks and incivility were never tolerated. Criticism is tolerated, but false claims and assumptions on a public page are going to be corrected. --CBD 19:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Are you talking about the essay, or my criticism of the administrative actions of InShaneee? The discussion in this section is about the latter. Worldtraveller 19:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I haven't seen/didn't know about your criticisms of InShanee. I was referring to the essay and disputes around it - as I assume you were with the bit about, "criticism of the project... is no longer tolerated". If you had some other criticisms of the project I haven't seen those either. --CBD 19:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Then I'll split the section. If you read what's written above, you'll see that someone has accused me of personally attacking someone because I described them as a 'terrible administrator'. Why didn't you read what the discussion was before you joined in? Hipocrite gave a diff. That's not a personal attack by the way. Worldtraveller 19:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
The section above was about personal attacks. I've seen you engaging in things I consider to be personal attacks (e.g. the 'stupid' comment above). You asked for evidence of such. I provided some. The diff Hipocrite cited was certainly incivil... whether it was a 'personal attack' is one of those semantic distinctions which everyone interprets differently. I was just stepping in to say that regardless of any dispute over how significant a problem that particular comment was... overall there IS a problem. --CBD 19:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't ask you for evidence of personal attacks - I asked Hipocrite specifically which 'personal attack' he was referring to. He told me. Then you jump in with more essay criticism. It's just not very helpful to join a discussion when you haven't read what it's about. Asking an administrator to justify their actions, and saying that an administrator who refuse to justify their actions is a terrible administrator, is not a personal attack and it's not remotely uncivil - it's not even a controversial statement. If I say 'an editor who repeatedly inserts material copied directly from other websites is a terrible editor', do you consider that uncivil?
As for your statement that 'there IS a problem' - funny how there was never a problem of any sort during more than two years in which I wrote 24 featured articles, became an administrator, initiated a moderately successful content improvement incentive, and maintained a portal, amongst other things, but the moment I write a critical piece I've got every man and his dog leaping about saying 'personal attacks! incivility! ownership issues! block him! hound out the infidels!'. Worldtraveller 19:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Were you calling people "stupid" back then? --CBD 19:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Not 'people' - one person, who spectacularly missed the point by saying 'Now you can make it whatever you want to say and not have to worry about what other people think'. So that's what leads you to conclude that 'overall there IS a problem', is it? You ignored my question so I'll ask it again: If I say 'an editor who repeatedly inserts material copied directly from other websites is a terrible editor', do you consider that uncivil? Worldtraveller 20:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
That isn't what you did, you've been incivil to more than just one person, calling even one person "stupid" 'IS a problem', and we obviously aren't getting anywhere. I think you need to dial back the hostility in general. People disagreed with your essay not because they want to stifle criticism but because they honestly believe it to be incorrect - indeed, I honestly believe that much of it is provably incorrect. People blocked you not because you criticized Wikipedia but because you violated edit warring policies. People warned you to be civil / avoid personal attacks not because they are mean but... because you hadn't been doing so. I didn't 'jump in with more essay criticism'... I commented on civility problems - it was actually you who brought up the essay. I'm not hopeful of getting any of this through to you, but seriously - at least consider the possibility that Wikipedia is not populated with nasty evil people who are out to get you for no good reason. Because that isn't the case and if you stop thinking along those lines these disputes would likely go away. --CBD 20:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, again you ignored my simple question. Now, point by point.

That isn't what you did, you've been incivil to more than just one person, calling even one person "stupid" 'IS a problem', and we obviously aren't getting anywhere. - who else have I been uncivil to? Do you really think it's reasonable to say 'overall there IS a problem' because I asked one person 'how stupid can you get?'

I think you need to dial back the hostility in general. - I'm not being at all hostile. You're the one who didn't bother to read what was under discussion but felt compelled anyway to leap in and tick me off.

People disagreed with your essay not because they want to stifle criticism but because they honestly believe it to be incorrect - indeed, I honestly believe that much of it is provably incorrect. - You're not considering the right issue. People bowdlerised my essay, moved the bowdlerised version to my userspace while I was blocked, and wrote over the redirect to stop it being moved back because they wanted to stifle criticism. Most people who disagreed were a bit more sensible than that and took part in reasonable and productive discussion.

People blocked you not because you criticized Wikipedia but because you violated edit warring policies. - one person blocked me, because I was trying to stop an essay being sanitised and subverted inappropriately. I tried several times to get people to work on WP:WINF - why wouldn't they edit that? Because their interest was in suppressing my analysis.

People warned you to be civil / avoid personal attacks not because they are mean but... because you hadn't been doing so. - In the section you came here to comment on, Hipocrite made the claim that calling an administrator who won't justify their administrative actions a terrible administrator was a personal attack. Did I say he was being mean? Did I just point out how misguided that is?

I didn't 'jump in with more essay criticism'... I commented on civility problems - it was actually you who brought up the essay. - actually you said yourself that you were commenting on the essay.

I'm not hopeful of getting any of this through to you - Right. Because patronising statements like this normally work so well.

...but seriously - at least consider the possibility that Wikipedia is not populated with nasty evil people who are out to get you for no good reason. Because that isn't the case and if you stop thinking along those lines these disputes would likely go away. - Now really, come on. This statement is so banal it's embarrassing. You haven't the faintest idea of the lines I am thinking along if you think they can be described like that. Worldtraveller 20:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Worldtraveller, I think participation on Wikipedia has to be predicated on some basic beliefs about what we're working on, and for two years I've observed that you hold beliefs incompatible with the project. Of course, you don't have to agree with us about the project, but if you're going to contribute you need to set some beliefs aside and work on Wikipedia's terms to some degree. That you haven't done so seems to me to be the root cause of the current situation. Everyking 09:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
So all this time that I thought I was working on an encyclopaedia, that was the root cause of my eventual disillusionment and now the cause of attacks on me and my views. Actually, that's quite perceptive. Worldtraveller 10:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heck with it...someone should say thanks

Worldtraveller, I can very much sympathise with your frustration right now. I find this place frustrating every day, and it would take me 20 years to add as much value to this encyclopedia as you have in your time here. I found myself agreeing with a lot of points in your essay, but as soon as I read it I knew what was going to happen. It concerns me that Wikipedia is already starting to eat its young - always a bad sign in a project like this. I have to say, it is editors like you who keep me here. It would be unreasonable for me to aspire to your level of skill, but I do hope I will continue to have the opportunity to appreciate it. Risker 01:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Risker, I really appreciate your kind words. Thank you very much indeed. Worldtraveller 10:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failing

It's like this. You can write an essay ion project space, and peple can edit it to fix what they see as issues with it. That's just fine. If you don't like what they do, you can nominate it for deletion at WP:MFD, that's fine too. If you want to take the content and have it in "your" user space that's fine, as long as you remember that WP:NOT a free web host. What you can't do is make your point and then get all the Slashdot traffic to your "approved" version without allowing the community any input. Because this is Wikipedia, not your own personal website. For the record, I thought it was a perfectly decent essay that was shaping up well, I'd be perfectly happy to see the "mercilessly edited" version back. Guy (Help!) 10:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)`

It's like this. I wrote an essay. It started a lot of useful discussion. Some people disagreed with it. Should they a) take it upon themselves to re-write it? or b) raise their issues on talk and see if there is a consensus for rewriting the essay? c) move the essay to userspace, delete all links to it and try as hard as they can to stop anyone reading it?
Without an ability to take criticism - particularly evidence-based criticism from a long-time contributor who's written more featured articles than almost anyone else - the project is definitely in dire straits. Worldtraveller 10:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I thought it was a perfectly decent essay that was shaping up well, I'd be perfectly happy to see the "mercilessly edited" version back. For the rest, well, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, you don't own anything, that kind of stuff. Hell, you know all this. You're being a bit foolish, really; nobody actually has a problem with essays that are critical of Wikipedia, just as long as people who disagree get to include the caveats - and if that makes it less trenchant, then maybe it was too trenchant in the first place, because Wikipedia is not Usenet after all, and we're all trying to somehow rub along together. I'll repeat, I'd be more than content to see the edited version back, but I'm sorry I'm not content for you to push your own singular view coloured, in part at least, by your recent frustrations. It's not fair on the project or, actually, on you since I believe that you are at heart somewhat more moderate and intellectually flexible than this essay makes you appear (it is rather definite, don;t you think?). Wikipedia is doomed? For sure, it can't possibly work - too little oversight, too many editors with too few supervisors, everybody editing, crypto-Communist ethos - no way can that possibly work. And bumblebees can't fly, either :-) Please don't start climbing the Reichstag, I understand you're frustrated but you should accept WP:OWN. You want the original version preserved in aspic? Put it on your own website. Me, I'd much prefer to have the essay back and edited, because it made some valid points (as well as some that needed to be toned down or contextualised). We can fix this problem right now if you just accept that the essay can be edited mercilessly. You can even edit the edits, as long as that doesn't simply mean reverting wholesale. With a few editors working on it, it could become a very valuable essay. What say? Guy (Help!) 11:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Don't quote inane bullshit like WP:NCR at me. You still haven't said whether you were being deliberately offensive or just ignorant of what the page said when you linked to WP:VAIN. I'm not prepared to take this preachy bullshit from someone who is himself trying to 'own' the redirect by repeatedly deleting it. Worldtraveller 11:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't inane, and more than a few editors have cited WP:OWN and WP:SOAPBOX to you. It has been suggested you copy it to your user space, and refer to it there. You have decided not to: that's OK, but don't expect the essay not be changed by those who think that it needs modifications. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
How would you describe the insistence on having Slashdotters see your unamended text, other than vanity? Sorry, maybe the wrong word, but it's still not good, is it? Like it says in the edit box, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it". I'm not trying to own anything, as far as I'm concerned the best result is to have the essay back in project space and being edited. And I was using humour to try to defuse the situation - obviously you are unable to see a funny side. Too bad. Guy (Help!) 12:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't find it at all funny for you to tell me to look at a page that says 'don't use this shortcut, as it is insulting', no. I'm having to assume, in the absence of clarification from you that you did that deliberately to be offensive. If that's your way of defusing things... Now I'll try yet again - I didn't insist on anything, the fact it was linked at slashdot is not particularly relevant, all I did was stop people changing it so that it was entirely the opposite of what the title was. Worldtraveller 12:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Eh? WP:NCR says what it means: don't get worked up about stuff. Are you saying you'd be happy for the essay to go back into project space and be edited? That would be fine by just about everybody, I think. And if people "subvert" it then debate on Talk or whatever instead of revert warring? If you're happy with that then the drama is over. For what it's worth I'd also reject efforts to turn it to the opposite meaning, the critique needs to be made, but it also needs to be editable. As long as you're happy with that we can deal with transient foolishness from people who dispute its legitimacy in the usual way (which does not include revert warring). Guy (Help!) 13:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I was always happy for it to be edited. I was never happy for someone to replace it with a piece extolling the opposite viewpoint entirely. Read WP:VAIN one more time, and tell me whether you intended to insult me or whether you just didn't know what you were linking to. And don't ever use that shortcut again if you want to have civil discussions. Worldtraveller 15:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Worldtraveller, I don't know if WP:VAIN applies, but you are being uncivil and a bit owny. JzG was simply explaining long standing policy to you, no need to jump down his throat with phrases like "Don't quote inane bullshit like WP:NCR at me" and "preachy bullshit". Please, we can disagree and be civil. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Have you read WP:VAIN? Go there now and tell me if it's appropriate to use that shortcut. Worldtraveller 15:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I have read all the policies and guidelines. My criticism to your response to JzG was not based on the content of WP:VAIN or any actions by JzG, I was talking about your choice of wording. However, it was not my intent to exacerbate things.
It seems that many people who oppose the current version of your essay are more concerned about the claims of failure than the information presented. Failure can mean final failure in many people's minds. I think simple re-stating the title and introductions to clarify that the point of the essay is to point out shortcomings and not to imply the doom of Wikipedia would go a long way in resolving this dispute. The content itself is factual, but the interpretation of those facts are in dispute, perhaps due to miscommunication or the ambiguity of words. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Right, so you read the bit of WP:VAIN which says Please do not use this shortcut, as the term can be considered insulting to people it is applied to.? I'm inclined not to be overly friendly to people who insult me.
Actually the point of the essay is to say that if nothing is done, the project will fail. I don't see what I pointed out as 'shortcomings', but significant failings. Because I've worked very hard on this project for quite some time, I do not want to see it fail. But it will, if it doesn't produce quality content at a high rate. Worldtraveller 16:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Feh, this is bloody silly. You know what? I agree with you about article standards. But we don't have "official versions". There are plenty of people who will keep the thing focused now, including me, because it needs to be said, just not without challenge. Cyde's points, for example, are valid, and the recent GA template deletion showed that the GA process is held in very low esteem by some very good editors. Feel free to suggest ways that could be fixed, incidentally. I think too many people got too worked up. Maybe me, too. Anyway, sorry you took my comments the wrong way, they were not meant to insult, never were. I disagree with the often-repeated mantra that anons and newbies add most of our content, I think most of our really good content is added by long-standing editors with accounts. The essay as it stands says what needs to be said, and I'm sure that it will be refined over time to be even better. Or maybe it'll be chipped away until it's a worthless stub, in which case you'll have proved your point... Guy (Help!) 17:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, no one here is trying to upset or insult you. We'd like to work with you - but Wikipedia is not a battleground. Demanding apologies, explanations, etc. from everyone (including those who just ask you to be civil) only exacerbates any problems that you may be having. I doubt JzG meant you any offense, I doubt HighInBC meant you any offense, I doubt Cyde Weys meant you any offense, and, to be clear, I mean you no offense. (Whether you take any or not is nothing anyone but you can control.) But taking out your frustrations by saying things like "Don't quote inane bullshit like WP:NCR at me," "You still haven't said whether you were being deliberately offensive or just ignorant," "preachy bullshit," "Read WP:VAIN one more time, and tell me whether you intended to insult me," and "Have you read WP:VAIN?" just isn't the way to civil discourse - it's the way to an internet battle that belongs on chatrooms, not here. I know you have been a respected and valuable contributor here, and I think we all hope that you'll continue to be. Sometimes even the best of us do get frustrated and lash out - but while lashing out makes others around you more frustrated, it doesn't make you any less frustrated (because it doesn't fix anything). In any event, when you have a disagreement you eventually have to just step back and allow it to be resolved (even if it means walking away from it). Fighting a battle until you're adequately apologized to for every offense...well, that just never happens. So please don't take offense to what I've said - I meant none. But please be civil, and maybe we can find a way to resolve this. (And now I'm going to work - so if there's anything you want to respond to, I may not be able to reply for a day or two.) --TheOtherBob 17:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Bob - I took no offence from what you said - there was no way I could have done. I haven't taken any offence from HighinBC, and I haven't taken any offence from Cyde either. I have taken offence from JzG, and if he wants constructive dialogue with me he should apologise - because he suggested I look at WP:VAIN which, as you can see if you look at it, should not be used unless you're looking to cause offence. Worldtraveller 17:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh come on, that was just one of a whole load of things which could be implied from the insistence on a single preferred version. Like I said, maybe it was not the right word, not the most nuanced phrase, but I was struggling to understand why there was such a furore over something so trivial. I mean, we have dozens if not hundreds of essays, many of which get edited all the time. It doesn't make them worse. I can see how having the sense reversed would be frustrating, but that can be fixed editorially, something we also do all the time. Anyway, what we have now is what we should have had in the first place: a critique, with some additional perspectives. Hopefully people will learn from it. Guy (Help!) 00:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
maybe it was not the right word, not the most nuanced phrase - I took offence specifically from your use of WP:VAIN. The page itself says don't use it unless you want to insult someone. Worldtraveller 12:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
It's at least six months since I even looked at WP:VAIN, I did not realise it had been soft-redirected to WP:COI, so sorry about that. To be fair, though, it doesn't actually say that, only that it can be considered insulting. Guy (Help!) 16:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, as soon as you quoted it, I lost any respect I might have had for what you've been saying. Do you think there was really much chance of me going there and not being offended? Worldtraveller 16:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost story

I've written a story about the 'essay crisis' for the Wikipedia Signpost. It's currently in draft form at User:Sam Blacketer/Failing. If you have any comments, please feel free to suggest them. I think it might look a bit bad if you directly edited the story and I'm not going to alert everyone mentioned, but as you were central to it I thought it was worth alerting you. Sam Blacketer 00:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! Have made a couple of comments on its talk page. Worldtraveller 12:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

Please do not resort to personal attacks and incivility as you did here[7]. If you cannot make your point without resorting to name calling I suggest you wait five minutes and try again. I just reminded you of civility a couple of days ago. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this some sort of joke? Or are you really trying to say that criticising administrative actions is 'name calling'? Worldtraveller 01:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The phrase "you're a terrible administrator" was completely unneeded to get your criticisms across. You are welcome to criticize all you want, but name calling is not needed or allowed. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that those posts are personal attacks or name-calling. Worldtraveller, have you seen the WP:ANI thread about this? Bishonen | talk 03:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC).
Putting a conditional before a personal attack does not justify it. Consider this, if an admin refuses to meet a demand from a user, is it then okay to insult the person? My understanding is that NPA counts regardless of what other users are doing. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Calling someone a terrible adminstrator is not a personal attack. Saying that someone would be a terrible administrator if they refuse to explain a controversial block that they applied is even further away from being a personal attack. I begin to suspect you're just trying to wind me up, because I can't believe anyone would really see a criticism of administrative actions as a personal attack. Thanks for the link to the AN/I discussion, Bishonen - I hadn't seen it. Worldtraveller 12:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
No, I am not trying to pick on you. The key distinction seems to be criticism vs insult. There is no constructive information in calling someone terrible, it provides no new information other than an insult. Demanding that another user justify themselves does not justify a personal attack. Now I did not say this is a greavious offense, it was just a friendly reminder. Nobody has to justify themselves to you just because you demand it, we are all volunteers remember. I am not trying to "wind you up", I am trying to settle you down. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 12:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, for crying out loud. Do you really not understand the difference between saying "you're a terrible person" and "you're a terrible administrator"? You might not be trying to wind me up but you're doing a great job of it anyway. Worldtraveller 13:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block

Since that was more calmly worded, I'll be glad to answer you. While I continue to frown on your conduct in the matter, I will admit that I jumped the gun with the block, and it was something that I should have sought outside input on; for that I do apologize. Part of it was also, as was mentioned before, that to me, it seemed to be a 'drive-by' by an anon. Had I seen that it was an established user, I would have been much more quick to attempt to begin a dialouge. In the future, though, know that it is polite to raise the question of whether a tag belong or not before you simply remove it; since they are placed by Wikiprojects, they do not always have the luxury of responding quickly to these types of things, or even noticing them in many instances. I hope this helps with the situation. --InShaneee 01:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Finally. Why has it taken you so long to respond? I made many requests on your talk page and each one was totally ignored.
You may well frown on my conduct. I also frown on yours. However, that doesn't justify blocking me at all. You haven't explained the following points:
  1. Which bit of WP:BP did you think applied to the situation?
  2. Why did you block someone who you were having a content dispute with when this is strictly forbidden?
  3. Why did you not respond to criticism of your actions?
By the way, I apologise that your refusal to even acknowledge my questions pushed me into saying this. Worldtraveller 12:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Worldtraveller: I believe that InShaneee did, in fact, answer your three questions in his note above:
1. Which bit of WP:BP did you think applied to the situation?
InShaneee, at the time, believed that the block was justified because "it seemed to be a 'drive-by' by an anon."
2. Why did you block someone who you were having a content dispute with when this is strictly forbidden?
See above; also, InShaneee admitted that "I will admit that I jumped the gun with the block, and it was something that I should have sought outside input on." In other words, he admitted that he made a mistake, and has since apologized for it.
3. Why did you not respond to criticism of your actions?
It appears that InShaneee didn't respond to you because he considered your comments to be rude (and, admittedly, calling someone "petulant" isn't likely to engender a helpful reponse). While not responding to percieved insults that may or may not be ideal behavior, it's certainly understandable.
InShaneee has admitted that his behavior wasn't ideal, has apogogized for his missteps, and is likely a better editor and admin as a result. In the heat of a contentious dispute, he made a mistake. He's not perfect; none of us are, but I hope everyone can move forward from this point in good faith and with respect. -- Sethant 22:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, Sethant, but I don't feel my questions have been at all answered. InShaneee made no reference to BP or what criterion for blocking he thought applied. "Jumping the gun" implies that he thinks he acted too hastily but not necessarily incorrectly; he broke one of the cardinal rules in fact, and has shown no real recognition of that fact. And finally, his complete failure to discuss the block when it was brought up on WP:AN, and then his further failure to respond to my questions on his talk page, have not been explained and are serious lapses in the standards expected of administrators. It really doesn't matter if he thinks I was rude to call him petulant. Other administrators were questioning his conduct and he was extremely rude to ignore the discussion completely, save for one comment in which he said he felt his role was to "govern the lesser wikipedians".
The dispute in question was hardly heated. Over three days, I had removed an inappropriate talk page tag three times, leaving detailed reasoning via edit summaries. InShaneee blocked without warning, in flagrant violation of WP:BP. Much more of an explanation is needed than what he offered above, which was six weeks too late in any case. It's the rudeness of his ignoring the whole thing and pretending he's doing just fine as an administrator and that I'm somehow the problem for criticising his actions that is the most infuriating thing. Worldtraveller 23:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I guess I regard an admission of "jumping the gun" as an admission of having "acted incorrectly." If the problem was that he blocked before giving warning, then he blocked too soon, and acting too quickly is what "jumping the gun" is. Having admitted that he made a mistake, I'm not sure it makes sense to ask someone to explain or justify actions that he's already admitted were mistakes. InShaneee's other actions aside, I believe that he answered your three questions before you asked them. I don't pretend to justify or condone any of his other actions (in fact, some do seem rather out of line on first glance), but I do believe that failure to answer the three specific questions above isn't a criticism you can validly levy against him. -- Sethant 00:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, the problem was not that he blocked too soon but that he should not have blocked at all and nor should anyone else - there is nothing in the blocking policy that justifies it. I think it's quite important to know whether he didn't know what the policy was or if he was deliberately violating it, but his persistent refusal to discuss this with anyone leaves us unable to determine this. Worldtraveller 08:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] <<insert title>>

Sorry that you've had a lot of trouble maintaining your essay. I imagine it's been a very stressful few days for you. I think a good compromise to have reached early on would have been a protected copy of your essay on your userpage, linked to from the "edited mercilessly" version in WP space. Admin intervention would probably be needed for people that were really trying to destory the essay.

I pretty much agree with what the article currently says. While I don't care for directing effort (I like to choose the articles I want to write about, regardless if some "more vital" article is lacking), I do hope we can do something to curb (especially anonymous) vandalism and protect articles after they've reached FA status (people talking about the half-lives of articles is very depressing). --Seans Potato Business 05:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Sean. It's not been too stressful really, just difficult to keep up with the furious pace of events at times! You've made some very interesting points and I certainly agree that finding a way to curb vandalism is essential. I think the WP:STATIC idea must be implemented in some form if any progress is to be made on that. Worldtraveller 12:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The J'Accuse for you

The Zola Award for the far-flung traveller from Bishonen 16:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC).
The Zola Award for the far-flung traveller from Bishonen 16:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

You are hereby awarded the J'Accuse barnstar, or the Zola Award of Generous Indignation, originally created for El C and Func, for your tireless efforts to safeguard the quality of the encyclopedia in the face of a lot of crap—I won't go into that—this is about you, not the crap—anyway, wear it, or hang it on the wall, or put your beer glass on it, with pride, as I take pride in tendering it to so deserving a recipient. Bishonen | talk 16:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

That's awesome, thank you very much! It will be treasured and honoured, for as long as there is a Wikipedia on which to treasure and honour it :) Worldtraveller 12:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Cheers to you Worldtraveller, you were spot-on with your essay. Couldn't agree with you more.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 02:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Wikipedia is not failing page

I noticed your comments on the talk page, I thought I would respond here as they may have been addressed to me as I first put that page up. Specifically your comment about putting in links to your page. I did that when I first made the page. Anyway, I didn't mean it in any bad way, I was actually trying to make it humorous. Hopefully it'll end up that way due to other peoples edits to make the page clearer. Have a good one! Just another wikipedia fan, Jeff Carr 02:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not a link that I mind at all - that's only sensible. Just the link at the beginning of every single section, calling itself the rebuttal, seems a bit much! I think it was User:WillowW who added those. Well, I questioned their necessity a few days ago and no-one's really argued too strongly for them so I might remove them now. Worldtraveller 23:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jenna Jameson

Hi - I noticed your comments on Mark's page. I completely agree (there's a related thread currently on Anon-e-mous's page). I've been trying to support your view, with what I'd call limited success. Perhaps where this goes is WP:FAR, but it's kind of impolite to nominate an article at FAR that's just been promoted - there's a suggestion that 3 months is the minimum interval (tick, tick, tick,...). In any event, I thought I'd drop by and let you know there's at least one supportive voice. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Rick. Good to know I'm not in a minority of one! Is 3 months really the suggestion these days? I thought one month was generally regarded as a minimum but then I've been away for a bit. I wish there was a better mechanism than this, when an article is promoted over actionable objections. I used to think that never happened, but it seems more and more frequent. Worldtraveller 23:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is failing

Even though I don't really agree with your essay Wikipedia is failing, I think you have the right to your opinion, and for people to edit the essay is wrong. Essays need a different editing policy than articles. Smokizzy 14:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the note, Smokizzy. It never really occurred to me that people would behave as they did - I naively thought pretty much everyone would share your attitude! BTW it wasn't people editing it per se that I objected to, just people re-writing it to say the opposite of what the title was. Worldtraveller 23:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome back

I'm glad to see an editor who cares about quality is back around the place. — BillC talk 00:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Nicaraguan_children.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Nicaraguan_children.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 02:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the 3 Jan incident

please be aware of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Harrassment. dab (𒁳) 22:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block

I have blocked you for twenty-four hours for continuing ([8] [9] [10]) to harass InShaneee. I told you that threats, insults, and harassment are not part of our dispute resolution procedures. If someone doesn't want to talk to you the very last thing you should do is continually badger them about it. Did InShaneee do something wrong a month ago? Maybe. Maybe not. I really don't know. But you are absolutely doing something very wrong right now. I'll say it again... if you want to continue pursuing this do so through the allowed dispute resolution procedures. No threats. No insults. No vows to get people. And no badgering people when they don't want to talk to you. --CBD 19:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | unblock | contribs) asked to be unblocked, but an administrator or other user has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators or users can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request nor add another unblock request.

Request reason: "This is completely outrageous. Harassment is so far from the truth it's unbelievable. I am following the very first stage of dispute resolution which is to try to start a dialogue with the other party. Worldtraveller 23:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)"

Decline reason: "Several users told you that what you were doing was harassment and you continued. You have been following the first step in dispute resolution for a month after being told it was disruptive. — HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)"

This template should be removed when the block has expired, or after 2 days in the case of blocks of 1 week or longer.

Well, forget it. I think I'll take myself some other place where people actually want to write an encyclopaedia. I've wasted enough time here, it was fun for a while but with fuckwits like CBDunkerson, HighinBC and InShaneee around it's obviously pointless. Goodbye to all the friends I've made. Shame about the encyclopaedia. Worldtraveller 23:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I am adding 24 hours to your block for personal attacks, you have already been warned about civility. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I have nothing but contempt for you and your complete confusion about what is criticism and what is an insult. 85.210.45.81 12:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Totally outrageous. I have posted to WP:ANI. We will miss your contributions, Worldtraveller. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ALoan. I'll miss contributing, working with people who knew what the project was about, edited with serious intent but had fun doing so like yourself and many others. But Worldtraveller is dead, I did a Giano and scrambled the password so that's the last of that. I'm just making a couple of anonymous edits to sort one or two things out and then I'll be off. All the best to you. 85.210.45.81 12:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a dark day for Wikipedia. You will be missed. --Aude (talk) 15:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I do hope once this block is over you come back and resume contributing constructively as you usually do. Even if you scrambled your password, there is always the "I forgot my password" button to reset it. But please respect the rules of the community if you do. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

WT - as ALoan says this is outrageous. When Radiant! left a while ago (he's returned) I left the following comment on his page. It seems to apply here as well:

I'd rather you not go, but if you must you must and I wish you the best in whatever future endeavors you undertake. IMO Wikipedia is currently experiencing some growing pains. I believe we'll get through it and eventually come out on the other side. I don't exactly know what it will look like, but I think there are enough reasonable people around that it will be more or less reasonable. If you do go away, please come back and visit some time.

-- Rick Block (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What's going on

Blocked? Can't believe it. Incredible.edward (buckner) 12:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

In what sense does (this this [11] or this) constitute harassment? Bloody hell. edward (buckner) 12:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Amazing. Why is an editor with hundreds of fine articles behind him, a fine stylist and clear thinker to boot, being blocked for some harmless (and apparently well deserved) comments about someone who spends most of his time writing trivial crap like this. There really is something very wrong here. edward (buckner) 12:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Rather than respond to this same text in the three (or more?) places you have posted it, please see my responses on the AN/I thread. --CBD 15:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time to do a "Giano II"

This is what makes me so mad with Wikipedia - I hope now you have done a "Giano" you come soon back to your senses and do a "Giano II" - you cannot allow the little mediocrities to win - you are better than that - you are bigger than that - more than anyone I can completely understand how you feel - I have not bothered to see which of the little twits blocked you because they are unimportant - they can de dismissed from thought. You and your work to the project are what is important, and like, me you should see that you are more valuable inside the project than out, because with a great seal of head banging and shouting one can very slowly make a difference - the question is can you be bothered in the face of such hostile ignorance? - (who on earth promotes and voted for these ignoramus to be admins?) they do so much more harm than good. Come on "Worldtraveller II" pick-up the pen and cudgel and join the exclusive "II Club". Regards Giano 18:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Don't let them get you down. Come back. edward (buckner) 18:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm the "twit" / "ignoramus" in question and I stand by the block. You don't get to call other users "witless moron", "fuckwit", and the like with impunity. You do not get to harass someone indefinitely. Everyone needs to behave in a civil fashion. That includes Worldtraveller, Giano (II or original), and Dbuckner... all of whom have notably resorted to personal attacks, vulgarity, et cetera in this matter. Just be reasonably civil to others, no matter how wrong you think they are, and you will get no complaints from me. Is that really such an unreasonable position? What about cursing at people and making them miserable is exactly beneficial to Wikipedia? --CBD 18:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
In terms of everyone needing to behave in a civil fashion, CBD, that also includes yourself. MetsFan76 19:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Uh huh... and where have I been uncivil? People have made nasty personal attacks on me and I've responded with mild, 'lets all be nice' comments. I think I'm doing a pretty good job on the 'civility' front. --CBD 19:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
It would be better if you just ignored the nasty comments and be the better person here. MetsFan76 19:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
This place gets dafter by the moment [12] are there any proper grown up admins arownd this evening who can solve this? Giano 22:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous!!!! HighinBC is definitely an appropriate name for him. MetsFan76 22:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't get that - share the joke? Giano 22:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
If you go to his user page, he states he enjoys smoking weed. Interestingly, I noticed that he just blanked his page. Hmmmmmmm. MetsFan76 22:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh I see thankyou! "HighInBC is a reference to my enjoyment of smoking weed while hiking the mountains and valleys of British Columbia." I think that is very dangerous, I mean, you could fall down an ravine and be eaten by a grissly bear, or whatever they have in those parts. The young of today - I despair. When I was his age the highlight of our life was mass on a Sunday. Giano 23:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Heh heh...I know what you mean. Unfortunately, CDB has taken my statement as an insult to HighinBC. I got that directly from his user page so I'm not quite sure how stating a fact is an insult. MetsFan76 23:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Why should HighInBC be insulted by that? A person brave enough to wander about high as a kite surrounded by man eating snakes and spiders (or whatevr is native to British Columbia) is not going to be upset by a comment like that. I wonder if there is a wikipedia hiking club, I'd quite like to join, I'll stick to the cotswolds though - but the dope sounds interesting, I'm not very good with gorrillas and snakes and things; my friend Worldtraveller goes into allsorts of dangerous zones though - he is fearless - which makes me realise how completely pissed off he must be with all the peurile blocks and things that he has to contend with Giano 00:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually CDB was insulted by it which is even more confusing. And I don't need jungles or forests, I live in the Bronx...heh heh MetsFan76 00:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
That didn't bother me. I think you are a bit misguided if you think it is the basis of any of my actions though. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Although we have occasionally disagreed in the past, I have the greatest respect for the work you do here, and I'm appalled at the way you've been treated. Raul654 01:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I can think of times I've disagreed with you, and I can also think of lots of times I've agreed. I too have great respect for your work, and I really appreciated your message. 81.179.115.188 00:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Look Raul wants you back too, c'mon, it'll be a laugh, you'll enjoy it once your back, it's just like jumping into a cold pool, it's OK once you're in. I know (better than most) how insulting and angry one feels when some little twit blocks you, but no one who matters cares much about these little blemishes on the block log - see them more as dualing scars that add a bit of glamour and panache. Giano 12:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you all for kind words which really mean a lot to me. Maybe I'll be back to join the highly exclusive 'II' club, eventually; one can never say never. But for the foreseeable future I will not be returning. The attitudes that I've seen from the likes of InShaneee, HighInBC and CBDunkerson have really been the last straw for me. Perhaps they'll learn from the comments that so many others have made about their actions but perhaps not, and I just don't feel like battling against stupidity and intransigence like theirs. 81.179.115.188 00:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Right now this is looking more like a "Time to do a Karmafist" situation. :-( Hesperian 00:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

From what little I know about Karmafist I'd say not. 81.179.115.188 00:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
If you say so. Comment withdrawn. Hesperian 01:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Come to think of it, that comment was unproductive and potentially provocative. Withdrawn with my apologies. Hesperian 01:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
No worries. I read it as you expressing concern that I might be about to behave stupidly rather than as any deliberate provocation. 81.179.115.188 01:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Arbitration

An anonymous IP user claiming to be Worldtraveller has begun the following arbitration: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#InShaneee. In all probability this user is, in fact, Worldtraveller - but I am nonetheless posting this message here to inform Worldtraveller that it has been filed in his name. If it really is Worldtraveller, may I suggest that you log back in to confirm that fact? (Assuming you can - I know you raise some technical obstacles above.) Also, it may make sense to un-retire for the purposes of the arbitration (or at least to establish some user name). The problem is that your IP address turns out not to be entirely static - it was 81.178.208.69 during the events in question, and has now changed. It may change again, leading to confusion. (If you have a way of making the IP static, that could also help.) Thanks. --TheOtherBob 00:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I permanently and irrevocably disabled this account. However, if you wish to confirm that this IP and User:Worldtraveller are one and the same, you can look at an old revision of my user page where you'll find a web link to my home page. There you'll find an e-mail address. I do not wish to create a new account but I will try to remember to clearly indicate that my edits are me. The IP is often static for quite a while, days or weeks, so I should be on this address for a reasonably long time. 81.179.115.188 00:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I would have expected a clerk to notify you here and at your morst recent IP addresses, but anyway: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/InShaneee closed yesterday. The upshot is that User:InShaneee was "strongly admonished" and had admin privileges are suspended ten days. I will just quote the "remedy" that passed for you:
Worldtraveller is thanked for an exceptional quality and quantity of his edits in the capacity of content creator and urged to resume contributing high-quality content to the encyclopedia. He is requested to recognize that to err is human, including on the part of admins, accept the apology for an unfair block and that InShaneee understands that it was inappropriate not to have engaged in a full discussion of the matter, and to put aside his grievances and drop the matter.
See you on the flipside. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The clerk helper assisting with this case (I am travelling with limited access this week, and was recused as clerk in this case anyway) probably did not think to notify this account as you had stated you had disabled it and were no longer using it. But please consider this as an official clerical notification that the case has closed and the final decision can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration:InShaneee. Newyorkbrad 12:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recovering a scrambled password

Hi, Worldtravelller. I was following the arbitration case a little bit, and I know that you scrambled your password and disabled your email preferences. I just want to bring a section from the Privacy policy at the Foundation Website to your attention:

If you do not provide an email address, you will not be able to reset your password if you forget it. However, you may contact one of the Wikimedia server administrators to enter a new mail address in your preferences.

I have no idea if you want to come back, though of course I hope you do. But unless I'm misunderstanding something, I think that if you do want to, you could send an e-mail to someone from the Foundation, confirming your identity, and you could get your e-mail address re-entered into your preferences, so that you could have a new password e-mailed to you. Perhaps if there are some trusted Wikipedians with whom you are in contact off-wiki, they could confirm that a message really had come from you. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 12:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/o/r/User_talk%7EWorldtraveller_a971.html"