Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:18, 1 December 2007

Your Userpage

Would you consider changing your userpage to something else? Durova not only has apologized but has also resigned her tools and taken a hell of a beating for what has happen. I don't think it is in the project's best interest to keep the wounds festering. Agne/ 18:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I asked for my pages to be deleted earlier today, because I had no intention of contributing further; however, on reflection, I think I need to see the ArbCom case to its conclusion. There are still some issues that are not being addressed.

When the case is closed, this account will vanish again, permanently. OK? -- !! ?? 18:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I hope you don't completely vanish, even if you need to come back as another user. However do you really feel a need to take this conflict off the ArbCom pages and plastered on your user page? Especially in the sarcastic manner that is presented? How does that help the community at all? I think the drama and distraction of this has done enough to damage the project and take away focus from working on an encyclopedia. I think removing the userpage message will go a long way towards lessen the drama and keeping emotions in check. Agne/ 18:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the so-called "evidence"? Believe me, I would rather be quietly working on content like I have for months. Who is going to write articles on the brothers of Leone Sextus Denys Oswolf Fraudatifilius Tollemache-Tollemache de Orellana Plantagenet Tollemache-Tollemache now?

I did not intend to be sarcastic, but there is a marvellously apposite quote in the lead section of sarcasm - Fyodor Dostoyevsky defined sarcasm as "the last refuge of modest and chaste-souled people when the privacy of their soul is coarsely and intrusively invaded"

You really think my userpage may inflame emotions and cause drama in the short period it will be there? -- !! ?? 18:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I freely admit that Durova made a huge mistake in blocking you and she has been raked over the coals for it many times over. Your user page just seems to be needlessly anatagonistic and seems to only serve the purpose of taking more jabs at her. The stuff already posted at ArbCom for all to see and come to their own conclusion and for you to express your hurt/anger/insult. I just don't think it is needed or helpful to anyone. Agne/ 19:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hasn't this guy been picked on enough? His user page is fine. Leave him alone and leave his user page alone please. Thank you. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not picking on him. It is asking him to consider the more honorable measure in keeping the drama in check and over on the ArbCom pages. What purpose does it serve other than to basically say "Hey look at all this stupid stuff said about me and remember all the crap that happened because of it!" Does it help the ArbCom case? Does it turn back the clock and make the block never happen? Does it do more than the discussion on WP:BLOCK and WP:SECRET to make sure that such a block doesn't happen again? Does it do anything to help people quell the drama and move on and back to working on the encyclopedia? !! has a lot of power to help steer the community towards moving on and laying to rest this drama. There is a lot of positive that can come from him taking that step and changing his userpage. Agne/ 19:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I never asked for any power. I don't want any power.

Perhaps it does serve to remind people that I was horribly traduced - some people seem to be unaware of what was said, or how it was said, or how false it was.

None of us can turn back the clock. We have to deal with what happened. Brushing it under the carpet and pretending it never happened will not help anyone.

The ArbCom case will be close in a few days and then you can forget about me and it. -- !! ?? 19:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I like it! aliasd·U·T 05:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Change of mind

Right to Vanish is predicated on good faith. Users should be aware that abusing the Right to Vanish, or breaching any terms under which it is requested or granted, will probably result in its reversal, and likely withdrawal of the right in future. Should you wish to change your mind, vary the terms, or return to your old (or another previous) name, please discuss with the OTRS team in confidence first, so that no mis-assumption occurs on discovery. In particular, do not return covertly under a different account or recommence editing without disclosure or discussion, if you based your request upon permanent departure.--Hu12 (talk) 20:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again, but there really is no need to remove the above comment from Hu12. I'm sure it was motivated by the very best of intentions. It is very sweet of the ArbCom to think of me. I'll bear their encouragement in mind. -- !! ?? 01:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

What prompted this warning? Videmus Omnia 20:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Wants to make sure he disappears for good this time? Let's see how much more crap we can dump on this prolific editor just to make sure he doesn't return, shall we? Well done. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Why does everyone keep going after !!? Wasn't he the victim here? Someone should remove that warning as trolling. • Lawrence Cohen 20:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

V.O.,...possibly a Change of mind , after this. Lawrence Cohen, the inaproprate template was place by !!. --Hu12 (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

And if he changed his mind like he said till the end of his case, so what? Leave him alone already. Abusive harassment has already outed him, why not just leave him be? • Lawrence Cohen 20:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The history was restored thats it, the edits are all his.--Hu12 (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

(e/c) Why do people keep blanking chunks of my user page?

Hu12: I find your implication that I may not be acting in good faith, or that I may be abusing the right to vanish, pretty bloody offensive. Would you care to particularise or substantiate your allegation?

Feel free to undelete my user page or talk page and its archive if you so wish (I could add some more diffs to my ArbCom evidence then). I asked for it to be deleted the other day to try to stem the rising tide of drama, without much success. I asked for it to be deleted this morning because I thought there was nothing more for me to do here, but on reflection I think the ArbCom case could benefit from a bit of my input. Perhaps I am wrong.

As I said, !! will be gone when the case closes.

As for OTRS, I have a very short pier here... -- !! ?? 20:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Exacly, you had a Change of mind per Right to vanish--Hu12 (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I am going to have to brush off my infamous German if you keep Talking in Capitals - a Change of Mind™ invalidates my Right to Vanish™? Well, so be it. I will be gone shortly. If I return as another account (if) I certainly won't be telling you. That will be precisely the point. -- !! ?? 21:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Your talk page keeps getting blanked because, of all people, you seem to have become a magnet for people that have nothing better to do than see ghosts and problems where there are none. It's as though the whole community has gone into a mass insanity. Hopefully a temporary one. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

To paraphrase, Misplaced Pages is an illusion, generated by a higher dimension of reality. Take the red pill. -- !! ?? 21:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I find it astonishingly difficult to believe that after everything that has happened within the few days, an administrator would believe it to be helpful to burden !! with such a warning as this in such a way as he has done. The implication that !! might act other than in good faith is quite shocking. I understand the technicality that Hu12 is alluding to, but in the context of this matter, it is a pure technicality that does not, in any fashion, trigger the policy concerns that are the basis of the "right to vanish" policy. Under the circumstances, I submit that this warning is unwarranted, ill-conceived, and should be withdrawn. I am placing a related comment on the proposed decision talkpage of the arbitration case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Support the above comment by NYB. Invoking the technicalities of RtV under these circumstances is extremely ill-advised. R. Baley (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, let's try some common sense folks. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

well frankly, I'm astonished that NYB is astonished. Nothing surprises me here anymore with this case. Giano (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This proposed remedy is relevant here, for those who missed it. Daniel 23:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I like it! aliasd·U·T 05:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Your evidence...

With respect, if you are going to speculate, could you leave my name out of it, unless you have proof. If you require proof vis a vis, me, ask me. I'm honest, and I've always been approachable. Regards, Mercury 18:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

With the very greatest of respect, I simply pointed out that five people are said to have done one thing, and five people demonstrably did another. Perhaps they are the same "roughly" 5 people, perhaps there is an overlap, perhaps there is not. I ever said as much. -- !! ?? 18:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

With mutual respect, "perhaps some of these are among the five mentioned by Durova?" is pretty indicative of strong speculation. Regards, Mercury 18:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, what a lot of respect there is all around today.

Would you like me to tone it down a little, along the lines above? -- !! ?? 18:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, you do contribute. :)... yes, if you do not mind doing so. Very respectfully, Mercury 18:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what's worse: seeing the "evidence" and agreeing with the block, or not seeing the "evidence" but agreening with the block anyway.....

FYI, you are being discussed: 98.132.47.213 (talk) 18:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

your userpage

LOL, I personally love it. (Not that what was done to you was funny, but the page itself has a certain humour to it.:)Merkinsmum (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Me too .... I'm an unbiased observer. Having taken the trouble to defend the good name of a a virtual account then do stay and use it.... only you will ever be able to allege its a sockpuppet account. Bask in its "added value". We could do with your contributions and good humour. Stay. Victuallers (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No, thank YOU!

You are very much welcome! I expressed a very small part of my thoughts in various pages devoted to this Durova debacle but I want to tell you one thing. The adminitis admins despite their effort and their sometimes seeming success do not run things here and there are content editors like you who are and will always be running the show no matter how much some delude themselves otherwise. So, it ain't so bad. Never was.

I knew who you were all along from by recognizing the familiar pattern of mainspace contributions and knowing what you have done under the previous name made this recognition trivial for me. It was not trivial for Durova and her "confidential conferrers" because those spend their time in the wrong space of this project, that is anything by Main, playing their powergames. So, for those unaware of the content being written here, "one key fact" was missing.

Your contributions have been excellent and if you are ever able to get over it and come under a new name, you would make my day by dropping me an email and acknowledging yourself. It was an exceptional feeling to see editors like Calgalus, Ghirla and others overcoming the fatigue and returning to the project after being repeatedly abused by the same league, the small circle of non-writing admins who do most things things confidentially in supersecrecy of IRC and private email lists (Ghirla is now gone again, hopefully not forever). I sincerely hope you would also come back at some point and write more of those excellent articles I very much enjoyed reading. Good luck to you and keep it up! --Irpen (talk) 21:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: oversighting

Re: your claim, the Giano talk page edits have not been "oversighted", merely deleted. The original ANI edits, on the other hand, were oversighted and are unretrievable by any means (except by developers allegedly). —Wknight94 (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? There is nothing relevant in the deletion log. Not that it makes a difference to us peons. -- !! ?? 22:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No I didn't figure you would care much. Just letting you know. Without sysop rights, you won't be able to see the deleted edits but I think you can see the relevant deletion log. The deletions and selective restores left the evidence in the deleted history. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No - they were there yesterday, and now they are gone. There is no deletion listed yesterday that I can see. Am I just being dense? -- !! ?? 22:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You click on that link I added above and see nothing? That's very odd. It must be another chapter in the recent Misplaced Pages-is-out-to-get-you comedy. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh wait, I think a set of edits that were in his undeleted history have been oversighted. There is still a set in his deleted history though. How silly. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

let me put you out of your misery, they do indeed seem to have been oversighting parts of my history, or at least I can't find something I was looking for earlier. Quite a lot of diffs concerned with this case have gone elsewhere. Luckily I saved hard copies of most relevant things. Giano (talk) 23:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If someone feels the need to re-write history.. or simply delete it.. it certainly makes the questions: "Who are the 5, and who are the two dozen?" seem more significantly important. Lsi john (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

re.: an "oversight"

...how I loves me some bad pun. In all my railing about how horrible this all was, I have never spoken to you, to whom it was most horrible. So, I'm sorry for this happening to you, and that you are sad.

For those above who never seem to tire of yelling AGF in tones of loud "respect", I note that having "learned her lesson", someone is already plotting contemplating her admin comeback on her talk page! At first she thought somehow it was Jimbo's idea ], then realized it wasn't, but still thought it a good idea]. Also, having labelled me a bigot in her "evidence", she then refused to apologize, gave me a quick lesson on "graciousness", and archived the whole thing. But that last part's about me, so see my talk page if interested.

I never loved WP the way you do, so I can't really know how you feel. But I am sincerely sorry. Wishing you the best. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 01:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Though I concur with much of the rest, I'd say 'plotting' is a bit strong. Every time I start to think maybe wikipedia isn't so bad, someone comes along to shatter the notion. I'm happy for !! and Giano (and others) who feel it's worth it. I'm just not sure it is. The playing field is way out of level. Lsi john (talk) 01:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. I have "refactored". sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 01:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Good luck to her. She has done lots of good work on a number of articles, which is, after all, the real purpose of this place. I'm looking forward to a break. -- !! ?? 01:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure...

..but has anyone said "welcome back"? If they haven't, well, "welcome back". If they have, well, "welcome back again". The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm here for the duration of the ArbCom case. But hello :) -- !! ?? 17:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, forgive my impertinence, but a number of your "admirers" would more than appreciate some of your time helping out with getting this old lot to FA. I'm only guessing but I reckon you may have some interest in that area? But no worries. Fight the good fight by the way.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did try to concentrate on content... -- !! ?? 18:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh-huh, that's why most of "us" want you back! But I understand your position right now. So, if you ever feel like you can regain the energy to come back and be as prolific and beneficial to the project as you were, please allow me to place those chaps at the top of your to-do list! All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

And just to whet your appetite (though you probably already know), the current candidate under scrutiny is the extraordinary and tragic Sid Barnes. They don't make em like that any more. --Dweller (talk) 21:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably tears in the ocean at this point, but I just wanted to drop a personal note about how irked I am with all this. I appreciated your wit, wisdom and work over at WP:DYK and would have liked if we one day became friends, as it were, on Wiki. Make no mistake: I'd have preferred your martyrdom be postponed. But I do believe—and hope it's some small solace—that the Wiki will be a more just place because of what happened. --JayHenry 00:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

A shared thought ...

Read an article about Nathaniel Ames - its written by a friend of mine and he generously shared co-authorship with me even though it was 99% his work. This guy just drew a picture and when they came to get him he was there ... he knew he hadnt done anything wrong. Victuallers (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Your input would be appreciated at Misplaced Pages:Private correspondence

Thanks. Misplaced Pages:Private correspondence. • Lawrence Cohen 19:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Query

Query for you here in case you miss it. SlimVirgin 02:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Answered. -- !! ?? 21:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Triple crown?

Now that arbitration is over, I hope you wouldn't mind an olive branch? You've done so much DYK work that maybe you qualify for a triple crown award. I'll gladly give it to any editor who deserves one. Respectfully, Durova 19:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Durova

Someone suggested that I notify you about this as well, so here it is. :-)

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Arbitration Committee admonishes Durova to exercise greater care when issuing blocks and admonishes participants in the various discussions regarding this matter to act with proper decorum and to avoid excessive drama. Durova (talk · contribs) gave up her sysop access under controversial circumstances and must get it back through normal channels. Also, Giano is reminded that Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project which necessarily rests on good will between editors and the Committee asks that Giano consider the effect of his words on other editors, and to work towards the resolution of a dispute rather than its escalation within the boundaries of the community's policies, practices, and conventions. Finally, !! (talk · contribs) is strongly encouraged to look past this extremely regrettable incident and to continue contributing high-quality content to Misplaced Pages under the account name of his choice. Again, further information regarding this case can be found at the link above. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 22:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		Barnstar of Integrity & Goodness
		For behaving better than imaginable while under great duress. 85.5.180.9 23:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)