User talk:Carbonite/Archive 1

Please come back soon

Carbonite, I'm really sorry to see what you've written on your user page. I agree with all of it, but I hope you'll feel rested enough to return very soon, because if all the good editors like yourself get worn down, we may as well shut up shop. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

What Slim said... I haven't had the opportunity to interact as much with you as I'd like, but I've seen your edits around and found you to be a valuable contributer. Please just take a wiki-break and come back. And you would have had my vote for arbcom. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 20:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah. I can understand it's hard to follow the dictum, "Illegitimis non carborundum", but the seemingly tireless illegitimi (see below) sure make it hard. If it turns out that Wikipedia can't control such destructive editors, I'll likely join you -- or at least just stick to fighting Nazis and leave the more generic assholes to people with far more energy than I have. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

What everybody else said. You'll be missed. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Tell me something, JP. Do Wikipedia rules exist for the sole purpose of creating structure for dispute resolution when consensus is not reached? --Zephram Stark 17:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Notice of Possible Default Judgement

Mr. Carbonite,

Whereas you are the initiator and petitioner of an arbitration request; and
Whereas you are no longer contributing to said arbitration; and
Whereas an equitable seat of judgement requires that the respondent be confronted with the witnesses against him; and

Whereas the arbitration committee is an equitable seat of judgement;
Now therefore, in your absence of the proceedings that you initiated, it may befall the arbitration committee to pronounce a default judgement in the favor of the respondent.

This notice has been served to your user:talk page: 16:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC). Please note that failure to control your user:talk page, resulting in the deletion of this notice, in no way reduces its effect. --Zephram Stark 16:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Zephram Stark, Please note that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Thryduulf 16:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

That's why I have never initiated action against Carbonite, SlimVirgin, or Jayjg. My only purpose here is to help make great articles. Carbonite initiated an action against me because of a content dispute that he lost. I showed him to be a liar in that matter. He blanked his page and left Wikipedia. End of story. --Zephram Stark 17:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Zephram - If there will be any notices of possible default judgements, we, the arbitration committee, will be the ones to issue them - not you. →Raul654 08:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't that make you guilty of Wikilawyering then? --Zephram Stark 01:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Be sure, though, that your wikilawyering will receive the consideration it is due. ➥the Epopt 00:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

What are you going to do tough guy? Prevent me from working for free? I'm scared stiff. Really. --Zephram Stark 01:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you very much for supporting my rather contentious request for adminship, but now that I've been promoted, I'd like to do a little dance here *DANCES*. If you have any specific issues/problems with me, please feel free to state them on my talk page so that I can work to prevent them in the future, and thanks once again!  ALKIVAR™ 07:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Have a good one

I read about you leaving wikipedia in the signpost. I've argued with you several times before, and yet you've always been intellegent and kept your cool, so I hope that you have a good one with whatever you do next. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

He's gone

Carbonite, Zephram's been banned for six months with a probation to follow if he returns. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zephram_Stark/Proposed_decision#Proposed_remedies. Sanity prevailed! Please come back. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zephram Stark case. →Raul654 00:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Rollback

Hi Nicholas, just a reminder that the rollback function should only be used for removing vandalism. [1] Thanks! Carbonite | Talk 12:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Carbonite: Whoops, I'm awfully sorry, I didn't realise I used rollback there. I must have done it perhaps as force of habit, my mind has been at present rather disorderly and somewhat maddened. :) Actually, I don't think I should have reverted Tony at all, actually; that was very very bad of me indeed. The oddest thing of all is that I can't remember doing it; I haven't been very mentally stable lately, which would probably account for some rather peculiar behaviour of mine recently. Thanks for letting me know, if you see anything else I've done that's similarly insane, I would be most grateful if you would give me a suitable telling-off. Once again, I am most sorry. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

No please...that is too long!!!

The 28th is a long way off...I thought the voting was for 7 days from initial posting. Besides, I may withdraw if the vote continues a downward track. Just so you know, I've made 2,000 edits since those cited as disruption and the period since those has been longer than some of the folks total editing history whose nominations end up passing. I respect that admins need to have a better record than mine. I did not solicit for this assignment and though appreciative that Karmafist wanted to nominate me, I have sidestepped this nomination as proposed by a half dozen editors for about 2 months now. I will take your kind words and use them do to better my level of contribution and and to strive for less friction with other editors.--MONGO 17:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that date "fix"! I saw that it still said "seven days after..." and added seven days onto what I initially read as the start date. I've re-fixed the header so that it really is correct now.

I commend you for your conduct during this RfA and I assure you that I will support in the future. As I mentioned on your RfA, I think that an unsuccessful nomination can sometimes be very beneficial. I think that it's very likely that nearly all oppose votes will disappear on a future RfA (if this one fails). Carbonite | Talk 18:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate that. If I withdraw or allow it to satnd and it fails I won't ever accept another nomination and will not self nominate. Not everyone needs to be an Admin.--MONGO 18:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• I appreciate your reconsideration. My edits in which I stated that I was opposing "foreigners" and leftists and POV pushers was completely off the cuff...it was just a dumb attempt at "humor" and wasn't in keeping with my sentiments...I mean my ex is Canadian and my girlfriend is Croatian so from my vantage point, being an ugly American, I was simply being silly. The edits themsleves were also done as a "joke" and I didn't engage in an edit war or revert war about it...just kind of a throw back to my earliest edits. My behavior during the encyclopedic merit thing whereby I removed names from the membership list was just plain wrong and there is no excuse. That sort of thing will never happen again. Regardless, I appreciate your reconsideration and will do my best either way to be a model Wikipedian. Happy editing.--MONGO 18:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Test3

I added a little note to the {{test3}} talk page. Would you mind adding some input? Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Fred Bauder thread

The thread on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration regarding the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Fred_Bauder has long since ceased to be productive. May I suggest a cooling off period with regards to that thread and that any follow up discussions be take to individual talk pages. FuelWagon 02:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipediology

I'd like to ask those fellows who have not indicated whether or not they grant permission for a wikibio on them to please do so soon. I'd also appreciate it everyone could expand or create the wikibios for which permission has been granted. The wikibio project simply won't be useful unless fellows actively participate; so I'd like to issue a challenge that each fellow contribute at least one sentence to two wikibios. I'll be on wikibreak for the next week and when I get back there will be prizes in store for the fellows who have the three highest edit counts on wikibios. Thanks. -JCarriker 22:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Sherurcij

I've responded to your comment, and encourage you to take note. I don't really care whether you change your vote or not, but I would appreciate if you would not go and undo all the work I spent working on subcatting articles in the Category:NPOV disputes without at least discussing it on the relevant talk page. Sherurcij 13:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of your "work" was to remove dispute tags on about a dozen articles. In fact, it's actually a borderline blocking offense (disruption). I'm sure it was done in good faith, so I don't think a block is warranted at this point. If you'd like to re-add the category, feel free to do so, but under no circumstances should you remove the dispute tags. Carbonite | Talk 13:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

MONGO RfA

I've been promoted to admin! I wanted to thank you for reconsidering your vote and I promise you that I'll do everything I can to ensure that you know that you made the right choice! Thanks again.--MONGO 09:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Perspective

Thanks for having a sense of perspective. A three hour block for personal attacks is reasonable. It seems like twenty-four hour blocks for far less [Ed and Dunc, Ed and Joshuaschroeder], or one week blocks for typing in the space reserved for "official user only" [Ted Wilkes, Kelly Martin, RRFAr], are becoming the norm around here. It gives me hope. Guettarda 15:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Guettarda. I was looking to cool Grace Note down, not punish him. However, if the attacks continue, I do think it would make sense to increase the block length. Carbonite | Talk 15:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

No objection to that - I wish more people would start small on blocks. Guettarda 18:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Consensus on use of term terrorist on September 11, 2001 attacks article

OK you show me where there is consensus that terrorists is a good word to use. You lot were clearly outvoted on this matter. I have requested comment on the matter. -max rspct 17:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Mediation with BrandonYusufToropov

Hello, BrandonYusufToropov wishes to enter into mediation with you, and has requested me to act as mediator. Is this acceptable? I handle all my mediation through email between the parties in mediation. --Improv 21:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

Zen-master is again alternately POVing the intro or slapping NPOV tags on the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

RFA

I never looked at that arbcom strawpoll after my initial vote, until now, so I'm responding here, since that was quite a while ago. There are several admins who I've seen blatantly misusing their powers in relatively obvious violations of common sense. And I'm sure there are ones who I haven't witnessed doing this. Of course, several of these have turned out to be admins since before RFA existed, so that doesn't really say anything. My main concern on RFA is the false negatives, where a user is not sysopped over something stupid. We need more admins, especially for RC patrol. All we really need to fix RFA is some sort of un-RFA. If it's easier to desysop people, people will be less likely to oppose a candidate. If they do something stupid, they loose their power as easily as they got it. The current process of going through a lengthy arbcom case to get someone desysopped, no matter how incredibly obvious they need it, is insane. Especially since arbcom seems to like to send them to RFA for an un-RFA, when hardly anyone would actually support someone that has even been sanctioned in an arbcom case recently. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 15:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I see things exactly the other way round, Phroziac. If it were made harder to become an admin, we'd arguably have fewer cases of admins behaving inappopriately. Not that I think we have many cases now, but my guess is we're going to see more of it because of the ease with which people are currently being elected. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I think both of you have brought up some really good points. There does need to be an easier way to de-admin a user, but only if there is blatant abuse of admin powers. However, I don't really agree that there should be a separate procedure such as a un-RfA. I'd prefer that cases of admin abuse were dealt with by a "fast-track" ArbCom (I realize this is a bit of an oxymoron). Basically, cases of admin abuse would be given top priority as soon as they're accepted. Ideally, a case would be decided within a week or two of being accepted. If admin abuse was proven, the admin would be de-admined with the option to re-apply at any time.

On the other side, I also think that admin standards have been dropping over the past six months or so. A user with four months and 2000 edits will almost certainly pass an RfA. If the user is involved in any community activities (CVU, Esperanza) or IRC, the vote may be a landslide. Personally, I like to see 6 months of editing and I've been criticized for having this opinion. I think part of the problem is Jimbo's infamous comment that adminship is "no big deal". Perhaps it wasn't a big deal when the community was smaller and candidates were well known by the vast majority of voters, but I think it's become a bigger deal now. Even assuming that only 1% of admins promoted will abuse their powers, we're still talking about several of these "rogue" admins per year.

In summary, as the community changes, I think we need to change our view of admins. It should be harder to become an admin and easier to remove an abusive one. Remember, they're all just janitors anyway. ;) Carbonite | Talk 15:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely about the unfortunate "no big deal" philosophy and I cringe every time I see a support vote give that reason, because it's tantamount to a shrug. I'm less keen on the number of months/number of edits criteria than on looking at the quality and balance of edits. It always annoys me when people get elected with thousands of minor edits, no substantial edits to the encyclopedia, and very few talk-page edits, which implies minimal community interaction. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I like the fast track arbcom idea, actually. By the way, I left out the main point....a bad arbcom member would be a lot worse then a bad admin, of course! --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 16:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Easier to make admins was what we want to get less false negatives, not less false positives. I don't think we'd have much more inappropriateness then we do now, to be honest. Additionally, an easy way to de-admin might discourage inappropriateness. :) --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 16:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Directing energy Re: ArbCom

elements cross-posted

Yes, absolutely, a proper discussion of possible changes would be a good idea. The thing is, the appointments are not the appropriate venue for attempts at reforming the Committee. Meta wouldn't be the best place, no, because the Committee is w:en-specific.

James F. (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

A question

As I am ever desirous of learning from my mistakes, and as you have expressed concerns over my AfD closures, I would like to ask your opinion of the following:

The articles Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Aoki and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Quirk are slated to be closed. There are only two votes per AfD discussion, but both votes are, essentially, merge/redirect. I have merged the info at Don Aoki and Patrick Quirk (minus a lot of vanity blather in the latter case) into Keynote Systems as suggested by the AfD discussions. Is it kosher for me to now close out the two AfD discussions (assuming they're not already closed by someone else by the time you read this)? Or should I just mention in the discussions that I've merged the articles, and let someone else do the closing? → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 19:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia Boycott Campaign

I have addressed your concerns as best as possible. Let me know if you will now change your mind about deleting my personal subpage User:JuanMuslim/Wikipedia Boycott Campaign. Please let me know if you have any more questions. Thank you.--JuanMuslim ^1m 06:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

"Childish behavior?"

Do you think it doesn't matter that a candidate for ArbCom is an unrepentent POV-pusher? (Does your answer depend on what POV he's pushing?) Marsden 06:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, let's assume for a moment that there is POV pushing. Do you think leading or rhetorical questions (I'm not singling you out here) are the best way to address this issue? The candidate question pages aren't mini-RfCs or a forum for rants. I do believe that it's childish and immature to use a candidate's page to attack them. Carbonite | Talk 14:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

So your real disagreement is only one of degrees? Surely it is appropriate to criticize a candidate on his questions/comments page, else how would anyone know if a candidate really was POV pushing? My first comment to Jayjg was a critical account of how I (and others) think he behaved very poorly in an editing dispute, and I invited him to respond. Do you think that a candidate for ArbCom should not be accountable for his past behavior? And Jay did not respond, except obliquely through toadying questions from some of his regular allies. And I take his oblique answers, by the way, to have been a swipe at me, which I attempted to make him accountable for through my follow-up questions.

What makes you think the line was crossed from criticism into attack?

Marsden 16:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a page for questions, not general criticism. That doesn't mean that only fawning questions should be asked ("How did you become Wikipedia's greatest editor?"), but all questions should be respectful of the candidate. These candidates are volunteering to perform a rather thankless duty and shouldn't be treated as if they're being interrogated. Carbonite | Talk 16:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, per the candidate statement page, it is "a separate subpage for voters to ask questions and have discussions with the candidate." What you write makes little sense -- if the page is for "questions, not general criticism," where does general criticism of the candidates go such that it will be readily available to people concerned about their qualifications? Surely, Carbonite, it is appropriate that candidates for ArbCom be subject to criticism about their suitability for the Committee -- where does the criticism belong? Marsden 17:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

It all comes down an issue of respect and civility. I believe your edits on Jayjg's candidate page lacked both qualities. I'm not going to debate this any longer. There's obviously a difference of opinion regarding the appropriateness of your comments. If you don't want to vote for Jayjg, don't. Carbonite | Talk 17:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Navigation Popus

I noticed you sometimes make edits saying "Popups-assisted redirection bypass". How do you do that? Thanks. — MATHWIZ2020 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 21:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a great tool developed by User:Lupin. All the details can be found at Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups. Happy editing! Carbonite | Talk 22:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I use Navigation Pop-ups - I just never noticed the option to allow automatic fixes. Thanks. — MATHWIZ2020 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 22:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Awolf002 RfA

Thank you very much for your support for my RfA. I will do everything I can to justify your trust in me. Awolf002 03:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

BD2412's RFA

Carbonite, thanks for supporting casting the record-breaking vote in my RfA - I'll do my best as an admin to help make the dream of Wikipedia into a reality! BD2412 T 07:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

Carbonite:

Thank you for your vote of "Support" on my recent RFA. Thank you in particular for having enough of an open mind to change your vote from "oppose" to "support". I place a high personal value on people who demonstrate the ability to change their mind, and I think it's an ability in short supply throughout the world generally. Of all the votes I received on my RFA, yours and Dakota's (who also changed her vote) will be the ones I will cherish the most.

I was especially flattered by your vote change, since you provided among the most thoughtful "non-support" comments before changing your vote. Rest assured that I will strive to conduct myself in such a manner that you will never regret changing your vote.

All the best.
→ Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 12:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Babel

Could you consider adding this template to your userpage? It is very helpful in case translators are needed and such.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

--εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! I hope you have good holiday season also. Carbonite | Talk 17:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Okay, you block a user the same minute I do, for the same time I do, and post essentially the same comment to AN/I as I do. I can only conclude that you are a sock-puppet of me (or am I one of you). Grrr. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, it was a good charade while it lasted, wasn't it? ;) I've blocked myself for a month for sockpuppetry. Carbonite | Talk 22:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Luigi

Thanks for your comments. I appreciate that the call was a close one, but I stand by my decision, and have full faith that Luigi will not abuse his office. Given the controversy surrounding the issue, I will certainly contact other bureaucrats about similar decisions in the future. Regards — Dan | talk 04:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

cabal_membership++;

Hey Carbonite/Archive 1! Thanks for your support on my RfA. The final outcome was (57/4/3), so I am now an administrator. If you need help, have a question, or just want to chat (or if I get out of line!), please don't hesitate to let me know! Again, thanks! :D

Tomer^talk

RfC

Carbonite, you might want to see Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Anittas, where I have tried to address Xed's questions from WP:AN/I, one of which appears to have also been yours, at least in part. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thnaks for your support. I have a weakness for underdogs and felt he was being ganged up on a bit. I knew it would fail, but wanted to throw him a bone and make him feel a little better. I'm not an edit counter and when I saw his actual edits I was impressed enough to vote support. You're right though. Thanks!Gator (talk) 15:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

SoLando's RFA

Hi Carboniter, thank you for voting in support of my RFA; as a statistician, you may be interestered to know that the result was (28-0-0 ) ;-). I hope that I am able to fulfill the expectations that accompany being an admin. If you see me mess up anywhere, have any concerns (be it for my musical taste, numbers or edits), please don't hesitate to tell me! Take care. SoLando (Talk) 09:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

deeceevoice arbitration

As a party to her RfC, you might be interested to know a request for arbitration has been filed towards deeceevoice Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Deeceevoice.

-Justforasecond 18:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Blocking me

Good call. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:ipboptions

Please see my reply as to why 31 hours should stay :) --Celestianpower ^háblame 10:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I've replied on the talk page. I still have a few questions, especially about why the block length should be a prime number. Carbonite | Talk 13:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:0RR and Template:Self-rule

Carbonite:

I am going to move these two pages back to their original respective locations. After some reflection, I suspect that the best way to deal with these two pages is to have them in their original location, and then let WP:MFD have its way with WP:0RR and let WP:TFD have its way with Template:Self-rule.

I think you clearly tried to undertake an action which would result in the least harm, and that's a good thing. But it's become clear that a more robust discussion about these two pages needs to take place, and the place for that discussion is on MFD and TFD. No matter what happens, we'll know where the consensus lies.

If you think this move is in error, you are of course free to move the pages back. Or drop me a note on my talk page and ask me to move the pages back. I'm not trying to be unilateral here, and will honor a request by you to move the pages back if you feel strongly about this issue. But I do think that Wikipedia will be better served by moving the pages back to their original locations and then letting them go through the MFD/TFD wringer.

All the best.
→ Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 20:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Peter

I don't know what to say... I'll have to look into it further, but it might be wise, as suggested before, to try and avoid him. If he continues to follow you around and criticise you, then perhaps an RfC is in order. I'll try to have a word with him. Regards, LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The irony is that the merge proposal was actually an attempt to make a guideline out of Peter's 0RR (and the philosophy of not reverting). I created the more general Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary and was trying to gauge the support for merging 0RR into that page. I'm not asking for any miracles here, just a last-ditch attempt to avoid an RfC. Thank you for your efforts and advice. Carbonite | Talk 19:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the last thing we need is another RfC or another RfAr to clog up the DR process here. I guess we can just keep up the good fight and try to persuade him to remain civil. Also, it is extremely important that you remain civil as well. Wouldn't want to give him any more fodder. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again for your efforts. Carbonite | Talk 19:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Zen-master

I'm watching it. If he gets to 3 reverts today, I'm going to ask for him to be blocked from it. I want to make sure we have just cause for certain. No gray area. Because he'll argue it to death otherwise. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 20:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, put the request on the administrator's noticeboard. Asking you to do that since I'm involved with zen as well (on another article) and you are more familiar with what he's doing on conspiracy theory. Does that sound workable? If you do that, give me the link and I'll see if I can comment on it. It was going to take a request to ANI anyway, I think. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 21:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Please take another look at the 0RR? Ironically, Zen-master is reverting over it. Radiant_>|< 01:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

/particle

Merry Christmas!!

MERRY CHRISTMAS, Carbonite/Archive 1! A well deserved pressy!--Santa on Sleigh 22:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

9/11 Conspiracy theories

Same old same old. Thanks for letting me know. :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 04:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

George Griswold Frelinghuysen

Happy Holidays. Can you do me a favor? The article George Griswold Frelinghuysen was deleted, and I want to include the information in the article Ballantine. The article was deleted before I could move the info. If you have admin powers, could you send me the info so I can include it in the article on his company?

--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for reprotecting GWB

Thank you for re-semi-protecting the George W. Bush article. It seemed like just yesterday we were actually editing rather than fighting our way through vandalism. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome! Permanent semi-protection of that article is starting to looking better and better. Carbonite | Talk 01:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I've un-sprotected it again since 16 vandal edits in about 12 hours is really pretty insignificant. We really do have to give normal editing a chance, even on this article, to see how things change. WP:SEMI is not a tool for the gradual exclusion of anons from Wikipedia, and is should not be used as such. Prohibiting anon editing on the first article many of them see doesn't chime with that. Give it a couple of days, at least, and please don't reprotect in a knee-jerk reaction as several admins seem to do. -Splash^talk 18:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm hoping for the best with unprotection, but recent results haven't been too encouraging. Out of curiousity, has anyone done an analysis on the percentage of anon edits (to GWB) that aren't vandalism? I'd be interested in seeing some data on that. Happy editing! Carbonite | Talk 18:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Carbonite's Law

Carbonite's Law is a masterpiece of simple genius, and I seethe with jealousy that I didn't think of it first. Nicely done. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 01:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I had to at least attempt to keep up with your laws. ;) I have a feeling I'll be quoting them with some regularity. Keep up the great work! Carbonite | Talk 01:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Carbonite's Law (The more a given user invokes assume good faith as a defense, the lower the probability that said user was acting in good faith.) is stupid and self-serving. Basically, one can start out assuming bad faith, be told to assume good faith, and then apply the law to escalate the conflict. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 09:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Category Facism

May I point our article on the subject [[The Bush Administration. It is a well proven fact that bush meets the definition of facism.--God_of War 01:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I realize that some do consider Bush to be a fascist, but that's an opinion rather than a fact. POV categories are highly discouraged. Carbonite | Talk 01:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Unwarranted blocking of User:Zen-master

Hi Carbonite. I would like to know why you blocked Zen-master from editing Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights. The only edits he has made was removing the "rejected" tag, which seems to me like a content dispute and not vandalism. I don't think the rejected tag should be placed there, since the policy is still very much under discussion (just look at the talk page). Therefore, I think his banning is unwarranted and should be reversed. If anything, the case should be dealt with under the 3RR. I don't think this new tendency of blocking users just because they share different points of view is any good. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 09:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Zen-master in on probation per an ArbCom ruling. The ruling was that he "...may be banned from any article if, in the opinion of any administrator, his editing is disruptive." It's my opinion that his continued removal of the "rejected" tag was disruptive. He's still permitted to edit the talk page, and since the only editing he did to the article page was the removal of the tag, this should have no effect on his ability to share his point of view. Carbonite | Talk 11:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that Zen-master is on probation, and that the policy in these cases is quite ambiguous. However, I think the notion that "in the opinion of any administrator, his editing is disruptive" is open to abuse. Just because you think he was disruptive doesn't mean he actually was disruptive from an objective standpoint, especially since he was civil and his removal of the rejection tag was justified (by the fact that discussion was still going on). For this reason, I think the person that put the reject tag in the first place was much more disruptive, not to offend anyone. For this reason, I think he should be allowed to edit the Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights once again. This case should be dealt with at WP:ANI. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 03:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Another ArbCom note?

I saw your note about possible Zephram sockpuppetry on ArbCom... might I also suggest you peek at MACMILLAN (talk · contribs) and his contribs. I do not know if you have seen this, but thought you might be interested. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Zephram Stark's talk page is protected too...

In your check-in comment you noted editors should leave comments for Peter at Zephram Stark's talk page yet that page is also protected, so no one can leave any comments currently...? I think we should leave Peter's pages unprotected and unblanked so other people can attempt to defend Peter from a charge of being a sockpuppet, not to mention other editors are involved in recently active discussions on Peter's talk page... zen master T 21:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm sorry, I didn't knew that the vote wasn't open to everybody. --Kefalonia 15:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

My Request for Adminship

Greetings, Carbonite! I wanted to sincerely thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with a final result of 55/14/3. While you voted oppose, I still hope you'll be content with the way I use my newly granted WikiPowers. If you have any questions or input regarding my activities, be they adminly or just a "normal" user's, or if you just want to chat about anything at all, feel free to drop me a line. Cheers! —Nightstallion (?) 07:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your support on my RfA. I appreciate your generous comments and your confidence. If you see me making a mistake please let me know. Too bad about Zephram Stark/Peter McConaughey; I was looking forward to writing him a suitable thank-you note for his support. Best wishes for a happy new year, Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)