User talk:Guettarda/Archive 16

Guettarda is currently busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

List of endemic flora of PR

Thanks for the spelling correction on the list. I am sometimes clumsy with those. Joelito (talk) 02:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your changes on the endemic flora article. They are fine by me. I would be grateful if you could take another look at the Fauna of Puerto Rico FAC and reply to my comments. Joelito (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trees of the Caribbean Basin

Hi Guettarda - thanks for the note! I'll do Podocarpaceae some time soon too, from the Kew Conifer Checklist. I'd been wondering a little too what its coverage was, I decided to leave out Juniperus bermudiana as I guess that's stretching 'Caribbean' just a little too far (even tho' they somehow 'go together' at least as seen from this far away!). What about the Florida Keys? They are sometimes considered Caribbean in phytogeography. Of the title, technically I guess "Caribbean Basin" means the sea bed, so the only entries should be a few mangroves :-) maybe it should be "Trees of the Caribbean" or "Trees of the Caribbean Islands"? PS if you want a few more additions, look at the list at Buxus (Cuba has a centre of diversity with about 30 species) - MPF 22:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One definite extra I can think of the keys add is Pinus elliottii var. densa. No junipers, though, Juniperus virginiana subsp. silicicola doesn't quite get that far south in Florida. Might have to add Taxodium distichum though. - MPF 23:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chicle and Sapodilla

Hi Guettarda, I have made a suggestion that the articles for Sapodilla and Chicle be merged, or better, cross referenced. This is based on my own experience in Tobago where several local people identified the same tree as either Chicle or Sapodilla depending on who you asked. MPF quite righly points out that there are two species involved but I'm not sure whether these common names are used specifically for the two species -i.e. I think that the common names might be used for either one species or the other. Do you have any knowledge of this ? I may well have misunderstood the position so many thanks for any contribution. Velela 09:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Welcome back

And here I was thinking that no one cared heh...as always, I appreciate your kind words. This friendly, supportive atmosphere is one reason I enjoy working on Wikipedia so much. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes

Dear Guettarda - I gather you have been having a bad time. I send you my very best wishes and hope you will be back on deck soon.

Cheers,

John Hill 07:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Trinidad and Tobago (I presume)

What are you talking about? A prior reversion might have reinserted the population figures you note, but not currently and I make no such claim regarding what the most populous locale is; if so, my apologies.

In any event, you are rude. Move along -- future communications from you will be ignored and dismissed without comment. Cogito ergo sumo 15:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You accuse me of being rude, while you engage in personal attacks and insults. Anyway, you have proven that you have no interest in article quality, just in keeping your (poor) phrasing prominent in the article.

"I make no such claim regarding what the most populous locale is" - that is false. You changed that information in the article. Your allegation is untrue. Guettarda 02:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have already indicated and exhibited my willingness to edit and improve content -- which you seem to glaze over -- and have apologised for any implication regarding the population of said locales. And your continued removal of verifiable content, edit warring, and flame-ridden verbiage does more harm than anything I've done. So, really, STFU -- end communication. Cogito ergo sumo 02:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inserting false information is not "willingness to improve content". Guettarda 02:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You call me rude, while telling me to "shut the fuck up"? Dude, you're a joke. Guettarda 02:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I was worried about simply recopying the entire dialogue due to making the section longer without good reason, but I suppose doing so is the best way to avoid confusion. I'll take care of it. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 16:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudosciene RFAr and KV

Is User:KrishnaVindaloo pro-pseudoscience? I've nearly resigned to follow the megabytes of debate between KV and Gleng, but I was of the opinion, that KV is con-pseudoscience, only sometimes dangerously near original research. And Gleng acts as upholder of policy, but mainly to minimize criticism of chiropractors. --Pjacobi 14:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoscience vs Pseudoskepticism

Thank you for your contribution to the Request for Arbitration above. I respsectfully ask you the same question as I posed to Felonious Monk, which I think will help the Administraors and myself with the case: "Could you provide (a) A couple of examples (eg. diffs) illustrating your statement, together with (b) A couple of reliable sources suggesting pseudoscience" --Iantresman 15:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right, I read the page "Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How to present a case", and the section "What the ArbCom will and won't look at" which mentioned in the second paragraph "pick clear and obvious examples" --Iantresman 17:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA

Gaah! You've stumbled into the GA mess? IMHO the GA process is infested with regulars who overestimate their capabilities and have a healthy (or unhealthy) anti-expert bias. Did you miss the Citationgate show? You can start reading here.

One of the counter-measure would be to shift attention to decentralised assessment of articles ny the WikiProjects, in your case by Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Science.

Pjacobi 13:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Largest City

ok Trinidad and Tobago only has 2 Cities : Port-of-Spain and SanFernando . Thats is my point. To say other wise is incorrect !!

Velupillai Prabhakaran page and Brammen

I have posted this in his talkpage, hope he understands our point!!

Thanks Guettarda, for summarizing exactly what I had in my mind, this would probably define what consensus is.......not your own surrealistic ones. Please understand that the point we are trying to make is that you cannot go on recategorizing as you wish without providing any reasons...........cite reasons and if you want to continue doing this, face contempt from all your fellow editors. Sudharsansn 03:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 11:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed references edit in Global warming

You just removed an edit I made in Global warming, saying it was 'nonsense'. Could you please answer my proposition / question in the global warming discussion page? --_N_e_g_r_u_l_i_o 04:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yogurt has won out

It's already been proven that a wikipedia user originally moved yogurt to yoghurt against Wikipedia policies. Yogurt should reclaim the article. Moving it back to yoghurt is against wikipedia policies. Also mind your tone next time.

No. Maybe you should read the discussion. Still, it's irrelevant - you should not use cut and paste to move a page. Once the discussion has been concluded, if there is consensus for a move, the page will be moved. If not, it won't. "First use" is a guideline, not a hard and fast rule. Guettarda 21:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

H. mabouia

I guess it is a mistake on my part. I have gone and read some more recent literature and you are correct. I had it listed as native because some of the older references argued that some lizard species arrived to the Americas through overwater flotsam dispersal. They argued that since tropical storms follow a westernly course from Africa to the Americas that some African lizards populations could have crossed the Atlantic. This theory, however, applies only to H. brooki and not to H. mabouia which is a more recent arrival. I will edit the article to reflect this. Joelito (talk) 14:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific dispute

I answered your comment, but S.A. chimed in. See also my comment at Talk:Dispute resolution. --Uncle Ed 13:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers

as we Brits say. I see you remain as hopelessly addicted to wikipedia as I, but there are worse addictions, unlike after the arbcom hearing everything is now very peaceful with nobody hassling me. Ahh!! Your talk page just inspired me to edit Ceiba mentioning La Ceiba, thus is the wikipedia way, SqueakBox 04:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categorising species "by geography"

I'm curious what you mean by that. States and nations are geographic entities, but I take it you mean something other than that. But what do you actually mean? Guettarda 04:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted to clarify at the CfD page (and watching there for any further discussion, if you like). Hope it helps. : ) - jc37 20:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation

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/Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, 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. —chair lunch dinner™ ^talk 14:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent designer noble prize winners and quotes

1) Why did you delete the list of scientists and the supporting quotations as they were all about some kind of supernatural designer? 2) If they don't belong in that particular definition so which definition do they belong? Show me the right place where to paste it in. Bravehearted 16:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The material isn't relevant in the intelligent designer article - it is unrelated to the "theory" of intelligent design. As for where it belongs - I have no idea if that list belongs anywhere in an encyclopaedia, let alone where it might belong. It might fit into an article about the religious views of Nobel Prize winners - but obviously, to be in keeping with our WP:NPOV policy, it would have to be part of a discussion which gives the full spectrum of views among Nobel Prize winning scientists. Without it there is no way for the reader to decide if this is meaningful or significant. But unless they have specifically spoken about intelligent design and its "designer" it most certainly doesn't belong in the article where you placed the information. Guettarda 17:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you may not have noticed you deleted the link to the article about what Charles Townes has to say on Intelligent Design and you have deleted his quotation on Intelligent Design. Another thing is that promoting a series of chances and coincidences as driving factors of evolution is equally irrational and unscientific as promoting some kind of Intelligent Designer. Both beliefs are based on faith and cannot be either proved or disproved on scientific grounds. No person ever can prove that the universe and life have been formed without any interference of a supreme being, and so stating this kind of belief as a fact is unfair and unscientific. The blind watchmaker of Dawkins is equally unscientific and irrational as the Intelligent Designer of Townes. And still you are not at all objective accepting as facts only those statements which are made by atheist or agnostic evolutionists and which they (nor any other person) cannot prove. Thus a false impression is made that all leading, true and fine scientists do not see the need of any kind of creator in the process of forming the universe, life or species. As a school teacher I often see shock on the faces of my students when I tell them, that some top scientist do believe in some kind of a supreme being that either guided the process of evolution (eg Anfinsen) or used both creation and evolution method to form different species (eg Townes). Teenagers are shocked because no schoolbook, encyclopaedia, no tv programme like National Geographic or Discovery Channel will ever tell them that such scientists do exist. I see you are one of those censors who say that the beliefs of atheists are scientific and the beliefs of theists are religious (evolution by chance as scientific and evolution guided by a supreme being as religious - while no person can scientifically prove that either is true). Once religious fanatics ruled the world. Now the time has come for atheistic fanatics who want to make a false impression that science does not in any way prove the existence of any god but it does show that everything we see is the work of a blind chance and coincidence. False, biased, unobjective. Bravehearted 11:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Ross (creationist)

Can you take a look at this, thankyou. It has been controlled by creationists, and is full of BS.

I'm aware of it, I was planning to look into it when I get a chance. Block evasion isn't worth it though - you should just wait it out. Nothing is that urgent. Guettarda 16:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't "rude and arrogant" - it's application of Wikipedia policy. You're a valuable contributor, stop trying to get yourself perma-banned. Guettarda 18:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with the usage of sub-categories of Category:Biota by country

I am trying to get a discussion going on the Flora of <region>/Fauna of <region>/Biota of <region> caregories. I noticed you are interested in this issue from the deletion log.

Please see Category talk:Biota by country GameKeeper 13:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Senators" to "ministers"?

As I understand it the senators were elected not appointed, the position of minister is an appointment given by the prime minister (ie in the UK) but unusually the prime minister of the federation could not appoint his own ministers. JohnShep 19:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it under the paliamentary bicameral system the prime minister could only recommend the appointment of senators, the actual appointment being made by the head of state which I think in this case was the governor general and not the queen ? I'm pretty sure in Canada as well the pm can only recommend JohnShep 21:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I may be wrong :-) JohnShep 21:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read into this However the government (executive) would be a Council of State, not a Cabinet. It would be presided over by the Governor-General and consist of the Prime Minister and 10 other officials. that the pm could not appoint his own executive (ie cabinet of ministers). JohnShep 22:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bajan

Hi. Thank you for getting involved with the disputed section on Bajan. However, I disagree that the vocabulary/slang section does not infringe WP:NOT. Specifically, the section goes against policy statements such as "Wikipedia articles are not (...) lists of such [dictionary] definitions" and "Wikipedia articles are not (...) a usage guide or slang and idiom guide. Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc. should be used". I would appreciate further comment from you on this matter. Best regards.--Hús ö nd 14:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yogurt

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Yogurt. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.

--Serge 18:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not intend to insult you. Just wanted to provide an official warning that if you revert again, you will be reported. Next time I won't bother. --Serge 19:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guettarda, I have had my differences with Serge on move requests and other matters before, but I must come to his defense here momentarily. The comment you added to his talk page (copied below) is out of line --

Please refrain from your insults. Using newbie templates on an established editor is a calculated insult. Do not do so in future.

In addition, stop moving pages against consensus. Your contempt for your fellow editors is unbecoming. Guettarda 19:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are an experienced editor indeed, but neither being a longtime editor nor being an administrator should be used as a status symbol (as it appears you did in that statement). {{3RR}} is not necessarily a template for newbies, but rather a template for people about to violate the three-revert-rule (perhaps if you feel it's written in a condescending manner, you could try to rectify that). You were in fact about to violate that rule, even if inadvertently; that is not an insult, but a fact. I understand you disagree with the controversial decision, but engaging in a move war to contest it is, as you implied in the comment to Serge, not appropriate. You may want to take it up with Mets501, despite his message at the move request closing, as you have a couple good points. -- tariqabjotu 22:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not true. If used on an experienced editor it's a clear and calculated insult which says (at best) "You are too stupid to understand the rules, so I am spelling them out to you like a newbie". There is no reason to use {{3RR}} on anyone who is familiar with the rule unless you want to insult them. Guettarda 02:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well... I'm not sure if I'd go so far as to say it's a "clear and calculated insult." However, I do wish alternate templates that don't go over the basics of the rules like that could be written. {{sofixit}} is by far one of the worst. (I used {{sofixit}} as an example, so you wouldn't respond to that wish for alternate templates with precisely that template) Nevertheless, I will often use the standard templates in the rare situations I need to post them on the talk pages of longtime editors not because I want to insult the recipient, but rather because it's simpler (custom messages end up saying the same thing usually). That's why I was so alarmed by your response to Serge. -- tariqabjotu 02:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming on my talk page that my actions constituted a "clear and calculated insult" is a clear violation of WP:AGF. I didn't know you from Adam, frankly, and all I was trying to do was give you a "head's up" that I was counting the number of reverts, and I was prepared to report you. I did that in what I understood to be the standard and accepted official manner. Heck, I was just following the instructions at WP:AN/3RR. If you found that to be insulting, I'm sorry, but I didn't make up the rules. Take it up with them. --Serge 06:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse

Your block of Jooler is against policy and arbcomm precident. Please unblock him/her immediately and stop your persistent abuse of your admin privileges. Guettarda 23:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Last time I checked things like {{Uw-vandalism4}} and {{wr4}} existed. If you can get those two templates deleted or point to an applicable arbcom precedent then I will unblock Jooler. —Mets501 (talk) 00:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disappointed you unblocked Jooler there. I was about to give him a short block for the edits he was making when Mets beat me to it. I agree with Mets that the edits Jooler was making were disrupive. Have I missed something? I have no opinion on the proper spelling of yogurt/yoghurt, but it looked to me like Jooler was acting unhelpfully by doing what he was doing. --Guinnog 00:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jooler was fixing Mets' improper move (he closed the RM 7-4 in favour of the move, while ignoring 4 votes that met even Mets' idiosyncratic arguments for rejecting opinions). Mets also improperly move-protected the page, and said, in effect, screw all of you, I Will Not Be Moved in this close.

Mets' issue of a "warning" was bogus - Jooler was correcting Mets' mistake. The threats for removing the warnings were also incorrect - you aren't allowed to block for removing warnings, you most certainly aren't allowed to block for removing bogus warnings. I spoke to Mets' gave him half an hour to undo his "mistakes"... he refused, even after I informed him that he was blocking for a non-existant offense. We were all new admins once, but if someone blocks improperly and then refuses to budge when he is corrected by a more experienced editor, is clearly not suited to be an admin. Guettarda 01:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for this to escalate with more personal attacks. I think I am not mistaken in saying that both of us have made mistakes in this situation. I will not be involved in the Yogurt/Yoghurt debate anymore: as I said before, I personally do not care about the outcome, and do not wish for anything more to happen. If you are curious, I think your mistake is immediately thinking that your word prevails over mine and I should immediately reverse any of my actions on your word. Yes, you are a more experienced admin than me in terms of time, but this is not my first week of adminship. Let's move on, and not hold any grudges against each other in the future if possible :-) —Mets501 (talk) 01:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a personal attack, it's a reflection on your abuse of admin privileges and your general unsuitability for adminship. Your inflexible attitude is a serious problem. Saying "[p]lease do not come to my user talk page with long monologues; I will not change my opinion if you write to me" is unacceptable in a collaborative project. That level of contempt for your fellow editors really isn't something we can afford in admins here. Blocking in violation of policy is bad enough - maybe you didn't know better, but the onus is on you to figure this out before you block. But the real problem is your response to being corrected - when I informed you of your mistake, you refused to budge. If you make a mistake and someone corrects you, the normal thing to do is apologise and correct the mistake. To grudgingly correct your mistake, or even say "go ahead and unblock" reflects poorly on a person, but it's human nature. No one likes to be told they are wrong, but eventually most people learn to accept it. But you did neither. You, in effect said, "nope, I'm not going to be swayed". What sort of reaction is that? It's most definitely not an attitude we can afford in a Wikipedia admin. Today you refuse to budge when your mistakes are pointed out - what are we to look forward to tomorrow? It's not a personal attack - it's identification of a clear liability to the project. Guettarda 01:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me tell you why I made that comment on Talk:Yogurt. No matter which version I chose, I knew I would be under heavy fire from both sides of the debate. Like m:The Wrong Version just in terms of page moves instead of protection. Extensive debate had already taken place on the talk page, and I had made my decision based on the discussion that had already occurred. I was not going to change based on what one editor who wrote to me on my talk page said, I would only change it if everyone in the debate wrote to me on my talk page, which, as you know, is impossible.

If I perform an action that you think is a mistake, that does not mean that everyone thinks that it is a mistake. Obviously, if I did something that was clearly wrong, I would revert it immediately, but this was a subject where there is no right/wrong answer. If you make a decision that I disagree with, should you change it or risk being called inflexible? We are technically on the same level in this Wiki: there is really no real power structure here. —Mets501 (talk) 02:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"No matter which version I chose, I knew I would be under heavy fire from both sides of the debate." - that's a gem. You chose to ignore a large number of votes in order to get your desired result, and

"and I had made my decision based on the discussion that had already occurred. - no, that is false. If that was the case, why did you ignore 4 opinions and mischaracterise two of them? You explained why you rejected a number of opinions, but you continue to refuse to explain why you simply ignored many of the other opinions.

"I would only change it if everyone in the debate wrote to me on my talk page, which, as you know, is impossible" - in other words, exactly what I said - imperious contempt for your fellow editors.

"If I perform an action that you think is a mistake, that does not mean that everyone thinks that it is a mistake" - under what possible scenario is it not a mistake to ignore four votes and mischaracterise two of them? The only way it could not be a mistake is if you intentionally moved the page against consensus.

"If you make a decision that I disagree with, should you change it or risk being called inflexible?" - straw man argument. If I violated policy and abused admin privileges and someone pointed it out to me, I would obviously undo it immediately; even if I was unsure about it I would undo first, and then verify whether it was correct or not.

"We are technically on the same level in this Wiki: there is really no real power structure here" - good of you to point that out. NO LISTEN TO WHAT YOU JUST SAID and stop treating others with contempt. That said, there are obviously many hundreds of people here who are far more familiar with Wikipedia policy than you are. If you aren't aware of the appropriate policy or guideline, don't use your admin privileges. Don't make threats. Don't treat other editors with contempt. Don't move pages against consensus. Don't block users with whom you are in conflict. Don't move-protect pages to support your illegitimate move. STOP VIOLATING WIKIPEDIA POLICY. Simple enough. Guettarda 12:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re:Guidelines

No, guidelines aren't policy, and they aren't set in stone, maybe I chose the wrong wording there, but the polices and guidelines says "Amendments to a guideline should be discussed on its talk page, not on a new page". If you want to change WP:MOS, discuss it there, build consensus, and then page move (regardless of which page was originally there, I personally don't care). Obviously there is a debate there that has to be changed by a third neutral party (like RFAr) for consensus to occur. semper fi — Moe 01:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And please stop wheel warring Jooler's block. Discuss it with them before anyone else touches his block log. Geez.. semper fi — Moe 01:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving a page right during a requested move survey, when some people have voted to oppose a move, others to support, and the page moves between votes, is highly disruptive, and that was the reason I blocked Jooler. I am certainly not going to wheel war with you, but the disruption doesn't help anything that I can see. Jonathunder 02:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jooler's user page

Thanks for pointing that out; I've apologised to him. However I don't agree I was edit-warring with him! I reverted several of his edits as I thought he was making the situation worse. I was trying to help, as I hope you are too. --Guinnog 02:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments towards User:Mets501

Please, do not keep badgering this user. He has openly admitted that he has made a mistake, so furthur accusations about how bad an admin he is and how he is trying to harm Wikipedia is not helping. Comments like "STOP VIOLATING WIKIPEDIA POLICY" and "This one never should have gotten past RFA" is not helping you prove your point, and is only causing disruption on his talk page. If you want, please you other methods of dispute resolution like RFC or RFAr if you really think he was out of line. Thanks! semper fi — Moe 20:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, he hasn't admitted his mistake. And that's the problem. He insists that it was nothing more than an difference of opinion, and that there is no reason why he should listen to someone who is "just his equal". He has a string of egregious actions

His "close" of an RM in which he ignored a series of votes. While he may be within his "rights" to throw out votes, he isn't within his rights to simply pretend that opinions were not cast. He also seems to think that it's ok to insult his fellow editors with imperious remarks. He claims the issue is a "difference of opinion". If someone thinks that the difference between facts and fantasy are a "difference of opinion" then they have no right to be in a position of authority anywhere (except maybe in the Bush government).
His threats to Jooler were abusive. Mets was the one who was doing what the claimed Jooler was doing. His block was doubly abusive - not only was he blocking for a non-existent violation, he was also blocking an editor in the middle of a dispute. He has not apologised to Jooler, he has not acknowledged these violations, he has not indicated that he will not block in violation of policy in the future.
When I informed him of his mistake, he refused to correct his mistake. If someone tells you that you have made a mistaken block, and you really don't know what the policy is, you unblock and find out what the policy actually is. You don't reply petulantly, you don't say "too bad, screw you".

He is clearly unsuited to be an admin. His actions violate policy, they violate community norms. A new admin is likely to be ignorant of these things - which is why you need to find things out before you act. Irresponsible admins act first and figure things out later. It isn't good, but there are lots of people who work like that. That's still ok, if you are willing to correct your mistakes when they are pointed out to you. Mets has done nothing of the sort, and based on his latest email, to which I was responding, he has no intention of doing anything of the sort.

I have no idea why you have taken it upon yourself to defend such egregious behaviour. As his defender, you should be setting him straight, not harrassing me. I simply replied to his "wrong and strong" message to me. He shouldn't have gotten past RFA. That's painfully obvious. If you want to be his defender, try to get a commitment from him to stop violating policy. You know better. I really didn't expect this kind of bullshit from you. Guettarda 20:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not his defender, but I don't like incivilty and wheel warring between users (admins no less) and your comments are starting to borderline what I call exceptable. I am not trying to harrass you, but what I was trying to say is long comments like the above are better said at a place worth reviewing like RFAr. ~~Talk pages and noticeboards are not the appropriate place to review the intentions of a disputable admin.~~ semper fi — Moe 21:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, there are to a certain degree, but not whether or not thier adminship should be kept, thats what RFAr is for. semper fi — Moe 21:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guettarda, would you consider nominating {{wr4}} for deletion again? It's been kept twice already. You obviously believe the template is grossly inaccurate and that when admins use it they are violating policy. If you would not consider that, then your claims that I was violating policy were baseless. Perhaps you're thinking a little one-minded now? Perhaps you should check up on WP:CONSENSUS? Interesting how the template was kept twice "against policy" as you say. —Mets501 (talk) 23:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My "claims" that you are violating policy? Did you miss all the comments on WP:AN/I? Did you bother to read the links I provided? Guettarda 01:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mets, you violated policy. Deal with it, admit it, move along. Jim62sch 01:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-post: Before we lose either or both of you, Mets, please just admit your errors and apologise, and Guet, please stop chasing the matter. Let it drop, both of you. – Ch acor 01:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mets shows no interest in following policy. It's one thing for him to ignore me when I tell him that his actions aren't allowed, but this was discussed at AN/I. He participated in the discussion. And yet he continues to ignore policy, ignore a discussion on AN/I, and has now taken to attacking me. I don't care whether he chooses to attack me or not - this isn't about me. It's about an admin who refuses to accept either policy and pretends that the consensus on AN/I somehow doesn't apply to him. Guettarda 01:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guettarda, drop it, now. Please, just let it go. Wikipedia is not the sort of environment to be holding grudges, and if you don't stop soon, someone is going to interpret WP:POINT in a way which you don't like. Although you may have a point (I'm not going to comment either way - this comment is not endorsing Mets action in the slightest), everyone would benefit if this was just dropped. If not, please follow dispute resolution, but don't continue to repeat the same things over and over - as I said, someone may interpret this as disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Lets all remember that we're here to write an encyclopedia, not squabble amongst ourselves. Please, I'm begging you, just let it go - conflict achieves nothing except to haze the main purpose of Wikipedia. Cheers, Daniel .Bryant 01:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Daniel. I'm about sick of you saying there has been administrator misconduct when the user has already apologized for his actions. Your post [1] is nothing short of WP:POINT and I'm not going to stand for you saying I am defending an administrators conduct when I am mainly uninvloved. Now I suggest you let the matter drop. semper fi — Moe 02:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need to chill out. Mistakes were made, admitted, and fixed. There is absolutely no grounds for you to continue pestering other users and administrators at this point. // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 03:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(mostly cross-posted from User talk:Mets501 as the conversation seems to be here) For what it's worth, I've just checked Mets501's admin block log. The total number of users he's blocked in 3 1/2 months since he became an admin in early August - other than for vandalism, bad username, banned user sockpuppets, etc. - can be counted on one hand. He's a dedicated admin doing good work (I think lately he's patrolled the requested moves page and fixed mainpage errors, among other things). Granted, he's not perfect; who is?

I have urged that in the future Mets501 consider consulting with other admins or post to ANI before throwing any potentially controversial blocks. I have also referred him to recent lengthy discussions on whether "users removing warnings" should really be considered a serious problem worthy of blocking (or block-extension) or not. But the idea that any mistakes he made yesterday suggest that he's some sort of dangerous out-of-control sysop or a "clear liability to the project" is preposterous. Newyorkbrad 01:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this official

I have made mistakes, ones which have violated some of Wikipedia's policies. I am not out to hurt the project at all. I usually enjoy my time here on Wikipedia, and I don't want to ruin it. That said:

I, Mets501, apologize for the mistakes I have made and the misunderstandings and other incidents that have followed. I promise to do my best to make sure I am acting in accordance with Wikipedia's policies, and if I have any doubts, I will do my best to contact an uninvolved administrator for approval.

I know that you were also acting during this time in what you considered to be the best interests of Wikipedia, even though we may have disagreed and became harsh with each other. All I am asking is that you will now drop it, and you will do your best to not discuss the matter again. This is not an attempt to cover up my mistakes, all I ask is that the matter be dropped so that we can both continue editing on Wikipedia stress-free. Please sign below if you are in agreement with what I am saying. —Mets501 (talk) 01:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I'm willing to let the matter drop completly if Guettarda is. semper fi — Moe 02:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your message. All I really wanted of you was to check policy when you are unsure, and if someone says that you have made a mistake, give them the benefit of the doubt. Thank you for your message, and I hope that your future in Wikipedia is bright and stress-free. Guettarda 13:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hallelujah! Thanks for being willing to end this conflict. —Mets501 (talk) 13:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Through our "disagreement", I know that you were always acting in the best interest of Wikipedia. Though your actions may have been a bit strong, you had good intentions at heart. —Mets501 (talk) 13:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]