Archive I (Feb-July 2005) • Archive II (1 August 2005 - 8 August 2005) • Archive III (9 August 2005 - 21 August 2005) • Archive IV (21 August 2005 - 26 August 2005) • Archive V (27 August 2005 - 11 September 2005)

Gentlemen, I just got home from work and I'm making dinner. I'm going out for the evening shortly, so don't expect too many more replies from me tonight.

At Imdaking's request, I'm going to look into the RfC. I will put 100% effort at being detached and impartial as I look it over, but judging from previous experience with Lucky 6:9 and Bishonen, I do not expect to find anything amiss. I have had no interactions with Paul Klenk before, but I know Lucky 6:9 and Bishonen to be fair-minded and generally outstanding users.

As I said, I will put aside any pre-conceived notions that I have and will look into the matter. If I find that Paul Klenk, Bishonen or Lucky 6:9 have acted improperly, I will say so at the RfC. If I find that Imdaking has acted improperly, I won't do anything, as I am loathe to step on another admin's authority in any matter. I hope this is agreeable to both of you. Fernando Rizo T/C 23:55, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just re-read Imdaking's request a little more carefully, and I realized that a fair portion of his complaint centers around the "gayness" of Paul Klenk. I guess I'm at fault here for assuming a slightly higher baseline of maturity. Sorry, Imdaking, you're on your own on this one. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:10, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind attention, and don't feel too bad about "stepping into a pile" of this person's immaturity. He has been dropping them all over the place. paul klenk 00:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto that, Fernando. I believe that I've acted within policy, but if I've done anything improper, please know that it was unintentional and that I appreciate your bringing it up in the interest of fairness. Thanks for the kind words, BTW! Have a wonderful night. - Lucky 6.9 00:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando: I'm not sure why Imdaking has contacted you, but if you have had some dealing with him and you think that you can communicate with him, that would be very helpful. He's going to be back after his 48 "wikibreak" no matter what happens in the meantime, but the question is, will it be for the better or worse. I personally do not want to see things escalate through RFC/RFM/RFAr. I've been through one before with the AFAr for Netoholic and would rather not go through that again. Instead, I would much rather see Imdaking editing as a productive editor without any copyright violations. If you could talk to him and explain why some of the things that he has done has violated Wikipedia policy, that would be greatly appreciated.

As for Imdaking's suggestion of some sort of cabal, I've never had any dealings with Paul Klenk before yesterday. I've corresponding with Lucky 6.9 (we are both in the Southern California WikiProject, and were dealing with the very problematic editor User:Ronald20 together), but we had never talked about Imdaking before yesterday.

I ran into Imdaking independantly and discovered that almost all of the images that he has uploaded other than company logos were tagged with {{Fairuse}}, but didn't fit the criteria for Wikipedia:Fair use, and so I've been reporting some of them to Copyright violations (only about a third, so that are many more to report). Because of that, I've been threatened, insulted, cursed, and had my signature modified by Imdaking.

Just take a look at WP:AN/I#User:Imdaking, and look at some of his recent edits as User:69.229.17.94, such as [1], and [2], where it is obvious that he is unrepentant. Plus look at his transparent lying at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection to have his complaint page unprotected. BlankVerse ∅ 15:26, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fernando, I login, but cant find ur message. You can email me mtetcher@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtetcher (talk • contribs) 08:22, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there Marg. I probably have archived whatever comment I had since then, as my talk page tends to fill up rather quickly. Basically what I said was that if NeoPop Realism is so important, why don't we write a whole article on NeoPopRealism? Find me some references in books or magazines or websites and I'll help you write the article. The problem with the Nadia Russ page right now is that it's really vain and not neutral at all. If we want to claim that NeoPopRealism is so important, we need references to back it up, OK? Let me know when you find something we can use. I'm posting this comment on my talk page as well, but I'm also watching your talk page here, so we can continue this conversation wherever you want. Cheers, Fernando Rizo T/C 19:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marg, the other problem that I'm noticing as I look at the article again is that the only references we have are Nadia Russ' website. We need other, third-party references for this thing if you want it to conform to Wikipedia guidlines and be taken seriously. Fernando Rizo T/C 19:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my RfA has not quite completed yet, but either way, I'd like to thank you for your vote and your support, regardless of the outcome. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 18:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User 167.219.88.140 vandalized another page ('he' repeatedly vandalizes the Jim Gerlach page). Time to lower the boom. jesup 04:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I be bold - I removed large unrelated talk section in Talk:Terri_Schiavo.

See history.

While one editor saw the section and did not vote, I removed the section, since you had given me permission -I "voted" for him, in proxy (that was my idea, not yours, etc.) -and notified him in his talk.

The other fellow did vote to remove -and voted on a few additional things.

Like I said, Uncle Ed was my role model in how to negotiate disputes instead of mere spinnig of the wheels, like willy on wheels, and Big Willy, whoever they are, lol ha ha, and I hope I am a good understudy of Uncle Ed -things are moving along right well. Pretty soon, we can count votes and close the vote and open the page to editing.

--GordonWattsDotCom 03:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support on my RfA and for your kind comments. android79 15:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks. It's nice to know that I haven't gone completely off the rails. Yeah...relistings...I thought about just deleting them. Given how many people look at AfD, I've previously thought that if none of them opted to object to deletion then that was good enough. Now that it's me with the delete button, I see things a bit differently. I also haven't taken any heat for doing so, despite asking people to tell me if they thought I was wrong. I did notice Android79 deleting some with a single participator today though, and I trust his judgement certainly. For some reason, since becoming an admin, my userpage has taken quite a bit of vandalism from one anon, and I really can't work out why. I suppose I deleted their page or something!

Anyway, I have a question actually. Jack Douglas (record producer) was (originally) created as a copypaste move from Jack Douglas, obviously a no-no. Jack Douglas was then edited into a dab. This is exactly the situation that Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves says can't be easily fixed. However, I was wondering why the following could not be done:

1. Delete both
2. Restore Jack Douglas to before the dab
3. Move it to Jack Douglas (record producer)
4. Delete Jack Douglas again
5. Restore only the edits after the copypaste move

That would seem to preserve authorship and separate histories, in exactly the form that a proper move would originally have them. Is there a gap in my understanding? In fact, Bearcat has found another way:

1. Delete Jack Douglas (record producer)
2. Revert Jack Douglas to before the dab
3. Move it
4. Remake the dab at Jack Douglas

Is one of these routes righter than the other? Are both wrong? If not, does the example in Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves need changing? -Splash 18:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. That's a good question. I'd say both methods are kosher with GDFL requirements, but I'm no expert. If I remember right, User:Kmccoy is the go-to guy on stuff of that nature.

As for the AfD stuff, I totally understand where you're coming from. Having the ability and responsibility makes everything feel different, doesn't it? It can be unsettling at first. Hell, I've been an admin for 3 weeks and its still unsettling to me sometimes. I just try to be as transparent as possible, and it looks like you do, too. Keep it up, man. If you want more depth with that question, talk to Kevin McCoy. Fernando Rizo T/C 19:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think transparency is probably key. Thanks for the help; if I get confused I'l' go see Kevin. -Splash 19:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cool Cat. I've picked up your complaint at from WP:TINC. Can you give me a brief description of the harassment you've been getting, with diffs, please? Fernando Rizo T/C 18:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Davenbelle and Stereotek
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Evidence
• Also note: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Proposed decision

Karl Meier (Stereotek) have recently apologised for an error of his, in an assume goof faith enviorment I have taken it as a sincere apology but I dont want to be as gullable as Belldandy as at this point as I cant afford it. This was the first real communication I have ever recieved from him so it is exciting for me. --Cool Cat ^Talk 19:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Davenbelle is plainly beyond reason. Check his past 3000 edits., how often does he revert me or opose me. See very reacent Soultheaster Anatolia Project issue of moving material around. Generaly in distant past Davenbelle and Stereotek have activeley revert ward against me together, sometimes for image sizes. He has a history of making his only edit in days in a vote to opposing me and ironicaly citing WP:POINT --Cool Cat ^Talk 19:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not hold revenge against people all I care is them leaveing me and others on wikipedia alone and stop "policing" policies based on how they interprete them. --Cool Cat ^Talk 19:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking into it now, Cool Cat. Fernando Rizo T/C 19:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay CC; I thoroughly read up on the matter, and it seems like the best thing to do right now is just to avoid Davenbelle and Karl Meier for the time being. Let me explain why I think this is the best course of action.

1. The proposed arbcom decision currently being voted on clearly stipulates that Davenbelle should stay away from you as much as possible under threat of penalties imposed upon him. It's a small logical leap to invoke the same of Karl Meier.
2. Your request is materially the same as the subject being discussed at the aforementioned RfAr, and it wouldn't be proper for the Mediation Cabal to step on the arbcom's toes and get involved at this time.

What I'm going to do is leave a brief note on Davenbelle and Karl Meier's talk pages, asking them to keep there distance from you until the arbcom reaches a final decision.

If you disagree with my solution, please bring it up with my "supervisor" at the Mediation Cabal, User:NicholasTurnbull. I hope this works for you, Cool Cat. Fernando Rizo T/C 19:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fernando, thanks for taking a stab at this. On the proposed decision talk page (and on the original RfAr page) I have said that I look forward to others minding User:Cool Cat. You've asked that Karl and I take a step back per the proposed decision and I feel this is a good idea — but that it is incomplete. The proposed decision also prohibits User:Cool Cat from editing any articles related or referring to Turks, Kurds, or Armenians for a period of 3 months and places him on probation for a year, and I would ask that you suggest to him that he, too, accept the proposed decision pending the close of the case (which I expect to be rather soon). User:Cool Cat has a very long history of controversial editing of such articles. The proposed decision also states that other editors and administrators should take the lead in monitoring User:Cool Cat; I would ask you to monitor us all as your time permits and take what you feel is appropriate action. Thanks. — Davenbelle 02:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Davenbelle, thanks for your note. I understand your concern, but keep in mind that I was not acting as Administrator Fernando Rizo in this case, as I was wearing my Mediation Cabalist hat. I will keep an eye on the situation, but my role as a mediator (however brief) will probably create a conflict of interest if I intervene as an admin in the future. Fernando Rizo T/C 02:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I am confident that any review of User:Cool Cat's editing by reasonable people will tend to find biased edits. Sadly, there are not many people willing to confront problem editors. I again request that you ask all parties to this case to cease all editing that is likely to arouse the ire of the other participants; User:Cool Cat needs to let the Kurds live. Thanks again, Davenbelle 02:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AI: Sorry you don't feel like talking, but why is the official listing of the OT levels in the Operating Thetan article a copyvio? It was properly quoted and cited. Surely it wasn't a reproduction of the entire pamphlet? Can you explain this to me? Thanks, Fernando Rizo T/C 04:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know I initially promised you a pamphlet, but I couldn't find any, so I copied this from the What is Scientology book. My addition of fair use at the bottom was just so that I could post it to your talk page so you could use the information to compose the article using your own words. Please do not publish in Wikipedia as it is copyrighted. --AI 04:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it's from a book, though, if it's just a couple of paragraphs, properly quoted with a source cited, how is that a copyvio? It's a reference, right? When I get home from work, I'm pretty sure I can show you in Diana Hacker's A Writer's Reference that that is neither copyright violation nor plagarism. Fernando Rizo T/C 04:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you edit the article and write up what you understand about the OT levels? It would be more professional than just copying. And will help NPOV the article. --AI 04:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]