User talk:El Sandifer

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4

I archive when I feel like it. Depending on my whim, your comments may or may not be archived. The odds of being archived are inversely proportional to the amount you annoy me. Please do not annoy me.

Policy changes

I'm largely in agreement with your criticism, although I wouldn't put the proportion of problem users quite so high as your estimate of 30%. What sort of attempts to foster appropriate policy changes are in progress? I'd like to help out, in the hope that matters can be improved before I give up and follow you out the door. JamesMLane 10:18, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Glad you let yourself be persuaded. Since you've decided to stick it out, and because I know you're interested in developing ways to deal with disruptive users, I have a case you may want to look at. To deal with this particular situation, I have adopted a new approach that might be able to establish some basis for community-supported blocks in advance of Arbitration Committee action. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/33451. --Michael Snow 22:37, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Here is one more unto you: how come my serious comments are ignored, while perceiving personal attacks you grab a keyboard? You want a serious talk? Me too. Please comment on my serious remarks. Mikkalai 00:13, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC) And BTW, FUI, it was me who was attacked for a single revert with threats to kick my ass out of wikipedia. Say hello to your buddy. Mikkalai 00:17, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

...And I could have threatened your buddy to lock *him* out for single-handedly threatening people with administrative actions without proper arbitration. Mikkalai 01:04, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC) Again, I didn't start this personal war. This makes me no better, but what about you? Mikkalai 01:04, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

B-Movie Bandit

I hate to disagree with you, but even Jimbo Wales suggested speedy deleting these ridiculous stubs on sight. Please work with me on this. Thanks much. - Lucky 6.9 05:51, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

IRC Banning

[Courtesy copy of my response on my talk page. -- orthogonal 06:59, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)]

IRC has no written policies that I know of. Furthermore, being an op in IRC has nothing to do with being an admin on Wikipedia. Lots of Wikipedia admins are not IRC ops, and, actually, I was an IRC op before I was a Wikipedia admin. But if you want to complain, the three people with the highest level of op status in IRC are Xirzon and Fire. That said, they've both been gone for more than two weeks. I think the next in command is Fennec - he's the freenode group contact. Snowspinner 05:50, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

I checked up, and Fennec is definitely the guy who's actually in charge. So I'd talk to him. Snowspinner 05:54, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

Snowspinner, I'm delighted that you've abandoned your decision to "not (respond) to posts by User:Orthogonal". But if Fennec is, as you say, "the freenode group contact", then he's the contact for Wikipedia and therefore representing Wikipedia as its agent. In that capacity, his giving you "op" privileges is an act by wikipedia. Similarly, your use of those privileges to ban is a Wikipedia act.

Also, you appear to have visited the talk pages of the sysops here that I complained to, in order to explain you were "not amused". As I've tried to explain to you before, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and whether or not you're amused, your opinion does not and should not carry more weight than any else -- despite your attempts to make unilateral changes to policy pages and to instruct other users about what you consider the beliefs of the Wikipedia community. In particular, your unilateral banning and threats to ban, on both Wikipedia and in IRC, are quite simply an abuse of power, no matter how you came by that power. -- orthogonal 06:57, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I do not hold the position that events on IRC are beyond the jurisdiction of the arbitration committee although some arbitrators do. Fred Bauder 12:13, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)