User talk:28bytes/Archive 27

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Workshop

I've mentioned you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Workshop#28bytes_already_admonished_Delicious_carbuncle_for_leaking_the_Email. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Me too. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Obsessive malakas

Wikihounding
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Query I see you archived here without answering my question. Your rationale seems to imply that Demiurge's baits and insults should be overlooked, and yet you fail to give credence to fact that baiting, as per the recent arbcom case, is as uncivil as any incivility it causes. I've not been incivil, and I am insulted. Demiurge told me multiple times I was a liar, made fun of my user name, was condescending, and seemed to imply what? That according to ScottyWong's tool I'm a meatpuppet or something? From where I'm sitting none of this behavior is acceptable. Yet no one dropped him word on his user page about it. Can you please explain why not? I'm very curious about the rationale behind this. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC) I have not suggested that you are a meatpuppet, nor have I had any intention of implying it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC) Hi Truthkeeper. I apologize, I did not realize your question was directed at me; I thought I'd made clear I didn't think it was acceptable. I'm a bit disappointed that I was the only admin in that thread to do so, but that's often the case these days, it seems. While you're both here, Demiurge1000: what's up with the hostility to Truthkeeper in that thread? You seem to strongly imply that you'd seen a conversation between her and Kiefer.Wolfowitz and were using Scottywong's tool to perhaps jog her memory; is that the case? Or is there something else going on? Half of the reason Kiefer.Wolfowitz was blocked was for calling another editor "dishonest", so I was a bit surprised to see you doing essentially the same thing in that very thread. What gives? 28bytes (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC) I asked here because you closed. Re the allegations, I have no idea what Demiurge means by this edit summary - but the entire episode was one in which an administrator showed a complete lack of good faith toward a non-admin, which in my view is not acceptable. Calling me a liar multiple times,[1], [2], [3], baiting, etc., are all highly incivil, yet was tolerated. It's disappointing and disturbing behavior. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC) Regarding "administrator showed a complete lack of good faith toward a non-admin"... Demiurge is not an administrator. Or you were referring to me? 28bytes (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC) No, for some reason I thought he was. Shows you how little I know (seriously, I don't hang around the boards and such!). Apologize about that. In that case it's less egregious - but still very bad behavior, imo. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC) Agreed, those comments were not something I like to see from anyone, admin or not. Hopefully that message is clear and there won't be a recurrence. 28bytes (talk) 21:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC) KW blocked for calling another editor dishonest? You must be kidding! If he was blocked every time he made such suggestions about another editor, he'd be blocked twice a month and have the longest block log on Wikipedia. His behaviour, ongoing, year on year, demonstrates an apparent incapability to deal with just about any dispute without implying dishonesty, incompetence or ignorance on the part of other editors, or engaging in some other snide and childish attempt to belittle them. He even managed to accuse me of being a liar in the very ANI thread that we're talking about! Looks like no-one chose to do anything about that, I wonder what's up with that? Now onto this Truthkeeper person. "I've never interacted with the guy", they say. When then pointed to this link, in which the third entry down shows Truthkeeper replying directly to KW, and the fourth entry down shows Truthkeeper and KW repeatedly posting in the same threads, on a talk page where both of them have hundreds of edits (lots more examples, those are just the ones from the top of the list), Truthkeeper went on to state as bald fact, "I've never interacted with him at all". Truthkeeper then came to my talk page to raise this "accusation of lying" implication, and then went back to ANI to demand action, and back to my talk page (after I'd long since followed your advice to abandon the ANI thread) to once again claim "I've never interacted directly with him". I don't want people like that on my talk page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC) Demiurge - you're flat out wrong. You haven't given a single link to show me interacting directly with KW - because I never have. You might want to give some thought to why not instead of making accusations without being to substantiate them. Above, again, you've accused me of lying. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC) [4] Now stop looking for drama, go do something useful please. You accuse yourself. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC) OK, I would indeed call this an "interaction". Now, there are several ways to interpret that. (1) She did not remember that interaction (it wasn't a particularly lengthy one), or (2) she did remember it and intentionally tried to deceive people about it. I find the first interpretation more plausible, frankly. Is there some reason you don't? 28bytes (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC) Is there just that one, or do I need to waste more time locating all the others? Do you think she "did not remember that interaction" even after being given links to it? Even if you believe that (which is stretching it more than a little), do you think "I've never interacted with him at all" (my emphasis) is a fair description for someone with whom one is regularly posting in the same threads on the same page, sometimes within minutes (we're not talking about one person starting a very long thread and the other just happening to comment much later), with totals of hundreds of posts each just on that one page? AGF is not a suicide pact. Oh, and I think the sulking when caught out is pretty telling, too. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC) See, that's exactly what I didn't want to happen. You're both valuable contributors, and there's no benefit whatsoever to be had by assuming that the other party has anything other than good intentions. Things go so much more smoothly when you err on the side of assuming good faith. This whole episode has been very disappointing. 28bytes (talk) 22:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC) I wouldn't worry too much, it happens quite often I think. I've answered your questions (you've not answered mine!), but I do think this might have been better off defused (or diffused) soon after TK came here, rather than going through this additional round of drama. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC) Well yes, to the degree it was important to point out that Truthkeeper had indeed interacted with KW, it certainly would have been quicker for everyone if you'd just given a link to that RfA talk page comment in the first place, with a nice AGFy comment like "I believe you're mistaken." Why we had to go through all this I don't know. 28bytes (talk) 00:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC) The only reason I posted in this thread, beyond my first very brief one-line clarifying statement, was that you specifically asked me four questions in your first reply to Truthkeeper, above. Nothing more to discuss. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC) Almost a year ago - a single comment which slipped my mind. Do I regularly interact with him? No, I do not. You're still making accusations and being extremely baitey. I'd like you to stop. Go do something useful - who are you to tell me what to do? Truthkeeper (talk) 22:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC) The sulking when caught out is bullshit. Go look at the rest of the threads. I became extremely fed up here when last summer I had a pretty bad time when I ran into a very unpleasant editor, FightingMac, and it's only gone downhill since. This was truly the last straw for me. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikihounding, a dull history continues
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Technically right, and technically wrong After reading up on policy a little more, I discovered that the first part of this was not just your opinion, but was also, technically speaking, correct as per the definition of WP:WHEELWAR. I was distracted from paying more attention to such details because I was dealing with a rather more important WP-related matter at the same time as all that nonsense. The rest of your suggestion, I did manage to follow. Also technically speaking, your close here was materially incorrect. After Nikkimaria succeeded in gaining consensus for a 2-week block by arbitrarily reducing the block to 9 days, she did not then increase the block to 2 weeks, as you stated in your close, but instead changed it to 13 days. Assuming good faith, we could suppose that was merely a careless mistake. After being informed of it on her talk page, she has declined to correct it to follow consensus. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC) Hi Demiurge1000, thanks for stopping by. I appreciate you going with my suggestion on that thread. I have some further comments on that in the section above I hope you will comment on. Regarding wheel-warring, yes, it's one of our most misunderstood policies; even arbs occasionally get it wrong, which is both sad and amusing. As to the block... you are correct! On first glance at the log it did look to me like a 2-week block, but after doing the math, it does appear to be 13 days instead of 14. However, I'm going to file that in the "close enough for government work" category; anyone referring to it in the future – especially in reference to that thread – will call it a 2-week block anyway. 28bytes (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

If Demiurge1000 posts more insults towards me, would you please alert me.

Thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Regretfully, no. If Demiurge1000 were to insult you and I were to alert you of the insult, you might feel compelled to either start an AN/I thread about it, or return the insult and have Demiurge1000 start an AN/I thread about it, and I would feel compelled to read said AN/I thread, and if I've learned anything in the last month or so, it is that life is too short to spend reading AN/I threads. It is my sincere hope that both you and he will recognize and appreciate the great benefits to be gained from ignoring one another. I have been ignoring things left and right over the past month and could not be happier about it. 28bytes (talk) 22:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough.

Strange that nobody helped last time he whined about being called a twat or piece of shit. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

RE: Thanks

You're welcome. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 11:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

hope U can help

I don´t know for sure if this is the right way this messge can get to ya. I´m a little bit lost up here, first time I found a way to communicate with someone through Wikipedia.org. My issue is next and I hope you can help me or advice me which other user in the game portal might help. I´m in a dilemma in choosin´ which video card is better (HD 5770 v.s GTX 550Ti) and (HD 6850 v.s GTX 560)...for general purposes like gaming(Battlefield 3, Alan Wake, Assassin´s Creed: Ravelations) and 3D design programs (SketchUp, Artlantis, Archicad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.220.215.13 (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) In general, ATI cards offer better performance:cost ratios. Much depends on the amount of VRAM each card has and your need for multiple displays.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete image

Can you delete File:Ariesurania.jpg on en wiki? It's clearly PD and was tagged for move to Commons and I did so and tagged the en copy with nowcommons. I came across this while reviewing Keilana's Aries FAC. I'll improve the formatting on the commons copy now. PumpkinSky talk 21:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Keilana herself beat you to it ;-) PumpkinSky talk 23:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

see Jasper Deng interfered...

Thanks for the advice...need more info...would ya tell of someone else who really, really is stuck in the matter and in fact works with this type of hardware? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcap0000 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I've got no idea what this is about. 28bytes (talk) 06:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:ANI etc.

So, just how did Merridew manage to get permission to edit again and then go right for an editor's jugular?

As regards our reaction to vandals and other useless editors, the thing is, "taunting" may give thm an excuse to vandalize, but a lack of "taunting" won't stop them, either. Mindful of that problem, though, when I revert a drive-by's vandalism, I usually say almost nothing. I just wait to see if he does it again. If not, fine. If so, then I issue a warning. It seldom does any good, but it least it lays some groundwork for sending them to the phantom zone eventually. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The "say almost nothing"-then-warn approach is indeed wise. As for Merridew, ArbCom said "edit with one account", and Br'er's the account he picked. Ideally you, he and Dave1185 will resist the temptation to poke at one another. 28bytes (talk) 06:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I've had other admins tell me I shouldn't do that - that I should warn them the first time. Ya can't win. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought rampant socking was against the rules. Meanwhile, I find Dave's "bag 'em - tag 'em" thing funny and right-on, but it's not something I would do, and he probably needs to curb it. And it is Merridew that did the poking, near as I can tell. I don't recall ever having interacted with him on any article or topic. I just know he was constantly being complained about at ANI. Dave and I have virtually no article crossover, so I don't know if he and Merridew are editing the same stuff or not. As for me, with any luck I'll never see Br'er Jack Merridew Rabbit's name again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you do see his name again, it wouldn't kill you to ignore it. There is much to be said for ignoring. Failure to ignore is a leading cause of lengthy and tedious AN/I threads. 28bytes (talk) 06:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I am likely to ignore it unless he initiates another attack on a user as he did today. Although by now both his new user ID and his same old game are attaining significant visibility, so it's likely that other editors will deal with him and I won't feel the need to. I hope. 0:) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I'd previously closed this thread and left Dave a note (diff), but the closure was reverted by one of the editors involved in the discussion (diff), who didn't have the courtesy to note that in the thread, much less explain their action. I agree with your closure (which is much sterner than mine!), but its unfortunate that we doubled up like this. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I guess somebody wanted to see more drama stirred by Jack Rabbit Merridew. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

@Nick: thanks for the note; I hope I didn't step on your toes there. That was a very strange un-close, I must say.
@Bugs: LOL. I know how you hate the drama. 28bytes (talk) 13:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

It gets tiring. I curbed my ANI activities quite a bit after getting yelled at this past spring. I've noticed how much calmer ANI has been since then. (N'yuk!) I had to laugh at Jackrabbit Merridew commenting on my alleged "9,000" entries at ANI. If the discussion hadn't been boxed up, I was going to say, "Better to post 9,000 times than to be dragged there 9,000 times." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• 9,000 times~?!? Oh dear god... NO~!!! *lol* --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 00:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• The scary part is that each time, it was under a different user ID. >:( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Man... people like Jack just has too much time on their hand, feet, whatever... And if that is not a sign of their adolescence, then it must be a symbol of their intelligence (or the perceived existence of it). Supreme facepalm of destiny... --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 00:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

What part of "quit poking at each other" did y'all not understand? 28bytes (talk) 00:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You're no fun. ); ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Alrighty... *poof* I'm gone~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 00:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

If my jokes don't make you laugh, maybe a Warner classic might:[5] Or this one:[6] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

There was nothing strange about reverting the closure. A participant in the discussion went and canvassed another editor contrary to our canvass guideline; the least inflammatory way of addressing it seemed to be to revert the closing with an explanatory edit summary, including a diff of the canvassing. As your closure of the incident was vastly superior to the previous one, the situation is improved. Unfortunately the saga may be continuing Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance#Using names of Editors while giving Barnstars. Nobody Ent 14:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe if it had stayed closed the first time, that problem could have been avoided or lessened. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

What I found strange was that there was no content within the discussion itself that reflected that a close had been attempted and reverted. Normally one sees the (attempted) closer's comments (possibly stricken) and the archive template <nowiki>'ed or stricken. Just removing someone else's comment entirely is unusual on AN/I unless they're a sock, making a personal attack, or wildly off-topic. 28bytes (talk) 14:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

There was some reference in an edit summary, some comment about "canvassing". If it's a wiki-sin to go to an admin and say, "Can you do shut this stupid thing down?", that's news to me. That's asking an admin to do his job. Someone re-opened, I'm guessing because they hadn't seen enough fisticuffs and wanted to see more. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It's really not that unusual. Closing tags are an undocumented practice that fall somewhere between edits which can be edited and talk page comments. I've seen them reverted, I've seen edits into "closed" sections, edits after closed sections, closing statements disputed. Past discussions about the practice Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 9#Questions about closing a discussion, Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 10#Closing non-discussion threads at AN, Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 10#archivetop and collapse tags have received very little attention from the community as a whole. In this particular case, while there was no need for a participant to go canvassing, calling them out on it in the thread would have just stirred more drama and that's the last thing the thread needed. In any event, it did attract the attention of (as far as I know) a truly uninvolved admin (yourself) so as far as I'm concerned it worked out quite well. Nobody Ent 15:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I ignored the Run to Mommy thread, but didn't ignore this one. And Bugs really should stop the mocking plays on user names. ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Bugs should really ignore a lot of things. The people telling him how hilarious he is for a start. pablo 20:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Your lack of a sense of humor is not my problem. :) As regards Jackrabbit's comment, he is alleged to have had many different user ID's. If that's true, it might be fun to research them and string them all into a single word, kind of German style. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

See also

WP:Harassment, /trolling/. Put a carrot in it. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Yep, your complaint about Dave at ANI was Grade-A trolling and harassment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Deliberately feigning an interpretation of meaning that was not intended /is/ trolling. I'm plainly calling you on trolling and harassment. Put a carrot in it. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

And I'm calling you on your own trolling and harassment. So we can call it even. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

You need to grow up (and be indef'd;). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

On what grounds? Abusing multiple accounts? No, that's your schtick. And I note that it was you that started this latest round of harassment, right under the "separate section" line above, so you could use a little growing up yourself. Enjoy this friendly banter while you can, as I'm guessing 28bytes will tell all of us to vamoose pretty soon. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

whistles. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)