User talk:HighInBC/Archive 5

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

WP:ANI

I may be a little dim, but I have no idea what you are talking about... --D_arkF_alls ^talk 06:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It was I who was a little dim and used the wrong name. I meant to refer to the initiator of the discussion. I changed my entry. Thanks for pointing that out. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 13:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way...

Thanks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 12:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Username

Hi. Your username intrigues me... what does it mean? Regards, Navou ^banter 00:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

In programming, you can put a block of code in a conditional loop. In this case the the condition is to continue until 1 is equal to 2. It is just a smart ass way of asking for an infinite loop in code. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 02:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Quite an original name then. So what do you mean with it? That you will remain on Wikipedia until eternity? Or is it a reference to a certain program? Melsaran (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It symbolizes stubbornness tempered by logic. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

new AIV count tool

I just noticed that you're working on a block percentage estimator for AIV reports. I know that prior to becoming an admin, I made several comments on existing AIV reports and also had to fix malformed reports (both my own and from others) that could be seen as generating a low block percentage. I figure of the ~450 edits to AIV I had, probably 300-350 were unique reports, and the rest were tweakings/comments. I also know of only one report I made that was rejected. Do you think there is a way your tool could account for this? For example, would it be possible to only count major edits to AIV? Just some random thoughts. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 16:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It currently only looks at edits that add or remove one of the vandal templates. I have a long way to go in getting the program to detect errors. The final version will provide a series of diffs to confirm its findings and give a warning about false findings. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 16:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I have done up a report at User:Until(1 == 2)/sandbox to find what types of mistakes it is making. I need to add a routine to ignore it when the subject of the report removes it, and I need to detect blatant vandalism such as page blanking. It looks like 13 of the reports were removed, and 15 are false positives. Once I have it detect the subject removing it and page blanking that should go down to 13 correct, 2 false. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 17:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it's a good tool. It's useful to see what's happened to users reported to AIV. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 17:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

		My RFA
		Thanks for your support in my request for adminship, which ended with 58 supports, 1 opposes, and 1 neutral. I hope your confidence in me proves to be justified. Addhoc 19:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

For What?

Why did you tag the image of the goth kids in List of students at South Park Elementary for speedy deletion? It's been up for months and months and months before, and no one ever had any issues with it. I must repeat: What was it for? Wilhelmina Will 03:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Now I see you did the same for Lizzy and Bebe's images. I still don't see why. Especially not with Bebe's; I think that image has existed in Wikipedia even longer than the Goth kids' image. Wilhelmina Will 03:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

We have policies relating to non-free content, see WP:NFCC. They are lacking a fair use rational. The fact that it has been lacking such a rational for a long time only makes it more important to get one or remove the image. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 04:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Image and GFDL at WP:VPP

You may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Image GFDL revokation. My comment is that while a user can not revoke GFDL, it may be easier to just delete the image in this case since it is unused. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 04:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Gunshy

I'm getting gunshy. What would you think about speedy tags on Global College and Friends World Program? -- Ben 21:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

My first impression is that is was a copyvio, but I cannot find any of it on google. I am not sure if it actually makes any claim of notability. Either way there should not be 2 nearly identical versions, one should redirect to the other, and the other should be AfD'd or possibly CSD#A7'd, not sure which one to be honest, it is a tough call. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 22:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to stew over it for a minute. I just realized that I forgot to ask you the most important part... Is Global College just a recreation of what you had deleted earlier? I don't know how to check that. If it is... then this seems like a really simple G11 on both. Or G4/G11. -- Ben 22:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, good question. It was deleted by me due to an uncontested {{prod}}. Thus in that respect it is fair game for recreation. I can tell you that the two versions are substantially different. The original version was basically in the style of an advertising pamphlet. The current one, while still having its problems, is substantially better.

If I came across a CSD tag on this article while deleting CSD articles, I would probably just leave it for someone else to decide. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 23:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your time. :) -- Ben 01:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That thing we were discussing

Look at this! And wheel-warring over the semi-protection of his talkpage.--Porcupine (prickle me!) 07:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I've filed an RfC/USER now.--Porcupine (prickle me!) 07:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I tried to talk to him, but did not get much of a response. I still welcome a reasonable discussion with him in this matter. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Check your emails for an update.--Porcupine (prickle me!) 15:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a program that lets me know when I have a new e-mail, thanks. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow

I replied with more on my talk page, but I just have to say, what an excellent job you did with creating that tool! Seriously, that's most impressive, and I'm sure will be of great value to others as well. Thank you for running it on me! ^Ariel♥Gold 06:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

me next me next!! :P ~Eliz81^(C) 06:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Awww, thanks for running that for me! And my is the percentage precise: 6.74157303370786%. Thanks for creating such a cool tool. ~Eliz81^(C) 07:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

*cough* Me...next? *ingratiating smile* Into The Fray ^T/C 11:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL Look what I started! You'll need a bot to handle all the requests before you know it, ~*Grin*~. Still, I have to say it again, this is one of the coolest scripts (and a highly useful tool as a learning device) I've seen here, and while I may do userpages, I sure don't know how to code like this stuff! I'm seriously impressed. And, I hope you don't get tired of all the requests that will surely come your way now that the secret is out! (Can we blame Flyguy? Lol) ^Ariel♥Gold 13:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I cannot automate it until I fix some problems with accuracy. I have to hand tweak the results sometimes when it gets false hits. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 13:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

heh. My turn! :) pwease!  — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 14:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

maniacal laughter and it could probably be adapted for other types of reports like RFPP, UAA... :) ~Eliz81^(C) 15:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

In time... ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It's fabulous. I had done that by hand in the past. And, unlike Ariel, I don't track it as I go. I go back through my reports to AIV and, one by one, compare their block log against my AIV report. A tool is entirely more helpful. Thank you very much. Into The Fray ^T/C 17:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It's tomorrow; consider this your reminder :) — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 13:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Your message

Thank you for taking the trouble to let me know your views, but I don't share them. And I'm surprised you can spare a finger for wagging at me, but nothing for Tony Sidaway. That seems... parsimonious. Bishonen | talk 22:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC).

They are not my views, they are policy. I know you are aware of WP:NPA. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 23:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I've seen you around before and we've always worked well together. Let's not stir up any more drama than needed. Happy editing, - Jehochman ^Talk 16:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I will ignore it as long as ignoring it is less harmful than dealing with it. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 16:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Please desist

Crossposted from my page.

(Aha, there's that menacing tone again, just above.)
Everybody's talking... except the hostess, I've been away all day. Until(1 == 2), you posted the reproach up top last night (in my timezone), prompting me to write a short response[1] (incidentally, it had a comment about your priorities which after all your messages you still haven't addressed—same point as I see User:!! making), and another from work today to your reinforcements that turned up a little unexpectedly. Then I didn't have time to check Wikipedia for many hours, until after I got home. From your pettish assumption here that "Bishonen does not wish to discuss it", I receive the impression that you resent my not standing by 24 hours a day to respond to your posts, but, well, that's not practically possible. Anyway, I was a little shocked at belatedly seeing your repeated posts to me and my friends (including one further unsolicited post to me on your own page, while you were still being civil, which seemed about proportionate to the perceived offense—why wouldn't that satisfy, now?), and at your alternation between menace ("Well an agreement to follow policy would accomplish that brad [=would stop you escalating the situation further].[2] and pout ("waiting for 'it' to happen again", my scare quotes).[3]). You seem to be past the point where you require any response from me to keep going, but I'll give you one anyway (one, yes, that'll have to do), since I believe you misunderstood my original reply. When I said I didn't share your opinion about WP:NPA, I didn't mean that NPA isn't policy (? sorry, but I'm genuinely floundering here, as to what you thought I did mean) or that I'm somehow exempt from following policy (qué?). I meant that I didn't agree I had violated WP:NPA. In my opinion I wrote factually and reasonably to Tony Sidaway, explaining what I considered the problem with his behaviour. I wrote "Don't be a fuckhead" as an alternative to the tired "Don't be a dick" locution (are you going to tell me you pester everybody who says "Don't be a dick" in the way you've been pestering me?) and particularly because of the page "What Makes a Fuckhead?" by David R. Kendrick, hosted by Tony's friend and powerful wikipedian David Gerard. I thought Tony would be bound to know about it. I don't know if you bothered to click on my link. The term is appropriately defined on that page ("A Fuckhead Must Refuse to Abide By Common Social Rules"... "A Fuckhead Must Never Back Down When Caught In A Lie"... etc.).

In a nutshell: I don't, myself, agree that I have "personally attacked" Tony Sidaway. I do think that you have attacked me today, through sheer bulk, insistence, and tone. I hereby ask you to stop posting to my page. It's unpleasant to keep getting the "You have new messages" banner, then finding yet another same-all-over-again-post from you. However, you're wrong if you think you can force me by such means to say something you would like to read. Bishonen | talk 22:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC).

In light of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 4, I see Bishonen's admonition not to be a fuckhead as pertinent and to the point. Although there was clearly no intention to insult, Until(1 == 2)'s ill-advised persistence resulted in slander being spread all over Wikipedia. If Until(1 == 2) has some ancient issue with Bishonen, he is welcome to step up and state clearly what it was. He is an admin, yet there is no RfA to check how he got his tools, and his account is absent from the user rename log. I will never understand why people should make a point of erasing their old contributions, only to attack those who do not hide their previous history in the project. This is very odd. --Ghirla^-трёп- 22:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I guess I will start by saying this is not a grudge, nor is it "slander". This is also not slander. Accusing me of ulterior motives is really nothing but an ad hominum defense. Trying to turn this around to be some sort of bad behavior on my part is frankly tacky. No amount of doublespeak will change the fact that calling someone a "fuckhead" is a violation of NPA. The fact that you do not see this as a violation is far more serious than the violation itself.

Since it is clear that we cannot come to agreement regarding this, I will seek a larger audience the next time this type of policy breach occurs. I am glad you have many friends, but that does not excuse you from the consequences of your actions. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 23:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It adds nothing to your argument to insist that Tony was called a "fuckhead", while he was not. There is no need to escalate. Look, I recall the Worldtraveller imbroglio when, under quite similar circumstances, a trigger-happy guy blocked an established contributor with a clean log of four years' standing, and was immensely proud of himself. Please review the case before threatening to "deal with it" as you do above. --Ghirla^-трёп- 23:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I will keep your views in mind. But please keep in mind I did not threated to "deal with" anything my intention to "deal" with it will be simply to seek a wider audience, which is what one naturally would do when their judgement is called into question. It is not meant as a threat. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 23:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You didn't threaten to "deal with" anything? Excuse me? Was somebody impersonating you here? Bishonen | talk 23:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC).

Doesn't look like a threat to me. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 00:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It certainly is a threat. As for the promise to seek for a "wider audience next time", it is always a good idea but seeking a wider audience (unlike seeking the selected audience) does not include seeking it off-wiki even if the latter often works more smoothly. --Irpen 07:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, perhaps we could communicate better if you were in full possession of the facts, but your speculation is unhelpful. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

personal attacks

After seeing how some wikipedia "untouchables" do not restrict themselves in language I no longer feel myself restricted to niceties. If you feel yourself included into "assholes", it is your problem. Judging from you remarks in the doggy talkpage, you seem to have an acute ability to read more than written. `'Míkka 18:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the policy applies to you whether you think it does or not. That attack was clearly directed at the two people disagreeing with you. As far as I know, nobody on Wikipedia is "untouchable", it would do you well not to think that you are among them. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 21:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused

You give Mikka a warning for calling other editors self righteous assholes, yet block Haiduc for a week for saying rv vandalism and rant by person fixated on anal sex with children; please see a doctor in an edit summary. This seems a bit inconsistent to me. While consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, it does form part of the foundation of this project. I invite you to reconsider your block (and have asked other administrators to review it, as well). Cheers, Jeffpw 08:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

In the discussion at AN/I, several admins (including myself) have said that a week's block is too harsh for this offense. Would you be willing to consider reducing the block to 24 hours (minus "time served")? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, first thing saying someone is fixated with child abuse to me is a lot more personal and nasty, and more importantly, more disruptive than using a generic "asshole" insult, so I don't see any discrepancy in warning one and blocking the other. Secondly, it appears that the insulted party wishes to discuss the matter further with the blocked party, so in deference to that I will consider 24 hours to be enough and reduce it to that. I will be watching this users contribs and keeping a short leash in this area.

I don't think the block was too harsh, nor do I think it was inconsistent. The WP:NPA policy states that a block can occur when personal attacks reach the point of being likely being disruptive. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That works out nicely, then, as I plan on monitoring your contributions, as well. After reading through your talk page, and seeing what I perceive as both inconsistent application of Wikipedia rules and a very dogmatic attitude, I am concerned as to how you administer your duties--to the point that I am considering an Rfc on you. Please take this message in the spirit which it is intended, that of one Wikipedian helping another to see what may be a blind spot in his or her editing. Jeffpw 15:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Jeffpw, I urge your to audit the contributions of any user you think is being inappropriate. I welcome your review on my actions and will take reasonable criticisms to heart. I don't know what you mean by either inconsistencies or dogma, but I look forward to learning more about it. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments on your work as administrator

Now that the dust has cleared a bit, I thought it fitting to give you some feedback on the events of a couple of days ago. Do you know what a kyosaku is? In the zendo, when you "lose your mind", you can request to be struck on the shoulder with a bamboo stick, to recover your alertness. Even if unrequested, I consider the block you imposed on me as a kyosaku, a welcome reminder not to let emotions get the better of me. After all, Wikipedia practice is very much like zen practice: You have to drop your ego to write well, and if done well the writing itself cuts ego further.

Paradoxically, however, that good effect came out of an action that was not so good. It came from an abuse of power, by you against me. When I am dealing with another user who laces his edits with vulgarities and ad hominem attacks, what I expect from the administrators is not one-sided, vindictive reactions, even if for a moment I lose my temper, but even-handed action that restores order and helps everyone maintain the focus on the writing. I am disappointed that you were not able to provide that this time around. I hope that this has been a learning experience for you as it has been for me, and that in the future our interaction will be more constructive than it has been so far. Haiduc 04:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It is true that you were baited. I failed to notice that, and for that I apologize. I do not apologize for the block, as it was appropriate in the context of the policies we work by here. What I apologize for is not realizing the full context of the situation.

After blocking you, I went to sleep and in the morning I realized the full situation. My first instinct was to also give a block to the party that baited you. However upon reading further discussion I saw that it was desired by all parties that no further blocks be placed and that the parties involved could discuss the matter in a productive way. So instead I reduced the length of your block.

In a perfect world I would have, in hindsight, treated your opposing party equally to how I treated you, however I am bound to respect consensus which did not wish for further blocks to be placed.

I sincerely hope for a Wikipedia where people handle academic disputes with civility, it is with this in mind, and existing policy that I enforce a minimal level of mutual respect. I appreciate the civility you have expressed in this posting, you have made your point in a very cogent manner. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 04:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology. I accept it, such as it is. It is a good first step in repairing what was broken here - the trust that we are all working in an impartial environment. Haiduc 22:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFBOT

Your recent bot approvals request has been approved. Please see the request page for details. When the bot flag is set it will show up in this log. Carbon Monoxide 01:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I just noticed this. Did you know that I created a request about this a while back? Or was this just coincidence? Ariel♥Gold 22:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Total coincidence. 1 != 2 23:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

GMTA? lol. Well, either way, you rock for doing it, I was planning on going through the category by hand, lol. Ariel♥Gold 00:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I noticed DusterBot removed Category:Usernames editors have expressed concern over from User talk:Wink Danker because he is blocked, however the block was for only 72 hours and for vandalism. The user is not indef-blocked due to a username violation (although I think one may be warranted). Should the bot ignore situations like this? - auburnpilot talk 18:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes I will change it to only respond to indef blocks as all username blocks are indef. Thanks for pointing this out to me. 1 != 2 18:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Email 4 you

Enjoy! :) ~Eliz81^(C) 17:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you watching my talk page?

Just to see who is watching my talk page and willing to admit it, for your enjoyment here is my new signature. 1 != 2 05:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I refuse to admit it! I am here by coincidence! ~Eliz81^(C) 06:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess this is like a roll-call... I like the new sig! Nice and clean. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 06:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This kinda makes me think I should clean my watchlist... but yeah, this is on it :) SamBC(talk) 07:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You asked, I answered. Jeffpw 07:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I watch. I observe. I take notes. I plan. Ominously, Into The Fray ^T/C 10:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I stalk er, watch your talk page! I freely admit it, lol. I have learned a ton from you by observing! (And hey, thanks for that, lol) I love the new sig! (Even though I still don't understand it, lol) Ariel♥Gold 11:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I took it off my watchlist a while ago :) I liked your old sig better, though, it had a talk link and it looked more abstract. By the way, doesn't != mean "is not" in programming language? Melsaran (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It means "not equal", 1 does not equal 2. 1 != 2 22:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hrmm, I'm going to have to agree I liked the link to the talk page in the signature, but I can understand if you're trying to make it shorter in the edit box, not to have it there. Ariel♥Gold 22:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Just an idea... You could link the 1 to your user page, the != to your talk page, and the 2 to your contributions, and keep the colours the same. Melsaran (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It linked to my user page by oversight, it is better to point to my talk page, which I have changed it to do. 1 != 2 22:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't watch this page, but I saw your new sig on ANI, and wanted to say ILIKEIT. WODUP 03:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

My name is still cooler than everyone else's. So there. HalfShadow 03:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Much better than the old one. At least people who don't know you know your name now. Oh and I'm here randomly... not watching it at all... Gscshoyru 03:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I, too, saw your cool sig on ANI, and was checking out all the Admins and editors anyway. I was actually looking for your "Hall of Fame"... which Barnstars you got and whatnot, but no luck. Maybe you keep them archived someplace interesting?  :) Wikisteff 08:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Further civility issues

What is your opinion of these edits? Haiduc 23:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

That is a history page, I don't know which edits you are referring to. 1 != 2 23:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It was not so much a matter of Greek history that I was pointing out. I thought you might notice the comments of the user who posted the edits of Sept. 2nd. Haiduc 00:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you give the person a civility warning. 1 != 2 02:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought that after our collaboration on the Historical pederastic couples article, you would be interested in taking action. Perhaps a protocol should be developed making such users aware of the fact that slurs of that nature, especially in the context of historical pederasty, are homophobic. Anyway, he seems to have dropped out, so the whole thing may be moot. Regards, Haiduc 03:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that you did not look more deeply at the offending editor's contributions, Until(1==2). Had you done so, you might have seen this libelous edit, in which he accuses Haiduc openly of being a NAMBLA member. I have warned him, but my personal feeling is that administrative action is required, not the least being the complete expunging of that NAMBLA accusation from the Wikipedia record through oversight. Jeffpw 05:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a life outside Wikipedia and I cannot drop everything every time someone wants an admin. There are noticeboards for this type of thing. You don't need an admin to make a warning, and if more action is needed go to a noticeboard. If I have disappointed you perhaps it may be because you have unrealistic expectations. 1 != 2 05:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

My disappointment stems from what I see is a lack of professional distance in your administrative capacity here, and a bias in the way you carry out your duties here. Perhaps I am wrong, and I apologize if I am, but it seems to me you are reluctant to help Haiduc due to distaste for his editing field here. The fact that you are taking no action about a libelous personal attack and telling me to take the issue elsewhere when you have the capacity to mana\ge it yourself speaks volumes about a bias, to my ears. Jeffpw 05:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Frankly I don't think you understand that mine is a volunteer position, and if I say I am to busy to deal with something I would appreciate if you not pester me about it. 1 != 2 06:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I have now taken this matter to ANI. The fact that you don't think libel about an editor is important enough to deal with, and that you feel discussion about it is "pestering", is disturbing, to say the least. I encourage you to participate in the ANI discussion. Jeffpw 06:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

And I will thank you to drop that passive agressive tone with me. Your message on my page bordered on a violation of WP:CIV, and I don't appreciate it. I well understand that you are a volunteer here, but you still have the tools to act on concerns, and should not be surprised when you are asked to use them. Nobody expected you to drop everything and act immediately, but nor did I expect you to simply give me the brushoff when I see libel about an editor here. You were very concerned about BLP violations in that Pederasty article; this is the same principle. If you don't like carrying out administrative duties, I strongly suggest you consider relenquishing the tools. Jeffpw 14:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If you truly think my comment was a violation of civility I suggest you seek independent review because I disagree. Frankly, I see no point in relinquishing my tools just because I was too busy to jump when you asked me to, I find the suggestion to be baseless. The issue now has a lot of attention from many admins. I ask you to drop the matter now. 1 != 2 15:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• If I may... one can not compels participation. In the event that we don't get a specific editor or sysop to assist, then we can use WP:AN/I. Mercury 15:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.