Jump to content

User talk:Barneca/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

RfA thanks

Much as I tried to avoid looking ...

Much as I've tried to forget about my last RfA, my curiosity was piqued by your comment at my talk page. Having refreshed my memory, I really couldn't agree more now. When are you standing again? ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, I may have to someday. I'm toying with vanishing this account and starting back at square one, to limit the risk of someone being able to out me. One reason I hesitate is that it's kind of fun having the shiny extra buttons, and I would hate to have to go thru RFA again; as someone once said, RFA sucks, and if I behave in exactly the way I'm behaving now, I have no confidence I'll pass a future RFA; I could easily see it failing for "lack of article writing". --barneca (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I thought there were special rules for admins in situations like yours. Can't the bureaucrats just give you the shiny buttons back whenever you ask for them? Who would even notice? Anyway, rest assured that if you do ever vanish and then come back as a vandal-whacker I wouldn't be opposing just for that. Hell, I'd probably be arguing your case! I've had a "St Paul on the road to Damascus moment".
It's my view that very few admins would get through another RfA. Perhaps if anyone started to wonder about why they wouldn't, that might be a start on the road to identifying what's wrong with the current process. I'm not holding my breath though. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I could, but I've noticed whenever a new account is given the admin bit back, there's immediately an "Emergency! Who's this new admin? Who did they used to be? Where's their RFA? How do I know it isn't Essjay?" uproar that kind of defeats the purpose of trying to blend in with one's surroundings. From what I understand, our friends at Wikipedia Review take about 25 seconds to figure out who the "new" admin is.
Agreed on the RFA comments; it's broken, and sucks, and will never change. As WP gets bigger, the inertia gets so huge that it's nearly impossible to change anything; even if 80% of us thought RFA should change, 20% would want to change it one way, 20% would want to change it another way, 20% a third way... and even if all the proposed changes would be an improvement on current situation, none will be implemented, because everyone wants their preferred version to be adopted, and vetos the rest. If some kind of preferential voting scheme was ever used to pick the RFA process, I doubt the current one would win, but we'll never get to the point where that's done (for one thing, it would take about 0.03 seconds for someone to scream "Wikipedia is not a Democracy! Polling is Evil!"). Of course, I could solve the RFA problem immediately if my RFJ had succeeded, but for some bizarre reason, people don't want me to rule them... --barneca (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. I've always believed that the only effective and fair system of government is a benign dictatorship. Who was it that said: "Most people are mostly wrong"? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Attila the Hun said that. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hung?

Don't forget "drawn and quartered". I hear they're rough on admins here. But at least it pays well. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't do it for the money; I do it for all the babes. --barneca (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
That brings up another meaning of that term, as with the line from "Blazing Saddles": "Bart! You're alive! They told me you was hung!" [Bart] "And they was right!" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Mystery solved

Pedro found it. Thank god - it was driving me to distraction as I just knew I hadn't imagined it nancy talk 09:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

lol'ed

I lol'ed. No Kmweber comment though :( seicer | talk | contribs 00:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of that; that would have been sweet. --barneca (talk) 02:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't

Don't harass me.--JeWay (talk) 02:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Just giving you useful information; do what you want with it. --barneca (talk) 02:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Did you warn him about not removing other people's comments from his talk page? Bubba73 (talk), 02:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
No, he's allowed to do that. Just means he's read it. --barneca (talk) 03:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, I thought it was. From WP:Vandalism,

"Blanking the posts of other users from talk pages other than your own, Wikipedia space, and other discussions, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc., is generally considered vandalism. " ... "The above rules do not apply to a user's own talk page. Editors are granted considerable latitude over editing their own userspace pages (including talk pages), and blanking one's own user talk page is specifically not prohibited. A policy of prohibiting users from removing warnings from their own talk pages was considered and rejected ... "

I thought the last part applied (to vandalism and sockpuppet warnings, etc), but I see that it does not. (Perhaps it did at one time.) Thank you. Bubba73 (talk), 03:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
There are still some people who will warn for it even now, and it certainly isn't unanimous, but I think what you quoted is fast becoming consensus. Warning people for blanking their talk page just becomes needless escalation. Anyway, thanks for stopping by, and I'll keep an eye on his edits. --barneca (talk) 03:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it is a good thing if vandalism warnings are left on the talk page. That way an editor can easily see if there have been previous warnings. But thank you for your reply. No more reply is needed. Bye. Bubba73 (talk), 03:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Good Evening Barn!

How are you? Just to let you know, your menu of icons at the top of your talk page is all kinds of messed up for me, I use Firefox btw. Anyway, the reason I come to you is my hope that you will enlighten me. Can you tell me a bit about .ogg files at WP? Are they just a way to configure actions and what not? If you could actually explain it in a few sentences instead of linking me somewhere I'd appreciate that, lol. Beam 04:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh and if you could reply at my talk page I'd appreciate it because I'll be using your knowledge for future reference, thanks. Beam 04:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

lol, you ass. Now that you mention it is an audio file, i did d/l that add on before lol. It plays in win amp. haha good job, very clever! Beam 04:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Harikari

Please full protect it. The user keeps restoring the personal attacks. Thanks, Enigma message 04:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

And far from an apology, you got:

Apologize? To whom and for what? I expressed how offended I was to be ridiculed by Anger22. My means of drawing his attention were excessive and I withdraw my comment about lude acts with children as I know he is a family man. You will notice I have removed a great deal of offending material from my original statement. But as for an apology, you will have none. Tell me now barneca as I address you directly, I am trying hard to imagine a world where it is acceptable for a moderator to simply dive into an argument they know nothing about and block an individual for defending their shattered honor even if it was in an excessive way. Perhaps you thought to contact Anger22 and bring allow him to have the final decision seeing as he is the only person on Wiki who has any right to even contribute to this argument. So BLOCK ME, I defy you. For I would rather not contribute than to allow one as blind as you to attempt to open my eyes to the error of my ways. Please refrain from removing original writing from the user-pages of others, cuz that's wut we do here eh?

Enigma message 04:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you undo his last edit which restored the personal attacks once again? Cheers, Enigma message 04:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I know; my computer had some momentary issues. I got it. --barneca (talk) 04:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Qantas reverting

I had already blocked 220.240.144.75 (talk · contribs) when you posted your message. If you think 12 hours without a warning was excessive, feel free to reduce.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sarek,
I guess we got our wires crossed there. Usually, even people who've definitely crossed the line get a warning, and then get blocked if there's any more nonsense after the warning. Because of this, and because the other IP was edit warring too, I've unblocked per your permission above. Let me know if I misinterpreted you. --barneca (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
No, you got it right. I should have warned first. I would have blocked the other IP for one more revert, though -- I wasn't going to block .75 and walk away. (Oops, forgot to sign) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Looks like Tan solved it (short term, anyway) by protecting the page for a few hours. No worries on my end, it's a judgement call, and the only reason I unblocked was for consistency and because it appeared likely not to be necessary, and because you said I could. --barneca (talk) 15:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Things you are not allowed to do, and other things that you are allowed to do: A Summary

Things you are not allowed to do

  1. Disappear and "start over" (I've seen you threaten that in different places). I enjoy your commentary way to much to have to get to learn your new sock's ID.

Things you are allowed to do

  1. Not disappear. See above comment. I especially liked your post, (I would link a diff, but I'm ridiculously lazy) where you said "because you've said the same thing three times, it's automatically true" or some such. Glad you're here, you are a refreshingly competent admin. Keeper ǀ 76 20:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


You can't tell, but I'm blushing. Thanks Keeper. At the risk of someone suggesting we get a room, I'll say I'm uniformly impressed with your take on things around here. I've noticed that I usually agree on stuff you say at ANI, AN, WT:RFA, etc., and when we don't agree, it's a good time for me to reflect and make sure I'm not being dumb about something.
As far as starting over, it's a tough call. Without going into too many details, it's a legitimate concern; I was way too trusting with personal info early on. My only true safety is my obscurity; I don't think I'm a high value target. However, on top of all the other reasons not to do it, it occurs to me that my writing style is semi-unique, and I think anyone who wanted to could probably recognize it.
Anyway, thanks for the kind words, they're reciprocated. --barneca (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I know exactly what you're saying about "privacy". I have a family, a good job, other real life things going that are very important to me and very private. If Wikipedia ever goes to a "verification" system, I'll be the first one in line to check out. I don't edit much in controversial areas during my time here, and I've, since the beginning, been very secretive about my identity for reasons of my own. I wouldn't blame you for disappearing, I would simply be disappointed if you did. Only you get to decide that of course. I have divulged many "personal" things about my real life, and I've also "divulged" many smokescreens that are completely made up "events" and "attributes" of my real life, for exactly the same purposes that you state here. Only I know which are true and which are countermeasures. Wikipedia is unequivocally not important enough to jeopoardize what I really do in real life and not important enough to jeopoardize those that are close to me. Do as you wish, I simply only wish that you would find a way to stick around. What about deleting "earlier versions" of your talk/user pages? I've seen many an admin (and user by request) do exactly that to "hide" early versions of said pages. Perhaps that would alleviate your concerns? Keeper ǀ 76 20:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Jumping in here to speak for Barneca: I'm pretty sure the earlier versions are gone, but you can't undo what's already in someone's head. Enigma message 20:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Well. How presumptuous of you. wink I don't see any evidence of "deleted versions" of User:Barneca, and only one inoccuous deleted version of "User talk:Barneca". If there are diffs early on in your contribs B that "give too much away", get them oversighted via email! Keeper ǀ 76 20:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
As punishment for showing an interest, I'll send you an email. It's not a previous version of my talk page, but I'd prefer not to go into this much more on-wiki. Oh, and by the way, I divulged many smokescreens too! Yeah, that's the ticket. No matter what you may have heard, I'm actually a 20 year old female shepherdess from Outer Podunk, Idaho. With trained killer pitbulls "Fluffy" and "Bunny" protecting me from stalkers day and night. And my phone number is (567-555-1212) oh, damn, that's one of them 555 numbers, they're gonna see right thru this... --barneca (talk) 20:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't have email enabled (may I never lose my really difficult password (12345). I also don't do IRC, for mostly these reasons, among others. You'll soon find out this information as soon as you hit "email this user", but I thought I'd post here anyway. Cheers. Let me know when you disappear and your new account please? (I'm saying that of course, in full ironicalness mode...) Cheers, Keeper ǀ 76 20:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Not having email enabled is grounds for desysopping. Besides, you're really missing out. I have a file full of email from blocked users, "appealing" their blocks with cogent arguments like "go fuck yourself, you power-tripping piece of shit". It's amazing how many people apparently believe that this tack will persuade me to re-evaluate their block. Incidentally, a number of these users have sat out their block and are now editing in "good standing". MastCell Talk 21:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Heh. I will sooner desysop myself at meta before I enable email. Tis only Wikipedia. Anything that needs said can be said on my talkpage, I don't need the extra grief, and I will never enable Email, nor will I ever visit IRC channels. Wikipedia is built as an "open community", and I will not betray that with "private communications." I'm probably one of the very few, if not the only, admin without email. So be it. Cheers! Keeper ǀ 76 21:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Au contraire. I invite you to attempt to e-mail any of the names here with a date of June 2007 or earlier. Enigma message 21:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that sometimes you administrators take yourselves too seriously. Try failing someone's beloved GA nomination and see what emails you get. ;-) We regular editors have to put up with it all the time. It's really no big deal. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You know, Malleus, I hadn't thought about that, but I bet you do get a lot of that. Wait until you fail one of Brandt's sockpuppet's GA noms, and you'll be sorry...
I like having email. It's the least of my worries; you sign up for a throwaway Gmail account, no one knows anything about you, worst comes to worse, you throw it away and get another one. So far, I don't get much "you blocked me, now unblock me, you asshole" email. But strangely, I get a *lot* of "you look like an honest admin. User:PickAnAdmin has blocked me unfairly, as I will now explain in the following 25 paragraphs. Please help me build an ArbCom case against them." The biggest advantage to not having email, however, is that Barneca won't be tempted to write you long sob stories about how he can't decide what to do, and explain (in 25 paragraphs) exactly what the problem is... --barneca (talk) 21:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
(e/c re to malleus)You've proved my point. You should deactive email, malleus. Save yourself a bunch of grief and hatemail. Anything regarding Wikipedia can be said on Wikipedia, with the explicit exceptions of arbcom members and private infrogmation that they receive. Keeper ǀ 76 21:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
It really doesn't bother me, I just ignore it. The only niggle with it is though that if you forget to reply via wikipedia, then your abuser has your email address. Still, this isn't helping Barneca with his/her current problem. If possible, I'd always prefer to see someone slug it out, but if that's not possible in this case, for whatever reason, I hope that Barneca will email me his/her new username so that I can be canvassed primed to support his/her RfA. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
If that ends up the case, I'll simply have to support whomever you support at RFA from now on. Won't be much of a stretch to me though, as you and I usually are on the same page anyway....Keeper ǀ 76 21:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
This would not be the place to display my disgust with the RfA/coaching stupidity. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
(e/c, then database lockup) Umm.... Malleus? When you use the Wikipedia interface to send email, your email address is visible to the other person. Hope this isn't bad news. --barneca (talk) 21:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
No, it isn't. But if you reply to the email from your usual email software, not through wikipedia, as I've mistakenly done in the past, then yes, your email address is visible. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll bet you dinner. If someone emails you via Wikipedia, how else would you be able to "reply from your usual email software"? Now, maybe your email software isn't displaying their addresses when they send it via Wikipedia, but I guarantee your email program (and you, if you dig around) has their email address if they use Email-this-user. --barneca (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm beginning to salivate already at the thought of what I'm going to order for dinner. A wikipedia email comes from wikipedia, and you reply to wikipedia. Wikipedia then forwards it on to the relevant user, using the email address known only to wikipedia. However, if you reply using, say, MS Outlook, then your email address is there for anyone to see. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Malleus, send me an email via Wikipedia. I will send you an email back, telling you what your email address is. --barneca (talk) 22:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Before I agree to that I'll just have to check that I'm not talking bollocks ... hang on. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Bugger, you're right. I was misled by a comment made early on in an email which read "Thank you for supplying your e-mail, now I can blacklist you as promised." Ah well, looks like dinner's on me then. Fish and chips all round? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'm easy. When I've saved up enough money for a trip to the Old World, I'll ring you up. Expect this to be sometime around 2028. Wait; shouldn't you have to pay for my trip over there? That would be the honourable thing. --barneca (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, this isn't as fun or dramatic, but read the first sentence of this section: Wikipedia:Email#Privacy. --barneca (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

In response to

[1]...neh-neh....:) I'll archive it soon... :P Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Was kidding btw. But I did archive it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Well it's too late now! I already look dumb. :) ... --barneca (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Ohhhh... I forgot about that bit :D :D... <Disappears> lol. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Unblock

Go ahead, I can't remember him at all. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA thankspam

Thanks for your support in my RFA, which passed with 140 supporting, 11 opposing, and 4 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have given to me. If I can ever assist you with anything, just ask.

Cheers!

J.delanoygabsadds 20:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

My complaint about barneca

Like the Erlking in Goethe's famous poem, the maleficence of Barneca's ideologies can sometimes be imperceptible. The purpose of this post is therefore to expose the ignorant nature of Barneca's bait-and-switch tactics and let you draw your own conclusions about Barneca's motives. Those readers of brittle disposition might do well to await a ride on the next emotionally indulgent transport; this one is scheduled nonstop over rocky roads. As soon as you're strapped in I'll announce something to the effect of how when I hear Barneca say that bloodthirsty brutes and infernal bums should rule this country, I have to wonder about him. Is he absolutely deranged? Is he simply being dotty? Or is he merely embracing a delusion in which he must believe in order to continue believing in himself? To turn that question around, where do we go from here? This can be answered most easily by stating that Barneca's unpleasant beliefs are largely due to his drawing mistaken conclusions from what he wrongly takes to be evidence. Now, I could go off on that point alone, but he is utterly reprehensible. We all are, to some extent, but Barneca sets the curve.

Make no mistake about it; I've managed to come up with a way in which Barneca's essays could be made useful. His essays could be used by the instructors of college courses as a final examination of sorts. Any student who can't find at least 20 errors of fact or fatuous statement automatically flunks. Extra credit goes to students who realize that like a verbal magician, Barneca knows how to lie without appearing to be lying, how to bury secrets in mountains of garbage-speak. What I want to document now is that if he were to promote alarmism's traits as normative values to be embraced, social upheaval and violence would follow. It is therefore clear that if you can go more than a minute without hearing Barneca talk about obstructionism, you're either deaf, dumb, or in a serious case of denial. Whenever he is blamed for conspiring to encumber the religious idea with too many things of a purely earthly nature and thus bring religion into a totally unnecessary conflict with science, he blames his intimates. Doing so reinforces their passivity and obedience and increases their guilt, shame, terror, and conformity, thereby making them far more willing to help Barneca revive the ruinous excess of a bygone era to bounce and blow amidst the ruinous excess of the present era.

I know that I'm emotional now, but Barneca's lickspittles resist seeing that this theme has been struck before. They resist seeing such things because to see them, to examine them, to think about them and draw conclusions from them is to enable patriots to use their freedoms to save their freedoms. Barneca claims that we have no reason to be fearful about the criminally violent trends in our society today and over the past ten to fifteen years. Predictably, he cites no hard data for that claim. This is because no such data exist. We are a nation of prostitutes. By this I mean that as long as we are fat, warm, and dry we don't care what Barneca does. It is precisely that lack of caring that explains why ever since Barneca decided to violate all the rules of decorum, his consistent, unvarying line has been that the kids on the playground are happy to surrender to the school bully. To wrap up, I'll just hit the key elements of this post one last time. First, Barneca has always favored providing a privileged and protected status for the most condescending slaves to fashion I've ever seen. Second, our long-corrupt legal system is parlously close to establishing a precedent that will enable him to commit confrontational, in-your-face acts of violence, intimidation, and incivility. And finally, he should practice what he preaches.

The preceding was generated, verbatim, by the Automatic Complaint Generator. I thought you might be feeling a bit lonely with no complaints of admin abuse in the past few days. Any similarity between this post and actual AN/I complaints, and any irony in the fact that a computer following a humorous formula can so closely mimic the tone of admin-abuse complaints, are unintentional. Have a nice day. MastCell Talk 18:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I knew it was coming. In fact, I predicted it quite a long time ago when I said that MastCell would eavesdrop on all kinds of private conversations. And now that he has, we must unquestionably convince the worst sorts of nasty pests there are to stop supporting MastCell and tolerating his adages. When writing this letter, I had originally intended to segregate the pure errors of fact in MastCell's comments from the assertions of questionable judgment where there could be room for dispute. I eventually decided against that approach because the real question here is not, "Is MastCell a professional simpleton or merely a well-meaning amateur?". The real question is rather, "Why can't MastCell state the facts straightforwardly without their being exaggerated, aggrandized, altered, fiddled with, dressed up, falsified, and, in short, MastCell-ized?" Well, we all know the answer to that question, don't we? But in case you don't, then you should note that no one has a higher opinion of MastCell than I, and I think MastCell's a crude urban guerrilla. In short, I feel we must hammer out solutions on the anvil of discourse. I hope other members of the community feel the same. --barneca (talk) 18:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, now that's too real. :) I have an idea. We should play a game: AN/I diff or Automated Complaint? One participant posts a snippet which is either a diff directly from AN/I or a formulaic complaint from the Automatic Complaint Generator. The other participants then try to determine which it is. Each incorrect guess is penalized by a shot of tequila. Each correct guess is rewarded by a shot of tequila. What do you think? MastCell Talk 18:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The correctness, or incorrectness, of each answer will be judged by a Bureaucrat, who will, upon each successful act of judging, be awarded a shot of tequila. OK, sounds good!
Wait a second! Upon further investigation of the wording of my counter complaint... didn't I see this exact same paragraph on Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories last week? MastCell, I believe your detractors are getting them from this website. What we need now is a tweak to the complaint generator to make it an Automatic Complaint Resolver. It would save lots of time at ANI. Something, perhaps, like this:
RedactedUserName's complaint of admin abuse, while superficially valid and remarkable in its eloquence, quickly breaks down when subjected to the disinfecting light of day. As is so often the case, RedactedUserName has neglected to consider the ramifications of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:NOT, and WP:BLOCK in his haste to unjustly tarnish the reputation of one of his fellow editors. While I do not have the time, or inclination, to actually investigate this complaint, I remain convinced that time and the unwavering justice of a Supreme Being will eventually prove him incorrect, and I look forward to the day when his abject apology is forthcoming. Until then, RedactedUserName is indefinitely blocked for... umm... tendentious editing! Yeah, that's the ticket, tendentious editing. I encourage my admin peers to review the entire, sad, pathetic discussion, and support my decision below.
If this idea takes off, I forsee an entire product line of Automatic XXX Generators, each carefully crafted to make interacting with other editors as painless and easy as making a complaint:
  • Automatic Policy Generator
  • Automatic Unblock Request Generator
  • Automatic AfD Nominator and Vandalism Reporter (oh wait, already been done)
  • Automatic RfA Opposer (I've been working on a prototype of this one, under the account User:Kmweber)
  • Automatic Main Page Deleter (admins only)
  • Automatic Enemy Desysoper (currently in use, on a trial basis, as User:Jimbo)
--barneca (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, the very idea of an "Automatic XXX Generator" sounds interesting enough by itself. :-)  Frank  |  talk  19:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MrKIA11

I <3 you. I freaking love you right now. Don't let that make you think you're infallible, though ;-) —Giggy 23:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little tiny bit infallible, tho, right? Not omniscient, however; I didn't know, until this very minute, what <3 meant. So thanks for the kind words and the leet lesson (or whatever you kids are calling it these days). --barneca (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
My leet is infallible. I thought that was the only adminship requirement. —Giggy 23:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the protection, I appreciate it. I doubt he has anything else productive to say. Anyways, thanks again! Hopefully I'll see you around soon :-D --eric (mailbox) 23:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

To you!

Barnstar

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Per my talk page, I appreciate your work in resolving a problem. That sure was a lot of stuff to type! Happy Editing! --eric (mailbox) 14:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Eric, I like getting barnstars more than is probably emotionally healthy. "Trouts all around" is seldom what people want to hear, but is often what's appropriate. Glad you took my comments constructively. --barneca (talk) 14:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

That Thread (Refusing to acknowledge the topic of the thread at AN/I)

Removed it. RgoodermoteNot an admin  16:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, just wanted to make sure someone else agreed with me. Do you by any chance remember the thread from a week or so ago I'm talking about? I've ben looking in the archives for AN, ANI, and WT{AN, and can't find it now. --barneca (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I was asked to add the info on drowning there[2], so I added. I hope everything would be fine.--Caspian blue (talk) 16:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with Anome that adding that information was useful, but I certainly don't think you or Anome have done anything wrong. I recall a thread earlier, which I can't find now, but the consensus seemed to be that the only purpose of threads like that should be to make sure someone has dealt with it, and that any further discussion would either be disrespectful, or might encourage others to post similar suicide notes once they saw that it always generated discussion. That's what I was trying to get across, didn't mean for it to sound too critical. --barneca (talk) 16:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec.) I do recollect reading a thread that said that. But I can't find it myself. I think a new proposal should be made though. RgoodermoteNot an admin  16:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Barneca, I don't mind the removal of the thread and understand your opinion, but the information seems still to be needed for anyone contacting authorities in Japan.--Caspian blue (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I removed the topic, I give full permission for it to be brought back. But the conversation is still in the history and that is all that it needs to be. Further discussion in such a public area is not a very wise and will only cause further disruption. The conversation ended because the authorities have been called. The conversation can be found here RgoodermoteNot an admin  16:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Olmec

Perhaps you should pay attention to the whole debate before taking a side. It was Maunus who reverted one of my edits - one that was legitimate and well-defended. Rather than discussing the matter to a compromise, he just took it upon himself to revert. I will not revert again, but I will continue to replace my edits until a case is made for why they are invalid. Godheval (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

First, I'm not taking a side; if you actually read the WP:3RR policy I mentioned, it is apolicy against edit warring no matter who's right and who's wrong. Second, "replacing your edits" is the same as reverting. Third, if something is controversial, it should be discussed on the talk page and consensus reached before including it. --barneca (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
That's just it. Nothing I added was controversial - except through some grievous misunderstanding. After the RV war started, I was the one to open the discussion, because there was no reason for the original RV. Like I said, read through the debate and the history and you'll see what I mean. Godheval (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Let me rephrase; I mean controversial in the sense of "other editors disagree with you". And the fact that each one of you added something to the talk page at the same time they reverted the article again is still edit warring. Try to come up with compromise language on the talk page, then edit the article. --barneca (talk) 20:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
You're right of course about my snide comments, but it pisses me off when people just undo other's edits on no authority, while completely failing to understand the basis on which those edits were made in the first place. Frankly, it IS idiocy, but it is uncivil of me to point that out. I'll try to be more tactful. Godheval (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Tact is all I'm asking for (well that, and discussion before reverting). I'm taking no sides in the actual dispute; hopefully other uninvolved editors will see the mention on WP:ANI and come along to take a look. --barneca (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

User:72.14.117.122 now appears to be editing as User:Arataman 79

This is the editor you blocked as a result of my request for help on AN/I. Now, the same AFI information, with the same kinds of problems, is being added by this named user, who had one earlier edit, but otherwise has only edited today. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 06:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

There really is no doubt about it, it's the same person. Since their behavior is clearly deliberate, and perhaps deliberately disruptive, is there any point in running a checkuser to see if they are a sock? (Of someone besides 72.14.117.122, I mean.) Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 07:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I see LHvU blocked him while I was getting my beauty sleep. Replying on ANI thread. --barneca (talk) 12:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

When six people are telling you you did something wrong, and zero people are agreeing with you, there's a really, really, really good chance that you've actually done something wrong

The correct link is Wikipedia:When multiple people are saying you did something wrong and nobody is agreeing with you there is a very good chance that you are wrong. It's probably gone by the time you see this but it was a redirect to Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point#Refusal to 'get the point'. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 09:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, CBW! It's still there as of now. I hope I can use it somewhere before it sprouts a {{db}} tag. --barneca (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI#User:Paul Barlow

Oh, you're no fun anymore. ;)

Yeah, discussion probably should go to the talk page. I'm still concerned by Alley30's apparent OWNership of the article and rather odd behavior, but I suppose that ANI report will wait until things are more serious. Just thought I'd drop a note to say your diligence is appreciated. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

<conspiratorial whisper>actually, I was just annoyed that no one commented on how clever my previous sarcastic comment in that thread was. </conspiratorial whisper> --barneca (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Aw. I noticed! I was just too busy with the (repetitive) editor's rather odd claims. :) — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

re Skyring

My block was raised with Skyring on his user talk page at User talk:Skyring#Personal attacks and other breaches of wikipedia policies and guidelines in relation to behaviour. It was not my intention to exacerbate the situation by either reporting Skyring to any noticeboard for this issue (hence I did not seek the involvement of an uninvolved admin) or even to have an autoblock function enabled which was inadvertent on my part. I would like you to contemplate however what message you are sending about his behaviour to me and to other editors. Doesn't seem he is stopped from editing, inconvenienced slightly - I am not particularly sorry even if it was unintentional. --Matilda talk 00:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly not sending any message that I approve of his behavior; I'm just dealing with the autoblock issue. To be honest, seems to me like a lot of editors of Australian politics are getting a bit impolite; not like us models of civil behavior, American politics editors. --barneca (talk) 01:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

thankspam

Thanks to everyone who participated in my RfA, regardless of their !vote. I have withdrawn the nomination as a failure at 19 supports, 45 opposes, and 9 neutral statements.

As has been written and sung, you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you get what you need — and what I need is to go back to working on our shared project. Not everyone has to be an admin; there is a role for each of us. After reflection, I feel I don't have the temperament to secure community consensus as an admin at any point, and I will not be applying again in the future — and hey, that's all right, 'cause I stay true to the philosophy that adminship is no big deal: I tried, I failed, and now I'll return to doing what I've always done. I have an extremely strong belief in the consensus process, and the consensus was clear. I will be devoting my energies to volunteering at MedCab and working up a complete series of articles on the short stories of Ernest Hemingway, among lord knows what else. Thanks again to everyone who spared the time to weigh in on this one. It was made in better faith than it probably seemed.
Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 15:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate your comments, esp. the defense against accusations of disruption, which had never been my intent. As for your concerns, they make perfect sense — as I realized a few comments into the process, for all they know, I could be Archtransit. Coughing up the tools to someone with such an undisclosed background is something that many were understandably reluctant to do. On reflection, I will definitely be looking to serve the encyclopedia in ways other than adminship. Thanks again, and be seeing you round - Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 15:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

More problems from User: EMPY

Sorry to bother you, but it seems like User: EMPY is editing using a sockpuppet. He's remade his userpage with exteme prejudice (pun intended). You might want to take a minute before heading over there. It's a little bit ambitious. Jamestown Easy Slider (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the head's up. I forgot to protect the user page. --barneca (talk) 18:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey!

I thought I told you to tell me when you were going to flip out! Seriously, though, thanks for your voice of reason on my talkpage. My eponymous WQA went away after I apologized for my "tone" (that's my political way of saying I was a total ass). Keeper ǀ 76 19:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You'll notice I didn't say "fuck". That's the key. As long as you don't say "fuck" (or dare to hold unpopular views), they can't touch you. If and when I flip out, there will be lots of cursing and I'll hold lots of unpopular views, so you'll know it's a true flip out.
On a separate note, I'm constantly impressed with SandyGeorgia; she nailed that one. That WQA was bugging me, even though I was glad to see it wasn't snowballing into a "let's desysop Keeper!" thing, and couldn't put my finger on it. She's right: everyone should have been saying "Keeper was provoked, but should have know better", but the only thing being said was "Keeper was provoked, so Xander asked for it". Glad the storm's over. --barneca (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
So that fact that you said "fuck" twice in your response to me should mean that I can start a new WQA/ANI/RFAR/RFC/DR/ABC/PDQ/WP:OMGWTFBBQ on you then, right?  :-) Yeah, and SG rocks. If only she'd posted that a few minutes earlier. Like, right before I typed "I'm not ever never ever going to reply on that WQA" drama on my talkpage, instead of right after....I felt like a sheep after reading her thoughts. Lesson learned. Or learnt. Keeper ǀ 76 20:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I will *never* apologize to you for cursing twice at you above. NEVER! NEVER! --barneca (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks mate! Yup, everything is pretty much fine now...It was rather bizarre not having the talk page moved when everything else was moved...In any case, thanks again!

Cheers!

Λua∫Wise (Operibus anteire) 14:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. And, you need to update your signature! --barneca (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Autoblocks, socks, personal attacks, etc, etc on Skyring's page

Please include this order to the list. I left it in his page, he deleted it though. DockuHi 00:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is another one. Cranks and axe grinders. I am sorry for bothering you. Informing some neutral editors helps me from losing my temper. DockuHi 01:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
If informing neutral editors helps you from losing your temper, then feel free to continue doing so. However, it seems to me that one would have to be trying mighty hard to be offended by the first diff, and the second diff appears to have been clarified to not be directed at you, but instead of accepting that, you felt the need to tell him you were graciously going to hold off on "officially warning" him. About 90% of the people on that talk page are acting like children, and I'm not about to take sides and decide who's being more like a child.
Put it another way: I'll be happy to intercede if one particular editor makes eggregious personal attacks; I felt that was what was happening a few days ago, and that's why I left a message on Skyring's talk page. But I'm not about to wade into a talk page were almost everyone has decided that sniping at each other is fun, and reporting each other for perceived attacks is funner, to try to decide who is being slightly more uncivil. You might want to try someone in CAT:Admins who are masochists. --barneca (talk) 13:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I see what you mean. I will try hard to be polite. Cant control others. Thanks for your vigilance though. DockuHi 13:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. You can control how you react to other's incivility; you can't control how others react. If enough people on that page decided that the way they were going to react to incivility on the talk page was to ignore minor incivility, rather than report it, or return it in kind, then soon the cycle would die down, and it would be easier for uninvolved people to identify those who were actually causing problems. The other option, I suppose, is to wade into the fray, swinging my blocking hammer left and right, and block everyone who says anything remotely uncivil. However, I've not got the time right now to try that, and I doubt it would be welcome, I doubt it would accomplish much except piss people off even more. --barneca (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Advice, please

Hi. I'm experiencing a bit of deja vu - an IP editor making questionable edits who won't discuss them with me. Some of the edits are clearly unhelpful, others are debateable, but I can't seem to get a discussion going so we can debate them! Since you handled the last time this happened, I though I'd ask: how long should I continue to try to communicate with this editor (User talk:67.36.58.41, who, incidentally, is clearly not a new user, despite only editing for 5 days, judging by their knowledge of policy, edit summary jargon, etc.) before I bring it up at AN/I? Or is there another path I should follow here?

Thanks for any advice you can offer. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 02:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ed,
I would say in a case like this, where there is no effort at all to communicate back, that the 2 days and multiple messages you've written is more than enough. I'm pulling this number completely out of the air, but since you asked: I'd say if they continue to edit without changing behavior, but don't respond, it's reasonable to get someone else involved after less than a day of editing without response, or after leaving a couple of messages, especially if they are editing numerous pages, to limit the amount of corrective work involved. For whatever reason, be it a disability or a personality trait, some people don't want to interact with others. As long as they stop doing something when asked, that seems OK. But continuing to do the same thing and not communicating is not, IMHO.
I'm only on Wikipedia once or twice a day for a while, so if they continue, probably best to say something at ANI, rather than tell me; there'd likely be a delayed response. I think almost any admin, after being pointed to this discussion and the IP's talk page, would be willing to apply a "get their attention" block of a week or so, to be lifted immediately once they begin to talk.
Good luck. --barneca (talk) 11:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Much thanks! Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 15:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou

Just a little note to say thankyou for participating in my successful RFA candidacy, which passed with 96 supports, 0 opposes, and 1 neutral. I am pleasantly taken aback by the amount of support for me to contribute in an administrative role and look forward to demonstrating that such faith is well placed. Regards, WilliamH (talk) 09:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Takethatmrsmckay

Hi -- it's easy to lose your temper when people ignore you, but the indef block of user:takethatmrsmckay was probably overkill, given that this is surely just an ignorant kid. Looie496 (talk) 01:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Looie,
I'm not upset, and didn't lose my temper; it just seemed like there's a 0% chance of him making a productive edit, and blocking indef is what we do with vandalism-only accounts. If he requests an unblock, someone might disagree; I'd be open to using {{2ndchance}}. But he basically admitted his only interest was in playing around. I certainly didn't block him because I was mad (and I'm a little puzzled why you think that); I blocked him to end the disruption. --barneca (talk) 11:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Redvers awards this Barnstar to Barneca for a null edit that confirms why I have long had deep respect for you. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 21:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Barnstars for null edits.... Damn, I must be living right! Thanks, Redvers, for the barnstar (I love these stupid things) and the kind words. --barneca (talk) 21:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Best. ANI. Post. Ever.

I won't link it, you know which one. The irony is not lost on me that others are using your now "redacted" titled thread to continue doing exactly what they were doing in the myriad threads surrounding it. Sigh. Keeper ǀ 76 19:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I came here to say exactly the same thing. – Steel 19:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure whether to laugh or cry. I feel like John the Baptist (wasn't he the "voice crying in the wilderness" that no one paid any attention to? It's been so long since I was dragged to church that it's all getting a little fuzzy now.) I'm getting more and more tempted to unwatchlist ANI altogether.

As far as redacting my thread title, Jehochman forgot something, so I'll go ahead and do it myself:

{{subst:uw-gratuitousbreachofdecorum1}} --barneca (talk) 20:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC) well I'll be [redacted], there's no such template.

Request for participation in User:Abd/RfC

Because my participation as a Wikipedia editor has been questioned, and if I continue as I have in the past, I can expect future challenges as well, I have begun a standing RfC in my user space, at User:Abd/RfC. There is also a specific incident RfC at User:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block. I understand that you may not have time to participate directly; however, if you wish to be notified of any outcome from the general or specific RfC, or if you wish to identify a participant or potential participant as one generally trusted by you, or otherwise to indicate interest in the topic(s), please consider listing yourself at User:Abd/RfC/Proxy Table, and, should you so decide, naming a proxy as indicated there. Your designation of a proxy will not bind you, and your proxy will not comment or vote for you, but only for himself or herself; however, I may consider proxy designations in weighing comment in this RfC, as to how they might represent the general community. You may revoke this designation at any time. This RfC is for my own guidance as to future behavior and actions, it is advisory only, upon me and on participants. This notice is going to all those who commented on my Talk page in the period between my warning for personal attack, assumptions of bad faith, and general disruption, on August 11, 2008, until August 20, 2008. This is not a standard RfC; because it is for my advice, I assert authority over the process. However, initially, all editors are welcome, even if otherwise banned from my Talk space or from the project. Canvassing is permitted, as far as I'm concerned; I will regulate participation if needed, but do not spam. Notice of this RfC may be placed on noticeboards or wikiprojects, should any of you think this appropriate; however, the reason for doing this in my user space is to minimize disruption, and I am not responsible for any disruption arising from discussion of this outside my user space. Thanks for considering this. --Abd (talk) 02:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Poor man's oversight

Thanks - and very inventive too. --Joopercoopers (talk) 08:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. --barneca (talk) 10:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Did You Tell the user PlushPuffin That They Were a Subject of an AN Threat?

Don't ever harrass me like that. I went to the user's talk page to respond to the comments they made about me on the bulletin, and I saw your name. Do you really want me to request a block for you?Kevin j (talk) 17:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, by all means, request a block for me; I admit it! I'm unrepentant! I would do it again! I'm pretty sure I know what the result of such a report would be, and at this stage, I think it would be best for all of us if that particular result were applied. --barneca (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Apparently you failed to read and comprehend the directions on the administrator's noticeboard: "As a courtesy, please inform other users and editors if they are mentioned in a posting, or if their actions are being discussed." I did the same for you three weeks ago, and it was only because Barneca took it upon himself/herself that your obligation to me was fulfilled. Thank you, Barneca. -- plushpuffin (talk) 17:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome. --barneca (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind informing people about these notices. It's just I have never before and I find it suspicous that you have done so your.Kevin j (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Am I reading this right? Kevin j, are you threatening to report Barneca for a block, because Barneca informed another editor that there was an ANI thread about them? Tell me I'm wrong. Keeper ǀ 76 17:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I would say, if this keeps up, a timeout might be in order. And don't worry about the yellow bars; I only get one bar, no matter how many messages have been posted in my absence. And this particular bar provided lots of amusement, so it's all good.--barneca (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar
For saving me from what would eventually have been my first warning for incivility in dealing with the above situation. Well handled. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, and you're welcome. To be honest, we probably let him go on longer than we should have, and you had to put up with that for too long; it was pretty apparent to me even before I left for an hour that he'd lost it, and wasn't going to quit, but at the time I felt that if I'd blocked then, I'd have been accused of jumping the gun. Now, let that be a lesson for you: stop trying to help people out, or I will have you blocked. --barneca (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for handling the situation. I kept typing and re-typing (and sometimes canceling) my few responses because I didn't want to cross a line at any point, and I wasn't sure if I was supposed to be angry or amused. -- plushpuffin (talk) 19:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I chose to be amused at first, until it just kept going on and on and on. That's when it got annoying. If he picks right up where he left off after the block expires, please let me know and I'll extend it a little longer. --barneca (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Keeper76

Your edit to the user page showed up as possible vandalism. I'm assuming it's not but I think this is a typo: Category:Aministrator. It links to a page that doesn't exist. Cheers! Joshuagross (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

All right. I'm just getting used to vandalism monitoring ;) Joshuagross (talk) 19:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
o god, that's too funny. Thanks for your vigilance Joshuagross! Barneca is definitely a vandal.  :-) Keeper ǀ 76 19:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Watch it, punk. I now can take your aministrator title away. --barneca (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
My account may be older than yours, but you have at least 10x more edits than me. I bow before your wiki-greatness. Joshuagross (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Re

You're not the first to suggest it. – iridescent 20:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

great minds think alike. --barneca (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

One perfectly good afternoon, shot completely to hell

18:37, August 22, 2008 to 20:55, August 22, 2008 was not the most productive 2.5 hours of my life. --barneca (talk) 21:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It might have been one of your most productive 2.5 though. Or at least, enjoyable. Happy friday -- Keeper ǀ 76 21:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, happy Friday. --barneca (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Sadly, it probably wasn't the least productive 2.5 hours either, amirite? :) I mean, if you're anything like me. MastCell Talk 21:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I plead the fifth on that, yer Honor. --barneca (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Yaknowwhat I just realized? Starting threads on your own talkpage that beg for response is prima facie evidence of someone trying to get their talkpage editcount higher than 5000 so they can never be deleted. Myspacer....Keeper ǀ 76 21:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
That hurts. I have a perfectly good excuse for... No, I can't do it, you're right, I'm just a MySpacer. *sob* --barneca (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Kevin j block

I recommend doing this now. You know how these AN threads go - leave them long enough, some random one-off editors will start to have a problem with it, etc etc. You have enough support, close the thread, block away. :-) Tan ǀ 39 01:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

rats, I asked for more input on the AN thread at the same time you wrote this. --barneca (talk) 01:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Eh, it'll probably still fly. Tan ǀ 39 01:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for notifying me of the thread :-). Yer one of my favrit aministratorz. Keeper ǀ 76 14:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
My sock army just keeps getting bigger and bigger.Soon, we shall be ready to take over. I have, very responsibly and transparently, with absolutely no intention of ever using it abusively, created User:Bercude as a doppelganger. (My real sock army was created while I was logged out, so I couldn't be traced.) --barneca (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Barneca/Archive_8&oldid=1094654175"