User talk:Ideogram/Archive 5

adminship suggestion

Thank you very kindly for your offer of nominating me for adminship. At this time though I must respectfully decline. I fear that my overwhelming tendency to engage only in cleanup work (spam removal, AfD, CSD, prod, cleanup tag adding, and warning messages) would hurt my chances of passing, as I've seen a significant number of opposes that indicate disproval based on the lack of major additions to articles.

It has been suggested by a couple people that I should stand for adminship, however, so it's definitely on my mind. I may be talked into running in the near future... we'll see. Again, many thanks, and if I do cave in and run, I'll probably ask for your input to help with the "candidacy", if you don't mind. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 12:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please trim your statement on Requests for arbitration

Thank you for making a statement in an Arbitration application on Requests for arbitration. We ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Please trim your statement. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence. Neat, concisely presented statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee. -- Drini 18:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kven+Ghirlandajo

Since you may no longer have the page on your watchlist, I want to tell you that I have answered Ghirla's query there. Please do not interpret this message as stalking, since I only want to give you the opportunity of answering it, as it might as well have been addressed to you. Have a nice day. --Pan Gerwazy 10:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frozen page on China

So you just went ahead and froze the page on China? You said that you would ask for a protection if there was another revert, and nothing happened. What I said was tongue-in-cheek, we're hardly talking about a revert war if someone says he will revert in 24 hours. You are not inspriring confidence by first reverting something yourself and then telling other people to abstain for reverting. That's not usually how we do this. --Niohe 02:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know you were kidding. --Ideogram 03:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could have asked. Why are you in such a hurry? --Niohe 03:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter. It's protected now, and will remain so until an agreement is reached. --Ideogram 03:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it doesn't matter to you, but there are a lot of people who want to edit other parts of the article. They can't do that now, because of five small letters in a name. --Niohe 03:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should have thought of that before you revert-warred. And it won't hurt anything to let the edits wait for a while. --Ideogram 03:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you do is not my responsibility and I did not "revert-war", you know what. I declared my unwillingness to be blocked for a 3RR-violation for such a trivial matter, that is what I did. And no one else reverted either. But apparently the "correct" name for Taiwan overrides everything else. --Niohe 03:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kven

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kven. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kven/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kven/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --FloNight 23:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On blocking

(I considered this off-topic for the arb page) I just wanted to point out, that anyone who makes a block needs to be willing to explain the reasoning behind it- anyone who's unwilling to do so has no business at all making a block. Friday (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although in principle users have that right, in this case the potential harm to Kylu (which she was willing to leave Wikipedia to avoid) and the low importance and relevance to the case at hand argue for leniency. Principles are not to be applied without judgement; that is an abuse of power. --Ideogram 21:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I don't follow you. Abuse of power? I'm just talking about transparency. Anyone who's unwilling to engage in discussion of their actions can hardly be a contributor in any meaningful fashion. Friday (talk) 21:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transparency is a form of power ordinary users have over administrators. All powers should be used with discretion. It is plainly ridiculous to ask all admins to explain their actions all the time; it should only be required when the potential benefit outweighs the potential cost. The cost of a valuable user leaving Wikipedia to avoid further harassment is the highest; the benefit in this case is small. --Ideogram 21:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are obviously specifics to whatever you're talking about that I'm not aware of. But, asking someone for an explanation is not remotely harassment. Transparency is our basic expectation here, not a special request. Sure, I'll grant there that are sometimes cases involving sensitive data that cannot be very transparent, but this hardly seems like one of them. Friday (talk) 21:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giano's actions constituted harassment. Maybe not in your eyes, but certainly in Kylu's eyes, and we must give that opinion some weight. As a practical matter you don't exercise your right to transparency except in important cases; why is this case important? --Ideogram 21:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they did- I have no opinion on that. I still don't get where you're going with "right to transparency" - things done on-wiki are transparent automatically. The non-transparency of, for example, a chat room conversation, is exactly why we shouldn't base our on-wiki actions on what happens in some chat room. If I found out that any admin made a decision to block based on a chat room conversation, you're damn right I'd want more info. I'd ask things like, who were they talking to, and what was said? Why was the conversation done in some back channel? Blocks are probably the biggest single cause of harmful wikidrama, and having those conversations on-wiki would certainly be preferable to having them off-wiki. Anyway, I dunno if that's clear or not- I can't really tell if we're disagreeing. I was trying to make general statements, rather than a statement about some particular comment made by some particular editor. Friday (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a great deal of off-wiki communication; often dispute resolution works better in private. I myself use IRC and email quite frequently for sensitive matters, and I would not deny admins the same right. Certainly an admin can be asked to describe their reasoning after the fact (this is the kind of transparency I thought you were describing) but I would never suggest that all Wikipedia business must be conducted on-wiki. --Ideogram 21:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for jumping in here. I agree that lots of Wikipedia business needs to be conducted off-wiki. But the basic principle must be that the main and central discussion forum is the wiki itself. Not everyone has e-mail enabled or wants to take discussion off-wiki. Carcharoth 23:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to join, Carcharoth. I think that off-wiki discussion is primarily for individuals or small groups to hash out matters where the messy details need not be made public. Certainly any issue that requires community consensus should be discussed on-wiki. --Ideogram 00:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Glad we agree on both these points. Carcharoth 01:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I feel my off-wiki involvement is only for my personal use in trying to gague the appropriateness of my inclinations. If I feel like a block is warranted, for instance, I ask various people I'm aquainted with and they point to policies that may be appropriate, as well as background on the individuals in question. Obviously, this in no way creates a consensus for this type of action, and as it's my own personal judgement that I have to ultimately rely on, gives no reason to suspect malfeasance on the part of those whose opinions I seek. Any error in judgement, for instance, would be my sole responsibility, hence my unwillingness to take part in conversations which try to pry answers about whose opinions I seek: The answer to that question is not only immaterial, but also seeks to spread blame to those who have no part in my ultimate decision. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, Kylu. I can completely see where you're coming from, and I really appreciate you saying that such decisions are your sole responsibility. (And I appreciate keeping private the confidences of those who were not intending to speak publically.) I would assert, though, that having these sorts of conversations on-wiki has all the same advantages as doing them on IRC, and none of the disadvantages. Transparancy greases the wheels of the project. Friday (talk) 04:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Not getting any email right now, problem at my isp. Fred Bauder 13:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your message

There's no need to close the discussion about the topic of the page. In fact, that would be a bad thing to do. Zocky | picture popups 18:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you feel that way? Do you really think your discussion on an overly long page will affect the voting of the arbitrators? And do you feel Giano's comment herewas a deescalation? --Ideogram 18:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no desire to stop cooperating with you. This is about what you said in that instance there, not about you personally or what you do on Wikipedia in general. The discussion already has affected the wording of findings and decisions, and that's exactly what the page is for. Regarding Giano's comment: first of all, he didn't pursue it (and Fred was smart enough not to answer), but in any case, he's a party to the case, him giving his opinion on statements regarding the case is not the same as you coming in and posting a comment like that.

Having said all that, I think that you have to realize something (and please, take this as a friendly advice, not patronizing): these people have worked together and known each other for years, in some instances for 4 or more years. It's not that you being relatively new compared to them disqualifies you from the debate, but this is about very old and quite sensitive issues. These people know how to read each other words better than you do (and than they know how to read yours) and they manage to misread each other all the time. I know that you're trying to help, but this isn't the way. It's probably better to read about it, think about it, and voice an opinion when it comes up again in a less heated debate.

I'm not asking you to stop posting to the page, I'm just asking you to be sure that you know how your words will be read before you post them. Zocky | picture popups 18:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice. I do indeed read and think very carefully. I am not trying to voice my opinion; I am trying to advise all participants to do as you recommend I do.--Ideogram 19:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go one step further than the Z-man: It's probably a good idea to just leave it alone now. Really, to observe silently is also often a useful skill. Not one I am good at, but still. - brenneman ^{L} 04:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did ask all interested parties to leave the debate for after the arbitration closes, but they apparently do not wish to. --Ideogram 04:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intentionally or not, you're becoming the locus of further disruption, not everyone else. This doesn't mean you've done anything wrong of course. - brenneman ^{L} 05:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to be quiet. Geogre, Giano, and SlimVirgin all made disruptive comments after I recommended they take a break. Every comment I have made has been an attempt to moderate the debate. I defy you to find comments I have made which were as disruptive as the comments Geogre, Giano, and SlimVirgin have been making.

Let me make the implication clear. If I cease to be the "locus of further disruption" we have abundant evidence that Geogre, Giano, and SlimVirgin will find another locus of disruption. As long as they continue making disruptive comments, I will respond to them. --Ideogram 05:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be clear too, then. I am sure you have the best of intentions, but the effect of your interventions often appears to be to provoke further ill-humoured discussion. If you want to avoid that effect, then I would suggest trying not to be a cause of it. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What ill-humoured discussion? There has been no further ill-humoured discussion for almost three hours since my last intervention. After my previous intervention, there was a period of almost twenty-two hours during which the only changes were some comments by Fred and a minor correction by Geogre. Are you reading the same discussion I am? --Ideogram 10:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ideogram, I add my voice to the group of people telling you that your comments, no matter how well intended, were not as helpful as perhaps you thought they were. As Zocky pointed out, many of these people have long and complicated relationships with each other. Sometimes comments made on talk pages have deeper meaning than you are able to understand because you do not know the full history of the people leaving them. Personally, I think it is better to stay out of these discussions unless you have something unique to say because stating the obvious is not necessary. I apologize for being so blunt. I do not mean to make you feel unwelcome in the discussion, instead I want to help you understand the best way to participate in these serious discussions. Most of the time that might be reading what is said instead of commenting. I want to make the same suggestions for this situation, too. [1] Of course these are just suggestions and you are free to do what you think is best. FloNight 12:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you FloNight. Unlike some of the people who have been telling me to "shut up" you seem to be neutral in this affair.

For several weeks we have had long, unproductive discussions with much acrimony and repetition. I find it hard to believe that you prefer that kind of debate.

There are many parties who have been repeating the obvious when it is not necessary. I happen to believe that I do have something unique to say.

Although I do not fully understand the complicated relationships involved, I feel that is an advantage since I am not as emotionally involved. This discussion has a large audience which is also unable to understand the deeper meaning. I wish to speak to them, and for them. My participation has primarily been in the form of questions, intended to clarify certain points.

I am happy to continue discussing this matter with you as long as you wish. I do want to understand what you are saying. I may be wrong, but I hope you will also take the time to understand my point of view. --Ideogram 13:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will only add that, while totally unfair, one can become the kicking-boy without going too far wrong. You can be the centre of controversy and be right. Without making any comment on if you are, of course. Notice that (once the rush of blood to my head was passed) I commented very little? And, yes, I've already suggested to others that they cool it. They didn't listen either, but worse luck. - brenneman ^{L} 13:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. I also understand that Geogre, Giano, and SlimVirgin have found other kicking-boys in the past and will find more in the future. If I am not the centre of controversy, someone else will be. At least I will be able to remain civil and avoid personal attacks, unlike so many others. --Ideogram 13:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In brief: I will not give in to bullies. --Ideogram 13:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's very powerful the way, immediately following your statement that you avoid personal attacks, you make a personal attack. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you feel that was a personal attack. Many people have made personal attacks, including Geogre, Giano, and SlimVirgin. However, if you wish to put all that behind us and have a civil discussion in an atmosphere of mutual respect, I will be happy to accommodate you. --Ideogram 02:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

I will lift the protection of this page soon if no one screams. - brenneman ^{L} 04:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, which page? My talk page? --Ideogram 04:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not very helpful

I don't think your interventions here are very helpful. Remember wikipedia is not a chatroom. Catchpole 11:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd, chatting seems to end when I intervene. --Ideogram 11:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFAR#SlimVirgin

I know you're going to notice this case sooner than later, since you seem to be on the arbitration pages a lot lately. If I may be so bold as to suggest, however, that you give it a wide berth and to try to avoid letting people drag you into a situation where you might be baited into an argument which would be ultimately detrimental to you.

I don't know SlimVirgin or KimvdLinde, and I know after your recent problem with SlimVirgin on the Giano arbcom case that you're chomping at the bit to put in an opinion, but I have a sneaky suspicion that this one's been brewing for a while, and is a situation where putting an appendage into the pool will result in it being bitten off! :D

Please tread cautiously, fellow medcabber. We need you in one piece so you can ~~do all our work~~ continue your mediation efforts. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Thanks for the advice. --Ideogram 05:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Please do not keep adding fuel to the fire in the RfAr cases. Several people have asked this before. Jonathunder 15:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess when people are being angry and unreasonable all the calm, reasonable people should leave the room? Sorry, I don't agree. --Ideogram 23:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This edit of yours today, for example, calling others "childish" does not contribute to reasoned discourse; it only inflames things. Please just stop. Jonathunder 19:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you making similar requests of the other parties? --Ideogram 01:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The proper response to a request to stop making personal attacks is not keep attacking while alleging someone else may have also, the proper response is to stop. Jonathunder 04:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer my question or I will have no reason to keep responding to you. --Ideogram 16:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask you a question: which article are you most proud of, in terms of your contributions? -- ALoan (Talk) 17:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think that is relevant? --Ideogram 17:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant to what? I just asked the question. Feel free to answer or not. I see from your recent editing history that you have an interest in China, for example, and, further back, in computer programming. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for being suspicious, but you seem to be one of the people interested in getting me to shut up. However, I will assume good faith and answer your question. The article I am most proud of having worked on is programming language. --Ideogram 08:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answering. I noticed that you were taking a break so did not want to follow up, but now see that you are back. The main reason for asking (other than simply being interested in the answer) was that I saw that very few of your contributions in recent months were in article space, and I wondered why that was. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delayed reply, I just noticed this comment. There's no specific reason my article space contributions have fallen off, mostly I just follow my interests. I don't have any more areas of expertise I can contribute in. I cleaned up a few dozen articles but then lost interest in that too. Right now I'm mainly doing whatever odd jobs catch my eye around medcabal. --Ideogram 07:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hello

Happy8 02:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kven

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Kven-user limited to one account and is placed on probation. He may be banned from any article or set of articles which he disrupts by aggressive biased editing. The Kven-user is banned from editing articles related to Kven or making any edits regarding the topic. Should Kven-user edit under any username or IP prior to selecting a username any edit made may be removed on sight and the account indefinitely blocked. Should Kven-user violate any ban, he may be briefly blocked, up to a month in the event of repeat offenses. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kven#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srik e it ^{(Talk | Email)} 00:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merging of cases

No problem here. Nwwaew(My talk page) 22:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit at Talk:Fiona Mont

Thanks for your input. I think the situation is now under control. Thanks for saying you would continue to monitor. Please do, and so shall I. Best wishes --Guinnog 12:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MedCab case

I thought I closed it a while back. Meh. Close away. It hasn't seen action in a long time. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 08:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 12:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

this edit. Very kind, and very welcome. Thanks Rossrs 07:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For you

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For clearing and closing the massive backlog of MedCab cases. It's very much appreciated! --Keitei (talk) 07:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My goodness, I didn't think it was much. Still, thank you! My first Barnstar! --Ideogram 07:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:China

I did not expect anyone there because the page was abandoned for a long time. I responded to your questions in the discussion page. AQu01rius (User  Talk) 19:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]