User:Celestianpower/Archive17

This page is an archive of the seventeenth 20 topics on my talk page, lodged between the 5th of January 2006 and the 14th of January 2006. Please do not modify this page. If you wish to revive a discussion here, please don't hesitate to copy it back to my current talk page and add your comment per my policy.

Celestian power, muchas gracias![edit]

Celestian, thanks for your support in my RfA! It is much appreciated! I will do my best to be a good admin, and if there is anything I can do for you, please do ask! Incidentally, here's something we have in common: though as a child I was a sports fanatic, I have grown to DETEST SPORT! So there you go. See you around, and again, thanky thanky! Babajobu 21:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: WP:MIND[edit]

Yes, sorry, I've been pretty busy the past two or three days. Going to do it now. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I've posted the rules; please see WP:MIND. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

- You've earned it. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 13:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! :D --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 13:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup[edit]

Hello Celestianpower, thank you for your support in the Esperanza election. Let me know if I can do anything for you in return. with kind regards Gryffindor 16:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Many thanks for nominating me for adminiship, I'm sure you'll be glad to know the final result was 92/1/0. I am now an administrator and (as always) if I do anything you have issue with, please talk about it with me. --Alf ^melmac 08:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Pgk's RFA

Thanks for your support on my request for adminship.

The final outcome was (80/3/0), so I am now an administrator. I was flattered by the level of support and the comments, so I'm under real pressure not to disappoint, thus if you have any queries, suggestions or problems with any of my actions as an admin then please leave me a note --pgk^(talk) 10:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey Boss[edit]

When's the advisory council meeting again? Also, we have a few people lining up for admin training, it's time to spam our membership's talk page before the line gets too backed up and we lose credibility in that. karmafist 22:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, we only have two unassigned editors, everyone else is covered. I feel real iffy about assigning more than one editor to a single coach, but if you think that it is a good idea, tell me. That said, we could always use more volunteers, which would do away with that problem entirely... Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Congrats[edit]

Just came back from a Christmas/New Years vacation, so didnt see the election results. I see you've become head honcho of the club! :-) Congrats! The Minist e r of War ^(Peace) 19:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Name Origins[edit]

My apologies - I thought it was long enough to deserve its own heading. Won't happen again. NP Chilla (talk)

CNN blanking problems[edit]

Hi Celestianpower. I would appreciate it if you would look over the last 36 hours' worth of history on the CNN page. I think there may be a new 3RR violation there, by the same person you had to put a short block on just a few days ago for the same reason. Thanks, --Aaron 20:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The reverts are continuing, with the user apparently purposefully spacing his reverts out just enough to skirt the 24-hour rule, thus I can't report him on the WP:AN3 page. If you have time, I'd really appreciate a look at the page. --Aaron 20:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused; I see at least three reverts by him in just the last 36 hours. Maybe I don't understand what counts as a revert; is it not still a revert even if he replaces one set of content with his own (highly POV) content instead of merely blanking? --Aaron 20:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Here are some recent reverts / 180-degree POV rewrites of his, all of which occurred after his 24-hour block expired. I think they show bad faith, particularly given the comments this user has made on the Talk:CNN and Talk:Fox News Channel pages. Also note he has blanked the comments I and you put on his user talk page regarding his first 3RR. Not against the rules, but certainly discouraged and more evidence of bad faith, IMHO:

15:14, January 9, 2006: rewrite of section to make "allegations of liberal bias" section into an "allegations of conservative bias" section
20:16, January 9, 2006: blanking of entire section after user restored it
22:34, January 9, 2006: blanking of entire section after user restored it
22:51, January 9, 2006: another POV rewrite of the section
09:53, January 10, 2006: blanking of entire section after user restored it
15:56, January 11, 2006: this is a double; he both reverted a POV tag to the top of the page after it had been properly moved to the one section in dispute, and blanked a paragraph and replaced it with his own POV paragraph
18:43, January 11, 2006: revert of change I made to the page that has nothing to do with the section in dispute; I can provide evidence to back up the factual nature of my change, if you'd like
10:22, January 12, 2006: another revert/rewrite to completely change an allegation of liberal bias to an allegation of conservative bias

I believe the first five examples I listed above constitute a clear second 3RR violation on his part (it all took place in a span of 18 hours), but I've listed everything just so you know the entire series of events. Thanks again for your time looking into this. --Aaron 21:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your help in this matter. Sorry to take up your time. --Aaron 23:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

User page[edit]

Thanks for the redesign, but KnowledgeOfSelf had already beaten you to it by about two months... :P. I changed it back because all of my user space now uses that same format, and I couldn't figure out a way to adjust the design of all the pages. But thanks, anyways! Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Wikiquote[edit]

Hi there CP. I was just going over some edits and I found that the Wikiquote and other sister projects templates are not placed in a certain area. {ex. the Adam Copeland page has it listed on the top of the article and Mark Calaway article has it listed at the bottom). I wanted to propose that it be listed at the top (see: Adam Copeland for the way I wanted it to be done). But where would I make such a proposal for that template. I'm not sure how many people would agree with me on this but I think that the templates for sister projects should be listed at the top. — Moe ε 04:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

My RfA[edit]

Thank you for supporting me on my successful RfA! It passed with a final tally of 40/9/1. If there's anything I can do to help, just ask! Sceptr e ^(Talk)

UK Internet for Learning Vandalism[edit]

I see you have unblocked the 62.171.194.0/26 range. I understand that you edit from this IP range and while you need to be accomodated, something needs to be done to stop the vandalism from this range. It is out of control. Every IP has dozens of warnings on their talk page, and dozens of blocks in the logs. Have you seen the discussion at WP:ANI#Inexhaustible vandalism from the UK Internet for Learning: range block warranted.3F? User:Zoe has emailed [email protected] (which is listed on the IP WHOIS) and received no response. I'd be very grateful if you could participate in this discussion and help figure out what can be done. I have spent hours searching for and reverting vandalism for every day this range has gone unblocked this week. I have also caught many subtle bad faith edits that would likely have gone unnoticed had someone not been researching the contributions from those IPs for vandalism. The history of the IPs certainly seems to warrant an extended block. There are 8 hours until school is in session again. Could you help? Thanks. -- Renesis13 00:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Polling the 31/36 hour block...[edit]

...here. BD2412 T 02:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Amibidhrohi blocking[edit]

I suggest you reconsider the blocking of User:Amibidhrohi over the CNN edit war. By Wikipedia:Blocking policy, I do not think that blocking for reasons of 'major POV slant' without arbitration or community consensus to be appropiate, or indeed allowed by guidelines. Clearly, by reading the appropiate talkpage, the user in question is guilty of incivility and possibly POV pushing - but so it seems have other users.

It seems to me that the correct action to resolve the dispute permanently is not to do as you did and give the appearance that one side can 'win' by appealling to a higher power, but by submitting the matter to some sort of mediation, third view etc and wringing out a broader consensus than 3 flame warriors can achieve. At the very least, you should have allowed the user to answer back for himself and explain his position. As a measure of good faith, I would recommend that you remove the Block asap and write up a RFC entry.--Fangz 04:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree. He looked for an uninvolved admin on IRC, explained the situation more calmly, and I do think that the other side is guilty of POV pushing also. However, that isn't a blockable offense, at least not with the current policy. I won't unblock myself, but I hope you look more into this. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- "He looked for an uninvolved admin on IRC..." Interesting. That's exactly how all this started, when I went onto IRC to ask for an uninvolved admin to look at the CNN situation; Celestianpower agreed to do so, and the result was Amibidhrohi's first 3RR block. I stand by my evidence as posted above; he has given numerous indications of acting in bad faith in his actions on CNN and Fox News Channel (which include instances not merely of adding information supporting his own POV but completely blanking what was already there in order to turn the section into the mirror image of what it had been), his statements on Talk:CNN and Talk:Fox News Channel, and both his statements and actions on his own talk page (check the history on that page; don't just read it as it currently stands). I am in no way against any changes to the "Allegations of bias" sections of either of those two pages, so long as everyone involved works towards consensus (I have left edits of his intact when I felt they legitimately added to the bias section). If Amibidhrohi will be willing to work with us to create bias sections on those pages that present both sides of the argument, instead of blanking and replacing entire article sections with his own rewrites, there will be no further problems. --Aaron 05:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- My two cents: Titoxd said "I do think that the other side is guilty of POV pushing also." since I have had the most heated discussions with Amib on the talk page, I am guessing this could be referring to me. if so, i would like you to point out what i said that could be construed as "POV pushing". without cutting and pasting and making this talkpage insanely long, anyone can read Amib's comments on the cnn talk-page and in particular the foxnews talk page (ie: UK perspectives December 22nd) and see he is pushing his agenda. he repeatedly wiped out the entire controversies section for CNN because he didn't like what it said. after he got banned, he has stopped that practice, but he is still deleting most of the controversies section on a regular basis. his official "reason" for deleting the cnn section was because things weren't cited properly, after everything was cited properly, he still continued eliminating everything. This was after saying on the fox news page that as long as something could be cited it belonged. he is employing different standards on different pages because, as he has made clear, he despises fox news. off subject a little, but i think alot of the problem could be solved if a uniform standard was agreed upon for both the Fox News and the CNN controversies section. Amib is not willing to do this. i personally don't think that just because something can be cited that it belongs on wiki(as there are partisan websites devoted to attacking each news site). imo both sides deserve a concise controversies section with maybe a half dozen or so of the strongest gripes that people may have. the cnn site, as it currently exists, is a good example of how this can be achieved. fox news, obviously, has gone well beyond this. even though this is my opinion, i have never gone about unilaterally enforcing my opinion through editing like Amib has repeatedly done. anyways, i'm rambling, but this is my POV FWIW. RonMexico 14:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Howdie...My justifications for deleting that mess on the CNN page is detailed on the CNN talk page. POV is a secondary concern when the information added constitutes original research and their sources do not support the text being posted on the entry. I've kept everything that is backed by a reasonably cited source on the page.

Until I began editing the entry, the heading sentence that precedes the allegations (under bullets) read:

"CNN has come under criticism by conservatives for alleged liberal bias. Critics have claimed that CNN's reporting contains liberal editorializing within news stories, and have jokingly referred to CNN as the "Clinton News Network," the "Communist News Network," or "Clearly Not Neutral". Conservatives point to the following as evidence of the alleged bias:"

This opening sentence had been reverted to by both Ronmexico and Aaron despite its highly POV meaning. If you can't see the POV in that, well...

The bullet points uder it use various sites of sources, all but one fail to imply that CNN was actually baised.

I removed that opening sentence because of its POV nature and those bulleted points under it that were constructed from the Original research of the WP editors who added them. How is my removing them amounting to POV? When one of the claims from that list were finally backed by a source that actually made the allegation posted on the WP entry, the Lou Dobbs paragraph, I kept it, along with the opening line.

I added one other allegation that amounted to criticism levied by the another side (not necessarily liberal), that being that critics claim the media, including CNN, dealt with the Bush administrative with 'kid gloves' (quoting the article cited) after the 9-11 tragedy, and particularly in dealing with pre-war intelligence. In the paragraph I added, I didn't even make a claim that this amounted to bias of any kind, but rather intimidation of CNN. How is that POV?

I'd like to phrase my understanding in a nicer tone, but since accuracy trumps niceness...Ronmexico and Aaron are so delusional under their political ideological allegiance that anything that claims anything other than that CNN is part of some liberal cabal amounts to POV. My very last post before you had me banned included most of their allegations in addition to mine. Not because I felt the information they stand behind is any more credible than before, but merely as a compromise. If having the article being 100% credible isn't an option, 50% credible and 50% rubbish will just have to do. And you STILL blocked me.

As for Celestianpower, as an NPOV admin, I hope you wouldn't mind telling me whom I'd have to consult over having your administrative powers revoked. You're a poor administrator here, not up to the task of handling disputes on Wikipedia. You didn't participate on the CNN page, you didn't ask me about my edits, you didn't warn me regarding the block. You've shown nothing to demonstrate you were aware of the conflict on the entry, much less that you're a credible authority to be silencing people on the basis of your findings. You're incompetent. Amibidhrohi 17:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you deserve to know that Amibidhrohi is continuing his one-man attack campaign against you on other pages: Talk:CNN#Celestianpower_abusing_his.2Fher_Admin_Powers. --Aaron 18:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think an admin frivilously blocking people is something to be taken lightly. In the context of the CNN article, it's important to note what voices are being kept from expressing themselves. Amibidhrohi 19:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

it is getting incredibly tiresome and not even worth the effort to correct amib's increasingly frequent vandalism. I am requesting that an administrator go to the cnn and foxnews pages and edit using an even standard on both pages. amib has given up any facade of being fair, he is blatantly using different standards for different things. all i'm asking, begging, for is a universal standard. and just saying "look at the rules" will not help because we are dealing with someone who is repeatedly breaking all the rules. ETA: i apologize to celest for the length of all this discussion, and appreciate your effort in dealing with this issue. RonMexico 22:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

You're not asking for AN admin, you're asking for THIS admin, who's behavior regarding my account has been critisized by three other admins as overstepping. Amibidhrohi 23:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to block Amibidhrohi again. I'm consulting another admin now and if that isn't satisfactory, please take it to WP:AN/I. I have also, you may like to know, responded here. --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 09:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Celestianpower has requested that I step in as a neutral administrator. Fundamentally, the issue at hand appears to be a content dispute; please see the dispute resolution process for the CNN dispute, which I will not address further.

Amibidhrohi was blocked for violating the spirit of the 3RR rule by Celestianpower, which the blocked user disputes. It is not the duty or right of an administrator to decide a dispute either way; Celestianpower acted on an apparent violation of policy, not in regard to the dispute itself. The block does not seem to have been frivolous; although other administrators later disagreed with his judgement, that does not make Celestianpower an incompetant administrator. The fact that Celestianpower was willing to submit to another administrator when their neutrality was called into question demonstrates a respect for due fairness. Your editing priviledges have been restored by another administrator and Celestianpower has not interfered with the underlying dispute. If you'd still like to question their ability as an administrator, I would suggest filing a request for comment with supporting evidence. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 09:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Amibidhrohi's claim above that Celestianpower's action "has been critisized by three other admins as overstepping", let the record show that: 1) Only two admins said anything at all, and merely suggested Celestianpower give the matter a second look. They did not give Amibidhrohi what he actually sought. 2) Amibidhrohi engaged in a classic "admin shopping" campaign, returning to IRC repeatedly at different times of day until he found what he wanted: an admin willing to unblock him. Once again, evidence of bad faith. Also, let the record show that the moment he got what he sought, he immediately resumed his POV edits of CNN and Fox News Channel. --Aaron 18:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

You're mistaken here. Celestianpower blocked my account twice. Celestianpower stated that the first block was because of a 3RR violation although, and Celestianpower acknowleges in the block list, I didn't 'technically' violate 3RR, but the number of edits across a 34 hour period left blocking within Celestianpower's 'descretion'. How true all that is, I don't know. I didn't protest the ban and simply let the period of the ban expire. Please note, my protest is not against the first block.

As to the first block, I was well within my rights per WP:3RR. Lets no longer talk about that one. --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 21:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The second block is the reason for my protest. Both in my talk page and in the blocklist, Celestianpower cites "highly POV" as his/her justification for blocking me again for 31 hours.I challenged Celestianpower repeatedly to tell me in words exactly in what direction he/she found my POV to slant. I presume such justification would have to be supported with evidence. As always, I recieved nothing but silence from Celestianpower. From the other admins I spoke to, Celestianpower had no authority to block me on POV grounds. Even if he/she did, I expect that in good faith Celestianpower would be obliged to communicate with me instead of summarily blocking me. As I stated above, I have not seen Celestianpower engage in any discussions in the CNN talk page. He/she has not edited the article. For all I know, Celestianpower is not even conscious of the ongoings on the CNN page; and all that is assuming the best and that Celestianpower operates in good faith.

Pathoschild, since you're involved here, I'd ask you to go to the CNN entry and inspect the "Controversy/bias" section. Look at how it was constructed prior to my first edits on that page. Then go to the talk page and read my corrosponding criticism of how that section was structured, and particularly the POV nature in which sources were misquoted and misinterpreted. Then go to my last edits before the second ban was applied. Then tell me which version seems more NPOV. And then I'd ask you what I've asked Celestianpower to do twice: based on the edits on the actual article, in which direction do you find my POV to slant? I expect the answer to be based on the article and not the discussion, and with actual references as to where I'm guilty of POV pushing.

As he said, the actual content of the article is not for discussion here. We're discussiong my actions. --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 21:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Your action was to block me because my edits were POV.That is the statement on the blocklist, that is the statement on my talk page. My POV can only be determined by my actions in editing that page. For you to be able to become conscious of those POV edits, you'd have to READ the edits I made. As such, the actual content of the article is totally relevant. Amibidhrohi 22:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I do stand by my statement that Celestianpower is incompetent. That's my good-faith interpretation of how this all worked out. The other possible explanation is that an otherwise competent admin has been highly malevolent in this case. Amibidhrohi 17:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with both your analyses. I am not incompetant and not malicious as I hope most people will tell you. I believe that, given your previous 4 reverts, then reverting again when the block was over justifies another block, POV or not (and I took it to be POV because of the constant reverts and opposition on the talkpage). And as I said earlier, I was away whenyou contacted me so of course I didn't reply straight away. I am however replying now. Also, if you want to talk about trying to contact me, this is the email you sent, in the interests of full disclosure:

What the fuck is wrong with you, you witless retard? Do you even bother to check the reasons I edited the CNN article? The sources cited previously by whoever previously created the Controversy section did NOT support the allegations actually put on the board. That constituted original research, which is NOT ALLOWED under Wikipedia rules. I added controversies that were supported by major publications, allegations addressed by CNN itself on its programming and in other publications. The difference between my edits and theirs is that mine MEETS standards set by Wikipedia rules, the others did not. In my last several posts, I allowed the conservative-biased POV allegations by Aaron and Ronmexico to stay even though they were supported by things as unrealiable as personal blogs, simply so that the edit warring can end. Do you even bother to check what's going on in the page before you make your fucking judgements? Aaron doesn't even participate in the discussions, and Ronmexico's defenses are juvenile. You're fucking useless.

Hardly CIVIL, good-faith assuming and certainly a a personal attack. --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 21:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It would violate guidelines of civility and good-faith IF had I posted that on Wikipedia. I sent that to your e-mail account though. Offensive actions are worse than offensive words in my opinion, and that e-mail response for your frivilous abuse of your authority was the least you deserved. Show me where a single revert after a 3RR-violation-that-isn't-a-3RR-violation justifies another block. As for your presumtion that my edits were POV were justified because of complaints on the discussion page, only ONE person voiced opposition on the talk page, that being Ronmexico (aaron tends to prefer reverting articles without notice). It didn't occur to you that he could be the one engaged in POV pushing?

So let's sum up your justification for the ban: 2, possibly 3 edits (not reverts); and the complaints on the talk page by one editor, the same one who had for months kept allegations on the page that deliberately misinterpreted sources to suggest CNN served Saddam Hussein and North Korea. Brilliant. This doesn't help your claim that you're not incompetent. As before, out of good faith, I'll presume you weren't malevolent as well. Amibidhrohi 22:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not going to discuss whether the second block was justified or not. But Amibidhrohi, I think it's quite a bold statement to call someone incompetent or highly malevolent because of an incident like this. I can certainly imagine your being upset with that second block, but it is an overstatement to call that it incompetency, bad faith or 'frivolous blocking': did you really find any other examples of him doing stuff like this on a regular basis, more than any average admin? I kindly ask you to keep it civil and not engage in personal attacks. If you really believe that Celestianpower should no longer be an admin, follow the proper procedures like Pathoschild indicated above. --Joann e B 21:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Joann, if you don't want to discuss the block, please have the courtesy not to discuss my response to it either. It's unfair for you to be silent on the offense while being vocal on how one responds to it. It's very unWikilike. Amibidhrohi 22:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid that's not true. If she feels that you are being uncivil, not assuming faith and making personal attacks then she, an impartial administrator is perfectly within her rights to do so. Just like I can block for 3RR (first block) and not have ever editted CNN. --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 22:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

With every reply you seem less and less intelligent. No wonder you prefer silence. I never said she CAN'T respond, I said it's unfair that she does voice her opinion on one side of the conflict after announcing she'll remain quiet on the other. A fair and 'impartial' individual considers all sides before passing judgements. She's basically closing her eyes to one's offense and taking exception with the other. There are moralities and perspectives on this planet of ours beyond the regulations of Wikipedia. I'm not saying her comment is Wiki-illegal. I'm saying it's unfair. It is unfair. That's my personal opinion. Amibidhrohi 22:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Another personal attack. You really should stop it. You complain about my breach of policy yet you keep breaching 3 (seemingly with every post). Plus, it is not unfair. She is an amdinistrator. It is her job to police personal attacks and uncivilness etc and that's what she's done. We are on Wikipedia at the moment and it is actively encouraged to do what she did. Please listen to her rather than just complaining that she said anything at all. --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 23:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Well at least you acknowlege your breach of policy. My comments are observations, not personal attacks. Aside from that e-mail of course, which falls outside of Wikipedia's jurisdiction. I sincerely feel you're not up to being an admin on wikipedia. I don't even feel you'd make a good editor on articles. From the limited experience I've had with how you do your little job here, I feel you're unintelligent and that you're impulsive. Those are my opinions. My observations. If you take them to heart, that's you. I take it you're an actual human being and not a bot; as such I presume you understand that there are definitions of 'unfair' outside of the Wikipedia rulebook. Other admins did comment on your frivilous use of the block, she could have too. Instead she chose to ignore your 'breach of policy' and comment on me. Anyway, this is about you and not her, so that's all I'll say of that. Cheers. Amibidhrohi 23:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Whether I was wrong or not, you don't have the right to breach policies to make that point. Your replies are baltant personal attacks. I am not incompetant and not malicious. As to your opinion that I make a bad Administrator is completely false. at least 60 people and many more disagree (I am in fact leader of Esperanza so a lot of people have a lot of trust in me). And yes, admins did comment but none of them said I was incompetant, just slightly overstepping. I feel differently but there you are. We disagree and none of us here (other than you) have personally attacked eachother, been uncivil and we have all assumed good faith. If you rreally feel strongly then feel free to launch an RfC and you'll see how much support I get. --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 12:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Amibidhrohi, in a case like this, checking if a block was justified or not is quite a lot of work, if you want to do it properly. In the past, I have done so a couple of times for people that felt they were blocked for the wrong reasons or for too long. However, as reading all the 'evidence' and trying to get a good view of the situation takes a lot of time and effort, I only do so if I feel that the blocked user has asked me (or the Wikipedia community as a whole) 'nicely': in a civil tone, in the right location etc. etc. You did not do so, so I don't feel obliged to do all that research. Is that unfair? I don't think so, since I'm not a judge and I do not pretend to be one. I'm no ArbCom either. I'm just a Wikipedian seeing another Wikipedian making unfair accusations towards yet another Wikipedian and responding to that. I do not believe that anything is wrong with that. I did not claim that I was impartial - but I do believe that I was fair. If you want a impartial second opinion about that block, by all means ask for one, but not like this. --Joann e B 23:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not requesting that you check out the block or anything. I had no intention to. The only point I'm making is that you're not aware of what happened and why, and for that reason it's unfair for you to comment on my response to that situation. I'm not asking you to take the trouble to do anything. Heck, I would have preferred you'd taken less trouble than you already have. I'm asking that you remain silent on my response to the block.

I've taken a second opinion already, and a third, and they agree Celestianpower acted wrongly. Anyway, I'm done discussing this issue. Reply if you want, don't if you don't want to. I'm out. Amibidhrohi 23:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

She is commenting upon a breach of policy, perfectly unsder her juristiction. You cannot make people be silent because you dislike what they are saying. --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 12:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Jesus...Whatever she's doing, I can voice my opinion to it. This is a discussion page, not an encyclopedia entry. I didn't say she should be MADE silent. I have no intention of 'making her silent'. Just giving my opinion here, which I think is a perfectly valid one. As for her jurisdiction, commentary on talk page is within everyone's jurisdiction. You're an illustration of all that's wrong with Wikipedia. You don't make logical sense, you derive understandings of things that are said that weren't in fact said. You make snap judgements on things without taking the information for what it is. You're too underqualified to undertake anything of an intellectual or scholarly nature. Wikipedia is worse off having the likes of you as an admin.Amibidhrohi 15:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm starting to get quite annoyed at your constant, unending personal attacks and incivility. I urge you to file an RfC and then we can see who has the community's backing. You aren't giving your opinion, you are attacking me. If you continue to make these personal attacks, I may file an RfC against you. --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 16:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

From what I read here I can tell that obviously a user eager to share his knowledge with other users has gotten in the way of an extremely arrogant admin and one who can't cope with criticism. The thing about reverting an article can be seen from various points of view. Either Amibedhrohi reverted the article in order to POV it or you reverted it to delete info given by him which you didn't like. He wanted his info back on the page but you didn't let him. Maybe in this case it wasn't him who started the edit war but it was you. You'd better think about that instead of abusing your powers as an admin to start an RfC against an innocent user. You provoked him by first banning Amibidhrohi twice then not answering at all when he wanted to know what you were up to, and then trying to worm around telling him why you thought his contributiion was POV. You're clearly not as good an admin as you seem to think. What about resigning as an admin and having your account deleted? --89.54.243.112 14:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

As to resignation as admin and deletion of my account, firstly, account deletion is impossible. Secondly, get an account then file an RfC if you aren't happy with my conduct. Then we can see who gets the community's backing. --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 14:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah I think I'd like to do that. You're sooo sure that you're backed by the community and I'd really like to see your face when you're sacked. :-)))))))))) And whatsoever, you were far from impartial on this thing. You banned Amibedhrohi and not that other dude RonMexico who was included in that clash of opinions. Why Amibredhrohi and not the RonMexico? Just because Amibredhodi stood for his opinion and RonMexico didn't? What was your decision based on to attack Amibredhrhohi and not RonMexico, before Amibredhrohi attacked you because you provoked him? --89.54.243.112 22:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Your school[edit]

Hey man, first of all, do you have access to "Internet preferences" ? Tools->options in Firefox, Tools->internet options in IE. If you do, you could try changing the proxy settings to just one of those IPs (its probably currently a round-robin) and then use that one and block all the others. If it is only set to one IP, this is probably some kind of local proxy that makes requests to a round-robin of upstream proxies. In this case, you can still try and make direct requests to the upstream proxies, but I don't know if it will work. Is your sysadmin a reasonable (and non-braindead) guy? You could ask him about it. If all else fails I can set you up some kind of HTTP/HTTP proxy. If you have no idea what I just wrote and you think you might be interested in it, feel free to email me. - FrancisTyers 10:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, basically the fourth option would involve me setting up CGIProxy [1] somewhere and giving you passworded access to it. This is not an ideal solution, as it would only be available to you, and wouldn't allow other users to edit, but it would be a solution for if you need to edit but the IP is blocked and you don't want to unblock it. Let me know if you want me to set it up.

Is there a possibility of asking your admin to grant you more privileges? e.g. access to the Internet preferences in Firefox/IE? I was very fortunate at school that we didn't have a full time administrator so I got to help out, admin access etc. But maybe your school is better funded :) It all depends on how good terms with him/her you are ;) - FrancisTyers 17:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Snicket Wikiproject[edit]

Thanks for offering, but I think I'll pass. My interest in the series is currently fading - everyone on the Snickwiki can attest to that. I may take you up on this that certain Friday in October, though. Thanks again! - Doug teh H-Nut 18:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Laughing...[edit]

...at your heap of messages you have to deal with then you get online :) →Fir e Fox 19:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha[edit]

...yeah, it does. :)

Actually something very odd was going on, whenever I opened my userpage it showed an old vandalized version, but when I clicked on the most recent revision it showed my normal page... So it looks like I used a false edit summary on my userpage, but what I did actually fixed the problem. Very weird... Banes 11:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)