User talk:Dschor

Welcome!

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in an RfAr. You do not have the right to edit wikipedia, and if you annoy an administrator, you will be shot on sight. Have a nice day.

Welcome!

Hello, Dschor, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few more good links to help you get started:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia Hi, you may wish to know this article is in VfD, this is nothing personal, it is about the article, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Nero (band). There is a question about whether they are they same band as mentioned on All Music Guide, if they are, please confirm it. Alf 10:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi

How's the article coming on? I see you put in some links, I'll go and tinker with the article a bit. The 'experiencing difficulties' is going to have to go though. Alf 22:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, done, go have a look, and I guessed CD is 2005? - I piped all year links to '200* in music', so if it's 2004, both year dates need changing. Please correct any unintentional errors. I removed a redundant url as it doesn't add to the article content, which is the basic premise for their inclusion. Alf 23:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject:Fascism

As a neutral party that was asked to step in by another involved party, I request that you please reveal your sources regarding your information presented ont he republican party. Without credible support your information is not of any value and will not adequately contribute to a wikipedia article of any sort. In the past wikipedia has come under fire for inadequately sourcing its articles, and a result, referencing is taken very seriously for the purpose of validity in this community.--OniOokamiAlfador 22:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Your concerns are appreciated. I do understand that wikipedia's accuracy depends on citation of sources. Wikipedia also depends on people acting in a bold manner to initiate the process of article creation and improvement. An article without citations is better than no article at all, particularly if there is an interest in the article that may provide the means to add sources and citations. If you find that any articles I have produced fail to include adequate references, feel free to add the appropriate citations. --Dschor 12:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Not to be hostile in any way, I should point out that its usually up to the person making a statment to cite it. In talk pages everything is fine as statement unless a citation is requested, but if you want the information to make it into the article and stay it would be in your best interest to include a citation. The Article without better than no article at all concept only holds true in certain cases. Specifically when that knowledge comes from schooling, and common knowledge. One user adding citations for another user's statements is a reasonably inefficient process as people tend to do research differently, and not everyone has seen the same studies, read the same books, etc. As far as bold initiation is concerned, that is true, however it is an implied responsibility that one must be able to stand by any statements made, and that one should make sure that such statements fall within scope and reason. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 09:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Not be contrarian, but I should point out that much of the information that I include in my statements is common knowledge, or comes from basic education. I am not completely fluent in the ways of wikipedia, and hope to be a very helpful and considerate member of this community. I certainly have stood by the statements that I have made, and I do believe that they fall within scope and reason. In an effort to avoid further difficulties, I have added an article specifically devoted to Fascism in the United States, where these issues can be resolved without negatively impacting the broader articles on Fascism, Neo-Fascism, and the GOP. If you still feel that mediation is in order, by all means do request that it be initiated, but please note that I have made little effort to alter the articles in question, and have confined my edits primarily to the talk page(s). I look forward to many fruitful conversations on the topic of Fascism, and hope that no hard feelings will result from my interest in the subject as it relates to the United States. --Dschor 05:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

With regard to your reverting Fascism (United States) -- don't just revert out of hand. Instead, read what was written and incorporate it to make your article better. Yes, puring sources is bad, but that doesn't mean everything should just go back how it was. - Stlemur 01:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand that reverting is not the ideal solution. However, it is the only immediate response to page vandalism of the sort that the article experienced. The article was truncated, and sources for the remaining text were therefore purged. I encourage others to edit the article - but if the only edit made is a wholesale deletion, with minimal commentary, then a revert is called for. There was active editing occuring on this article, and the removal of sources for the remaining paragraphs was not explained - it was clearly an act of vandalism. --Dschor 01:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

A differing opinion, on an article that is still heavily POV, is not vandalism. - Stlemur 01:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Blanking a large portion of an article, and removing all citations from the remaining article, is an act of vandalism. It does not help to improve the article, and very clearly falls under the definition of Wikipedia:Vandalism. --Dschor 02:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

With regard to your statement on Talk:Fascism (United States): I have heard the POV OR claim plenty of times here. The content was well cited, and I would have been happy to add more, but it is fairly difficult for one person to keep up with the pace of developments in this area. I think you overstate matters when you state that the "complete arc of fascism in the United States" exists primarily in my head. I think any reasonable observer who would take a step back and look at the United States from an outside perspective could see the steady progress toward fascism that has been made over the last seventy years. Almost all of the citations have been edited out, along with the content. With such a hostile group of editors collected here, I saw little chance of success for gradual improvement. The only thing holding the examples together is the common movement toward fascism in the United States, which has been accelerated greatly my the current administration. I simply do not have the energy to fight with multiple editors who continually blank, revert and remove anything that I try to add. I will be happy to try again, but I can see that collaborative editing is a joke here. --Dschor 10:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll reply here because I don't think that article's talk page is the right place. I think you're being unfair to us; certainly I and many of the other members of Wikiproject Fascism have tried to help, held your hand through every step of the process...and you just don't seem to get it. Yeah, you've cited sources which support your thesis — but you've purposely ignored sources which contradict it and the sources you have cited have, by and large, been non-academic. When you say "any reasonable observer who would take a step back and look at the United States from an outside perspective could see the steady progress toward fascism that has been made over the last seventy years", that only indicates to me that you came to this article with an agenda; if on the other hand you're resolved to reject the vast majority of modern historians' work, on the basis that as they don't agree with your thesis they cannot possibly be reasonable observers, then what you're doing simply isn't compatible with encyclopedic writing.

Now, I'll say here that in broad strokes I agree with you: I think there has been, since Reagan at least, a fascistic bent in the Republican Party's policies. But it isn't enough for you or both of us to believe that; it has to be a serious, reasonably mainstream idea within the academic community; that means historians and sociologists, not editorial writers. If you're going to say that the historians and sociologists aren't worth listening to, then we run into a problem again, because the overarching consensus here is that peer-reviewing communities are the only reliable sources.

Anyway, from the outset I've been assuming good faith in editing on your part and I'd hoped you'd been assuming it on mine. If that's something you can't do, then maybe you should back away from this page for awhile; work on others with more contributors, get a better feel for what's POV and what's not. Don't hesitate to ask for help. But if you come with an axe to grind, then don't be surprised when the people who are working for neutrality and objectivity remove what you've written without a second thought. --Stlemur 13:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Has Wikipedia dropped all pretense of NPOV? (copied from Dschor's user page)

Or is "NPOV" the same thing as what the mainstream media calls "objectivity"- extreme leftist lunacy thinly disguised as mainstream thought? That article has no place on a serious website, period. --User:WinOne4TheGipper 00:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you for vandalism to my User page.
  • Sorry. I won't do it again.
    • This is much better.
• This continues the theme of vandalism that you began at the Fascism (United States) page.
  • Ah, yes, the page that clearly violates NPOV and reads like half of the monkeys working on Shakespeare's works took a bit of time to do satire.
    • Yes, we do appreciate satire. Glad to see you are contributing to the task. Ee ee oo oo. Ah, yes. Where were we?
• If you wish to make a comment, the discussion page is the appropriate location.
  • Done.
    • That wasn't so hard.
• NPOV means a consensus should be sought - not that the 'Gipper' always gets to have it his way.
  • Ah, yes. "Consensus". Also known as "Call the other guy a fascist because I can't win an argument".

Has Wikipedia dropped all pretense of NPOV?

• • • Fascist used as a slur was covered in the article. Fascist used as a descriptive term is perfectly appropriate. 'Consensus' still confusing? Oh, well.
• You may consider the mainstream media to be leftist loonies, while I consider them to be right-wing tools.
  • Of course you do.
  • Damn those right wing tools that tried to fraudulently influence an election with forged memos. Oh, wait.
    • Right wing tools that enable government fraud and fraudulent elections. Those tools. Did you miss something?
• Regardless, editing should seek to improve articles, not to blank them - this is considered vandalism. As is your edit to this page.
  • I did improve the article by removing the moonbat droppings. Please refrain from posting them again. As I understand it, Wikipedia is supposed to be a mainstream website. If you ever feel the need to spread that kind of nonsense, you always have DU, but I'm sure you know about that site already.
    • You did vandalize the article by removing the citations, references, and a large portion of the content. They have been restored, and more citations, references and content added as well. Feel free to add more - but please refrain from removing articles and blanking pages based on your own POV. You can keep the moonbat droppings, friend. --Dschor 23:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

(Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dschor)

Carlo Giuseppe Testore

Do you have any evidence this guy exists? Without the fluff about being fantastic it contained, there's not really much left to assert his notability. The article needs sources to avoid being deleted. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

This guy has been dead for a long time, but there is plenty of evidence of his existence, even on Wikipedia itself. His notability is unquestionable if you take a look at the luthier article, or are familiar with the double bass. Not a speedy - just a stub. --Dschor 12:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Dead Guy Ale

Hey, i saw you just made the article Dead Guy Ale, I've categorized it, but otherwise it looked good. Since your edit summary said: "hoping this is okay - my first beer article", i thought you might like two pointers: 1) You marked your edit as minor, it is not. Minor edits are for small style corrections, typos, spaces etc. a new article is never minor. Sometimes an edit of only one word can be considered major. You were humble, that was not necessary. 2) New articles are hard to notice if they are not categorized, it is good policy to always categorize an article. The best way is probably to find a similar article and use that category. If you're not sure of a category, use a more general category and mark it as a stub. Hope this helps :) Siebren 00:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

And i just see you already noticed :) Siebren

Thanks

Thanks. Kevin baas 04:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

This User is Ranked #420 on the List of Wikipedia Editors!

Congratulations. Whether intentional or not, you are in a favored position. Well done. Thanks for all your inspiration, as well! --Dschor 10:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! However I am no folowing you, whats this ranking based on? :0 --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 11:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Rank is based on total number of edits - and you seem to be prolific. See Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits. --Dschor 19:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh that. Last time I checked that I had about 1200 edits... man time does fly... --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 10:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Userboxes and fair use images

Certainly. The point is that userboxes are not used on encyclopedia articles. Use of copyrighted images under the fair use provision of US law tends to require an educational, critical, etc. usage of the image. "Illustrative" purposes are not permissible. Our use of images in userboxes does not fall under the fair use provision of US law. Rob Church ^Talk 20:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

These images are logos, and as such they are considered fair use for identification purposes. It seems unlikely that there would be any objections. --Dschor 20:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect. Such uses are not fair use under that provision of United States law. Please go and read up on it. Meantime, I'd like to see a valid fair use rationale for the use of that image on Template:User rogue. Rob Church ^Talk 21:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Your understanding of fair use does not seem to fit with the definition given at Wikipedia:Logos, where such use is specifically allowed. --Dschor 21:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me state it again. It is a user box. It is not being used for the purposes of encyclopedic merit and we cannot claim to use such images under the fair use provision of US law. Mere illustrative purposes, which is what this is, are not acceptable. Regardless, I'm entitled to ask to see a fair use rationale if you're going to claim fair use. Rob Church ^Talk 00:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately he's right, we can't use fairuse images on logos. As such I have reverted several of the templates back to the versions without fairuse images and I had to entirely delete the rogue nation image since without usage in the article we can't claim fairuse on it and therefore can't have it up. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

And as per your statement here, I'd strongly advise against it since blatantly ignoring wikipedia rules will most likely end in you being blocked from editing. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not targetting any particular userboxes in general but we cannot have fairuse images in fair use since fair use only applies to academic style use (i.e. Wikipedia articles) or critical commentary use, or of course parody. userboxes and templates in general for that matter don't fall under any of those criteria so we can't claim fairuse for those usages and thus it would be a copyright violation for us to use them. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that anybody ignore the rules. Userboxes serve a purpose that falls within the scope of fair use. In what way would using these logos constitute a violation of copyright? --Dschor 07:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Because whether you believe it or not userboxes do not fall under fair use in terms of image usage. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 07:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

btw, you're right yellow is much more appetizing then the grey that was previously there on the User sushi template. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 08:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:User ACLU

Will be it ok if I replace the icon you have for this template, that you created, with a PD photo of the Statue of Liberty (which, is also featured in the ACLU logo)? Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 00:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I uploaded the icon, how is it now? Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 00:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Humor

For this light-hearted comment, I award you a Barnstar of Good Humor Circeus 15:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Aibonkago.jpg

This image is listed as fair use. I'm afaraid it is against policy to have fair use images in the user namespace. Could you remove it please?Geni 18:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

I am blocking you for 24 hours for personal attacksL re Template:User support Kelly Martin2. It is not acceptable to call another user a fascist. --Doc ^ask? 00:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I am forced to conclude that you failed to note that Kelly describes herself as a "grammar fascist" in the opening of her own User page. Please remove this block - it is not a personal attack to quote a self-description from her user page. --Dschor 00:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

KM	This user does not support Kelly Martin. Beware the fascist!

No, I didn't review Kelly's userpage. Calling someone a fascist is not on, period. (How people self-describe is another matter.) Further, you didn’t 'quote' Kelly, you created a 'bumper-sticker', using wikipedia’s public template space, designed to parody and publicly demean another user. That is not what Wikimedia’s resources are for. If you want to debate Kelly's actions, there are places WP:RfC to do that. This is not the way.

I was willing to lift your block, if you had indicated some willingness to desist from such actions in future. But your posting of the above template (in edit conflict with this) does not give me much hope that you will do so. --Doc ^ask? 01:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

While I cannot could not see the content of the deleted template, this sounds like a very long bow to stretch indeed. As I was once famously berated for pointing out in an uncivil manner, there exist many many groups for whom self-ascribed labels are acceptable while the application of that label by an outsider is not. Futher, I'd imagine that she was laughing when she wrote that. The spirit does count for something. brenneman^(t)(c) 01:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

For the record, my user page used to say "grammar nazi", but I changed it because someone I respect asked me to on the grounds that "nazi" is, or can be, offensive. "Grammar fascist" doesn't quite have the same cachet, but it will have to do. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The above is not a template, it is a subst of a template. The original version linked to her comment directly. There is no intent to demean or to parody Kelly. I was in the process of debating her actions, and the actions of those who support her. I feel that so long as there is a template of support for her, there should be a template that holds the opposing viewpoint. You may take note that the template never appeared on my user page. Please do lift the block, and my apologies to Kelly if this template is offensive to her. Frankly, I am somewhat amused that this would provide an excuse to block my account. I posted the example here in order to provide some small amount of context for others to understand the situation. My concern is with fairness. Please assume good faith - I found this amusing, and I am sure that there are others who feel the same. --Dschor 01:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have unblocked you - on condition that you do not create any more attack templates. Please do not be amused at this - understand that what you find funny others may not, and may construe as personal attacks. Please be more careful in future. --Doc ^ask? 01:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not plan on making any more templates that refer to individual wikipedians. I do appreciate your unblocking my account, although that action does not appear to have been completed. Please post an update when the block is no longer active. Thanks. --Dschor 01:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I did unblock you earlier - but you had also tripped the autoblocker. I have reset it now, so you shoul be OK. Let me know if there is a problem. --Doc ^ask? 01:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Nice to meet you too

Nice to meet you too.

And yes, being God is the absolute man.

DrIdiot 19:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

{{User oppose Kelly Martin}}

I am disappointed that you created this template (and only hours after being unblocked for your last template and saying "I do not plan on making any more templates that refer to individual wikipedians."). Creating these templates is uncivil and disruptive. Given your history of creating this templates and refusal to stop, I am blocking you for an 8 hours. Please don't do this anymore. This sort of negative campaigning and attacking users is simply not appropriate for Wikipedia. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have been more specific. I was responding to accusations that I created a personal attack, and stating that I did not plan on making any templates attacking individual Wikipedians. I'm afraid that I did not see any harm in creating a userbox that simply stated my personal position on a matter relating to the wikipedia. Apparently professing an opinion on another wikipedian is forbidden, regardless of tone and tenor? I am frustrated that I have been blocked, and these templates deleted, apparently without discussion. Once again, I apologize if anyone was offended, but I must say that I feel it is perfectly appropriate to express opposition to the ArbComm nomination of another wikipedian through userbox. Oh well. I guess I was wrong - apparently personal opinion is not allowed in user space if it involves templates. It looks like subst is all we can do. --Dschor 20:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, since you are so fond of quoting people back at them, what you said (just two paragraphs above) was I do not plan on making any more templates that refer to individual wikipedians. --Doc ^ask? 02:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if I acted inappropriately in this matter. I will leave a fuller explanation of my motives and thoughts tomorrow or earlier if I get time. Thanks. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Doc. Yes, that quote is correct. I was responding to your condition for unblocking, which was to refrain from creating attack templates. I think we had a disagreement about what exactly constitutes an attack template. At the time, I had no plans to create any templates about individual wikipedians, but I changed my mind. I learned that from the fantastic example set by the administrators on wikipedia, you know.  ;-) I do think this has been very educational - now I am aware that there is no warning given by admins. Good day. --Dschor 11:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your patient, Dschor. Wikipedians are traditionally given wide latitude over what they create in their userspace, although of course they are not totally unrestricted. Most people will refrain from negative comments in general, and it is generally considered to be in poor taste to make disparaging remarks about a specific Wikipedia editor—you'll rarely see it done. As long as it does not cross the line into personal attacks, though, it is for the most part acceptable, as long as it stays in the person's userspace. Material in the Wikipedia-wide Template: space is another matter altogether. These are not under the control of a specific user but are part of the project as a whole. I personally dislike templates which exist to criticize or disparage their subject, whether it be a religion, a person, or a language. I would vote to delete any such templates; while users may still write about such matters on their user pages, they should not be creating templates for such matters, in my opinion. However, the specific matter in this case is creating a template criticizing another Wikipedia editor, and it really is inappropriate. I understand that you didn't see the harm, but it really is harmful; please don't do it again. You can express your personal opinion but please keep it in your personal space; don't create other pages to express your opinion. It is not the expression of the opinion that is problematic, but the creation of templates to do so. I assume the remark about lack of warning refers to prior blocks, since you had already been blocked for this, been unblocked and agreed not to create these sorts of templates, and then created one again. In general, I am reluctant to use blocks; this is one of my more controversial ones. Recognizing that, I immediately posted on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Attack templates to ensure that I had not acted inappropriately. The feedback was largely supportive. Nevertheless, perhaps I erred in moving to block so quickly, even for a short duration; my motivation was that discussion had seemed to fail. However, I will try to be better about reaching an understanding rather than outright block. If you feel I have not behaved properly or wish to further discuss these matters, please let me know. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your humility in recognizing that there is room for disagreement in such matters. I think the block was somewhat premature, but I can see that you feel very strongly that it was needed. In the future, a polite warning will probably be sufficient. I understand that creating a template that refers to a specific admin is probably not a good idea in general, but under the circumstances it seemed to be a very appropriate response. I will be sure to consider my actions more carefully in the future. I personally do not see the harm in such templates, particularly as part of a larger debate on the purpose of templates re: userboxes. I was troubled that while I was blocked, the admin in question took the opportunity to edit my user page, and failed to revert upon my explicit request. I think such action is far more troubling than the template that I created, particularly in light of the circumstances. I think that you did the best you could be expected to do, and I hope you will consider making first contact in some other manner in the future - it is no fun to be introduced to an administrator by having them block your account. I still feel that the template I created was not an attack template, but simply an expression of opinion. Thanks for your explanation and I hope our next interaction is more constructive. --Dschor 23:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Come see the violence inherent in the system!

Just amazing to me that rather than follow proper process for deletion, two admins have taken it upon themselves to ban me without proper cause. Rather than allow me to defend my position at the appropriate deletion page, I am denied any opportunity to contribute to the ongoing discussion, and relegated to my user page. Kelly Martin, Tony Sidaway, Snowspinner, Doc and now Knowledge Seeker all seem bent on enforcing very broad administrative rights. This is actually proving that the criticism they find so offensive is true - they are acting in a fascist, cabalist manner, and disrupting the normal functioning of the wiki. User blocking and page deletion continue to be abused, and there is nothing that the average wikipedian can do about it. I will not leave, though - I am having too much fun being the thorn in their paw. The block will pass, and I will continue to represent free speech and free thought on the wikipedia, in defiance of the cabal. --Dschor 21:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh get a grip - stop trying to be a free-speech martyr. Kelly deleted some stuff, it was promptly restored - big deal. The RfC made the point that folks don't agree - now move on. This is not censorship, there are RfC's, RfA's, discussions, votes and elections and 100 ways to have your view on how wikipedia should develop. But you are intent on courting controversy and making this about one individual. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - not your personal playground to have a go at those you disagree with. I thought the block that I imposed and lifted might have encouraged you to stop. Actually Tony, Snowspinner, Kelly and myself agree on just about nothing, except perhaps that your behaviour is tragic.

About the only thing that Tony, Snowspinner, and myself agree on is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Beyond that, we have pretty strong disagreements at times. I haven't argued with Doc enough to know how much we disagree on things, but I bet we all agree on the encyclopedia thing. So, what's Wikipedia to you? Is it an encyclopedia, or a virtual web community? Kelly Martin (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

How would you like me to create this?

This user thinks Dschor should never be an admin and will encourgae others to vote to oppose him.

--Doc ^ask? 21:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

There are 700 admins - if one abuses their power, one of the other 700 will reverse that action. If none do, then all 700 agree. Obviously a Cabal of 700? Or alternatively, everyone agrees with their common sense.--Doc ^ask? 21:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

There was no abuse of power. There was a use of power. The people who are screaming "abuse of power" merely don't understand that Wikipedia is not a rule-driven hierarchical system, but is instead a project to write an encyclopedia. See also Raul654's and JamesF's rejection comments over at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Arbitrators.27_opinion_on_hearing_this_matter_.280.2F6.2F2.2F0.29; a careful examination of their words may help you to achieve wikienlightmentment. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I love it - maybe you actually do have a sense of humor. Too bad you can't abide mine. This never has been about Kelly, or about userboxes - it is about abuse of administrative power. Something that seems to be an ongoing problem. --Dschor 21:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

This user is probably too sensible to be an admin, and will encourage others to be sensible as well.

As far as the 700 admins, it is true that one admin will reverse the action of another at times - unfortunately I have seen a series of administrators abuse their power, even as other admins were reversing them and attempting to foster open dialogue. Sadly, even when it is clear that some wrong has been done, the administrative response is to attempt to hide the problem, rather than to resolve the underlying issues. This is Wiki becoming a cabal, based on administrators doing what they feel is best for themselves, rather than what is best for all. Simple, really. A natural human response, but as you say, tragic. --Dschor 21:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we all agree that wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I think that goes without saying. It is also an organization that needs principles to continue to thrive. --Dschor 21:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Now I see that the administrator in question has made an edit to my user page without my consent. Nice to kick a guy when he's blocked. I'm just a little bit disturbed at what this says about the wiki. --Dschor 00:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that you honor your own words, Kelly:

"I have, after much thought, decided not to seek a full term as Arbitrator, and will further be resigning my adminship at the end of my current term. This is due to my increasing frustration with the general governance of the project, an issue I hoped to be able to do something to fix, but which is apparently broken beyond my ability to help. I hope that others will step up and fix the problems, but I don't have the energy to do it right now." Kelly Martin Revision as of 17:32, 11 November 2005

Just a thought. --Dschor 00:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realize you were still blocked, not that that should matter. Perhaps you should be a bit less touchy. There is no rule that prohibits editing someone else's user page (you will note that someone edited mine today, and I didn't throw a fit about it). I've already explained myself on the issue above on my candidate's question page (which I assume you have at least glanced at, since you added a question to it). Kelly Martin (talk) 02:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

One more thing. Since I am blocked, I would appreciate if someone would remove the reference to Kelly Martin in my Travel Brag sheet, as her assertion is completely erroneous. CoolCat had the idea well before Kelly. I do think she is making this more personal than it ought to be. Bad admin, down! --Dschor 01:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I shan't argue the point with you, but as I recall, Cool Cat took it from me (as he has many other little things). He even asked me if he could before he did. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Your user page

I've reverted as you requested.

I've asked for several of the parties involved to have a good think about what they've been up to, but I'd encourage you to do the same.

The creation of the "oppose" template strayed close to violating WP:POINT. This is not mitigated by the fact that those who created the "support" template were clearly violating it, and spilling the WP:BEANS at the same time.

So, they've acted like idiots. (Not Doc, by the way. While he did push the edge a bit, he was calm and responsive and you had gone over the line there.) The best thing would be for you to not act like an idiot, too. Yeah, they should know better... but so should you. You didn't just get off the boat, you know.

In future, try to make your point with less WP:POINT, ok? The fact that you managed to rile up one of the calmest, most reasonable admins we've got is not a good sign. Things are pretty heated right now, and everyone should be trying to decrease tensions, rather than adding fuel to the fire.

So, can I ask you to not sink the boot into anyone for a couple of days, no matter how much they deserve it?

brenneman^(t)(c) 02:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll do my best to restrain myself. I am curious - is it Doc who you consider one of the calmest, most reasonable admins we've got? He surely seems the only likely candidate here. I do appreciate the revert, though. I just have to wonder what kind of administrator would choose to respond by adding erroneous information to another user's user page. There really was no need. I don't begrudge giving credit where credit is due, but a simple look at the history of Kelly's page was immensely informative. I guess I have learned something about resisting the cabal - resistance is futile. That doesn't mean that I won't stand up for myself, though. Now that I know that admins have the right to play fast and loose with the rules, I will simply have to learn which admins have some respect for policy and procedure, and let them know when I am being squeezed. This sure has been fun, though. I can't think of a better reason to be blocked than as a martyr to free speech and expression on the wikipedia. Thanks for all the excitement. --Dschor 11:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course, you realize that if your goal here is to be a "martyr for free speech", then you are not here to edit the encyclopedia and should be banned. Perhaps you should consider finding a different hobby. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course, you realize that if your goal here is to disrupt the normal functioning of the encyclopedia, then you are not here to edit the encyclopedia and should be banned. Perhaps you should consider finding a different hobby. I am quite happy to edit the encyclopedia, thanks. --Dschor 22:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Your continued provocative edits

Mate, I've been giving a hard time to other people who continue to mix it up. Is there any way that I can convince you to spend some time doing something useful? I've looked over your last few hundred contributions and you've made two in mainspace in the last week.

Just ignore everything else and go and do some wiki-work for a little while. You'll feel better, you'll attract less heat, and you will also give anyone who wants to criticise you a bit less of a stick to whack you with.

brenneman^(t)(c) 09:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks as always for the useful advice. I am afraid I have been a little sidetracked by real life, and by the frenzy of deletionism. Since I returned to the wiki after the New Year, there has been a constant supply of AfD, TfD and adminicruft. I must admit I am a bit off track - it is hard to concentrate when every time I take a look at my user page something is on the chopping block. Hopefully wikipedians will refrain from counterfactual edits to my user page - and I can get back to the articles I was working on before all of this started. For now, I am off to bed to prepare for a little snowboarding tomorrow. I have to admit, Kelly has been a ton of fun, though. --Dschor 09:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes

Nice way to take the pile-on in stride. :) --Interiot 09:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Bullying

Regarding Gmaxwell, you're not the only one he's doing it too. I'm getting it from him too, not because of a user box, but because of an image on my page. Please don't think that all admins are like this, because they very definitely are not. I hope the experience won't give you a negative view of us. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I like to think that I can avoid confusing the actions of one or two administrators with the whole crew. I believe that most of the admins are very dedicated, and take their role very seriously, and that there are times when everybody makes mistakes. Most of the time, admins on wikipedia seem to be responsible and well-respected members of the editing staff, but there are times when this can be overshadowed by the foolishness of a few rogues. I trust that the wikipedia will do fine in spite of this, and that those admins who are more responsible and considerate will step in to moderate any foolishness that does occur. It's comforting in some small way to know that I am not the only victim, although it also troubling to think that this sort of behavior is not as rare as it could be. Fare thee well. --Dschor 22:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

User page stuff

You had a message saying you'd reserve the right to presume that edits to your user page without permission were vandalism. Sorry, but that's not on. There are many reasons why another editor may need to edit your user page, it's part of Wikipedia.

Secondly, while your stated opposition to Kelly Martin was probably okay, the allegation that she is a member of some Cabal is an attack and we don't allow personal attacks. I've removed it for now; please feel free to restore minus the attack. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I have a message asking politely that wikipedians who wish to edit my user page clear their contributions with me. I reserve the right to presume vandalism, particularly when the sole intent of the editor is to remove material that they find personally objectionable. You may need to edit my page, but you do not need to remove my personal opinions from my user space. There is no allegation that Kelly is a member of a cabal - she herself is the one who claims to love the cabal. You are once again proving that it is a good idea to Beware the cabal. Leave my user page alone, and go edit an article or something, instead of bothering me. I have the right to express my opinion here, within the bounds of civility. You are trying my patience with your uncivil edits, and are approaching WP:DICK status. If you don't have something useful to add, stop editing. --Dschor 10:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Whilst Tony Sidaway is usually a good editor, he does have a habit of back patting. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Recent Changes Camp in Portland

FYI RecentChangesCamp Tedernst | talk 22:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Your user page

Hi Dschor. I found my own user page being vandalised as well, especially after I quit on Christmas Day (I have made a handful of edits since, but I'm not really here, and I am not looking at my talk page). The main sets of vandalism were being done by someone who had been WikiStalking me, who was the very reason why I quit. Check out the history if you like. Thankfully in my case nobody objected too much to me getting rid of them, although I did have to compromise a bit. I think that that is the answer. I mean technically they can edit your user page, as technically it is no different to an article page. However, you are allowed to assume ownership over your own user page (and subpages) and hence other user edits should only be to remove vandalism, personal attacks and other offences against Wikipedia policy. I noticed that a couple of people were incorrectly quoting policy to justify editing your page. Obviously stating that you oppose Kelly Martin for ArbCom is not a personal attack. However, perhaps you should not include "Beware the Cabal". Take a look at User:FuelWagon or User:AI for a way to present such things that are considered to be acceptable.

As for your talk page, I was getting a lot of threats and harassment on there, and was deleting things and then having the deletions reverted constantly and not a single person would do anything (which was why I left, because I mean if you get nothing but threats what's the point in being here?) But I have been advised that you are allowed to remove things from your user talk page.

There is a discussion about this on the Administrator's Noticeboard by the way, and you might want to comment. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Dschor_claims_that_all_third_party_edits_to_his_user_page_are_vandalism

You probably should comment there. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 02:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Sean Black's user page

Please don't vandalise this again. If it happens again, you'll be blocked for 24 hours. Ambi 12:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I reverted to a more informative version of the user page. If the user considers it to be vandalism, I would expect him to contact me. What is your stake in this? I believe that the edit I reverted to was factual, and followed the instructions of the user given at the top of the page. --Dschor 12:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:User allow fairuse

Please do not recreate content that has been deleted as a result of a TfD discussion. If you disagree with the result, please use Wikipedia:Deletion review. Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 23:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, I had not noticed that the vote was closed. Seems like the results were too close to call, IMHO. I have requested a deletion review as you have suggested. Thanks for letting me know. --Dschor 23:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I apologise if I came across as overly harsh in the message above. JYolkowski // talk 15:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

RFC/KM

You commented on Kelly Martin's second RfC. it is up for archival. you may vote at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Kelly_Martin#Archiving_this_RfC. CastAStone|^(talk) 04:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Be careful

I just got banned for daring to support Mistress Selina Kyle. You might be next. Just pull your head in a bit there. Thankfully I have quit already so I don't care (and, momentarily at least, they seem to have forgotten to ban my IP address). But you might not be so lucky. Beware of User:Ambi, User:Kelly Martin, User:SlimVirgin, User:Snowspinner and User:Sean Black. Perhaps it was my suggestion to get them all de-sysopped that got me banned? Who knows. Just be careful. I didn't even get any warning, and zero evidence was presented. Just be real careful. Zordrac

Thanks for the warning, it is much appreciated. I experienced a block (2 actually) and believe I have learned my lesson. Your list is hardly complete, as there are a number of other admins who feel similarly. Admins don't like to be de-sysopped, it is probably their greatest fear. Hope your ban is overturned! --Dschor 22:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Utter rubbish! Admins most fear stupidity screwing up this encyclopedia. --Doc ^ask? 23:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Your perspective is certainly appreciated, Doc. It is quite unlikely that stupidity will screw up this encyclopedia - and if it does, it will be the stupidity of administrators, not your average wikipedians. I would be surprised if there are many admins who would support a time limit on administrative service, though. I personally think term limits for admins would probably be a good idea, but I can't see how this could happen with our current administrators pulling the strings. I am glad that there are some administrators who understand that they serve the encyclopedia, rather than the reverse. --Dschor 23:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Please cease trolling

Edit summaries such as "Don't be a WP:DICK, please" in such circumstances are trolling. Doc's edits are wholly justified, and wikistalking him and kvetching about it won't help the encyclopædia at all. Please don't continue with such comments. If you do so, sadly I will feel forced to block you for a short while to help you calm down.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked I'm blocking you for six hours for trolling an general disruption. You have been continually edit waring on a closed and archived RfC with off-topic discussion of an Arbcom decision (if you have complaints about Arbcom, take it up with them). You then created Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin/Protected, a cut-paste violation of the GFDL and a clear attempt to game the system. Look, just knock it off, come back in 6 hours and behave. --Doc ^ask? 13:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

That certainly is a decent way to reward me for trying to keep the wiki in wikipedia. The ArbCom decision is hardly off-topic, and the "edit war" you refer to was simply an attempt to preserve comments made by other users in good faith. Trolling and general disruption are not valid criteria for blocking, and I never exceeded three reverts. --Dschor 01:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It was obviously not a good idea to create a redirect at List of reasons George W. Bush is an asshole. You may disagree with his policies, I certainly do, but we are trying to build an encyclopedia here. I saw that this kind of behaviour had you blocked in the past, so please stop it. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a little overzealous in fixing red links. My bad. Concerns have been noted, thanks. --Dschor 00:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

RFC/KM

Hello Dschor. May I ask why you thought it appropriate to replace comments by a banned user which had been removed per policy? --cj | talk 15:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I felt that the comments were germane to the discussion, and that edits made in good faith to an RfC should be preserved. Rather than paraphrase the comments, I decided a direct quote was the best way to maintain the integrity of the discussion. I may have been out of line, and if so, I apologize. If you feel that the comments should be removed, please let me know. --Dschor 18:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

{{User pedo}} blocked

You are blocked for 3 hours for recreating this template. Given all the crap people have had to deal with about this, we don't need any more disruption related to people recreating it after Jimbo already speedy deleted it. Please think about what would be a more productive course of action to take when you return from your block. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 00:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Did you actually take a look at the template? It was not a recreation, and was not in violation of any policy, guideline, procedure or other pronouncement. Your block is improper, ill-advised, and inappropriate. Please think about what would be a more productive course of action to take before you block. --Dschor 00:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE REVERT MY USER PAGE TO THE LAST VERSION BY DSCHOR

Just after blocking me, an administrator decided to maliciously edit my user page. I would appreciate it if an admin would take the time to unblock me, or at the very least revert my user page to the last version that I edited. I do not appreciate being prevented from defending myself. --Dschor 00:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry that your userpage is no longer an attack page...I do apologize for the inconvenience.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 01:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Your edit was foolish and uncalled for. --Dschor 07:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I reiterate: PLEASE REVERT MY USER PAGE TO THE LAST VERSION BY DSCHOR thanks. --Dschor 11:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration proceeding

Based on your creation and use of Template:User pedo, I have added you as an involved party in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war case. Raul654 01:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

As a result of getting youself on arbcom I have unblocked you for now so that you can make statements there. Good luck...your going to need it.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 01:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I still am blocked by the autoblocker, so there is little I can do. --Dschor 07:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

User page

As per your request, I have restored the userboxes to your user page, with the exception of boxes that are deleted. To improve formatting, I recommend that you subst: any boxes that are currently on TFD and then remove the TFD headers from the copies on your userpage. Incidentally, I strongly suggest that you refrain from creating such templates as {{Pedo}}, as they are both unnecessary and serve to further inflame an already angry and divided Wikicommunity. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I do appreciate your efforts. I will restore the page to my last edit when I am unblocked. I do not wish to subst templates that are deletion nominees - I think it is important that this information be clearly visible (and it lets me know when templates are being deleted improperly). This template was created for my own personal use, and is relevant and helpful to the project. It is the untoward and intolerant reaction of other wikipedians that has caused so much anger and division. --Dschor 07:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

If you plan to offer any evidence on your behalf related to the arbcom case, place it on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war/Evidence without delay. If you have not done so within 24 hours, it will be presumed that you intend to present no evidence. Raul654 02:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This is an absurd request, considering the fact that I have been blocked, and therefore cannot edit the page in question. I hereby request an extension of the response time in order to provide me the opportunity to study whatever case is being made, and to prepare a statement, and to provide sufficient opportunity for an administrator to remove the block that prevents me from making a statement at the current time. --Dschor 08:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Until such time as I am logged in while unblocked, I will assume that the 24 hours has not been initiated. --Dschor 08:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I have unblocked you so that you may participate in the arbitration case. Raul654 08:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Apparently not, as I am still being blocked by the autoblocker. --Dschor 08:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Erm, try again. I am not seeing an entry in the blocklist. Raul654 08:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's 3:30 AM and I cannot stay up any longer, as I have to get up in 3.5 hours. If you can log in, great; if not, put the evidence here and I will copy it to the evidence page when I return. Raul654 08:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the block. I was able to log in and create a statement on the RfAr page. I would appreciate feedback on my statement, so that I may address any remaining concerns. --Dschor 13:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Injunction

As you have continued to make edits relating to the pedophilia template, which you were blocked for recreating and were unblocked only to respond to the arbitration case, pending resolution of the case you are banned from editing any pages other than the Arbitration pages and your own user and talk page. You may be briefly blocked should you edit any other page.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This is rediculous. I have done nothing more than defend my actions, and create a template for an existing userbox implementation. This ban is highly improper, and completely inappropriate. I object in the strongest possible terms to being blocked in this manner, without discussion or warning. This is simply an attempt to censor my point of view, and prevent me from editing the encyclopedia, or contributing to ongoing debates. Please lift this block, as it is not supported by policy, or by common sense. --Dschor 23:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You are not blocked; you will be blocked if you violate the injunction. You have had plenty of warnings over the past months that your behavior was inappropriate. It is formal Wikipedia policy that the Arbitration Committee may place restrictions on users' editing, among other measures, at its discretion. — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I will be blocked if I deign to continue discussing this template at DRV, or create any new articles, or try to edit any other user talk pages? In other words, if I try to contribute to the project, I will be blocked? And the injunction was placed anonymously, and without any supporting evidence? I'm disturbed by the manner in which this has been done, without discussion or dialogue. This is not how it is supposed to work. --Dschor 00:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Er, what? Yes, you are temporarily barred from contributing; you were only unblocked in order to be able to respond to your Request for Arbitration case. What do you mean it was placed anonymously? Mindspillage signed her message here, and there are six signatures on the injunction. And what do you require evidence for? The statements all seem quite self-evident. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

As you have continued to make edits relating to the pedophilia template [1] [2] [3], which you were blocked for recreating [4] and were unblocked only to respond to the arbitration case [5], pending resolution of the case you are banned from editing any pages other than the Arbitration pages and your own user and talk page. You may be briefly blocked should you edit any other page. [6]

I took the liberty of referencing each statement so you can see the evidence for yourself. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes. An injunction placed against me for defending myself against a block that flies in the face of policy. Cool. I feel special, now. I engaged in nothing more than explaining my position, and that constitutes... insubordination? Ah, yes. Wikipedia must be a military dictatorship. I forgot. --Dschor 01:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed some userboxes

Dschor, I just wanted to let you know that I removed the Kelly Martin userbox. It's inappropriate to single out a user in this manner, especially as she is not an Arbitration Committee candidate. I also removed the pedophilia userboxes, mainly for your sake. Even if they're legitimate, this really isn't a good time for creating this type of box. Let the current climate cool down a little. Hope this is OK with you. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your concerns, but I do not feel that my User page is in need of such a change. Kelly Martin may not currently be running for ArbCom, but I am entitled to express my opinion regarding her past candidacy. Removing the pedophilia userboxes is not helpful, and I will restore them. Please do not censor my opinion on my User page. I understand that the climate is hot and heavy, but I do not shrink from controversy. --Dschor 00:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Well bang goes your chance of applying for the probation to be lifted. --Tony Sidaway 22:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Dschor my darling child

Dschor you drive me wild, Dschor you talk 'til you're blue, Dschor what shall we do with you?

I'll be frank: I find you a moderately useful provocateur, and you'll notice that I've tried on a few occasions to shield you from the sometimes inaapropiate responses to your actions. But man, you go too far too loudly too often.

Here is my totally unsolicited advice to you: leave off everything to do with boxen and admins and policy for six months. You're well past the point where even valid points you raise get any serious consideration. Take note this is coming from the guy who defends GNAA member's contribution to the encyclopedia on a weekly basis.

Get neck deep in article space in that time. The first thing you'll notice is that all the petty bickering that sounds so loud from this end is a quiet whisper when you're out there. Articles are getting written, getting improved, going to feature article status, and more and more people are reading them every day... so go do some more of that. Less stress, more reward.

There are plenty of people whose opinons align with yours (although perhaps not so radically) who are working every day to make things better here. Ok, so maybe sometimes there is blowback but we live and learn. Feel free to tell me to get bent, or more contructivly to drop a note about things that bother you on my talk page.

brenneman^(t)(c) 00:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

And how about this: in the link I provided, the opposition is not (mostly) based on my dissention, but on the sometimes uncivil way that I expressed that dissention. If I asked you nicely to remove some user boxes, explaining that by having them and replacing them you're giving people an easy excuse to not listen to you, would you consider taking some down? Because I'm telling you man, that bass guitar one just turns my stomache. - brenneman^(t)(c) 01:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I have always appreciated your sincerity, humor, and good sense. I do recognize that I have pushed some wikipedians' buttons, and have probably been perceived as an obnoxious troll by a number of administrators. I really have been trying to make a positive impact, and I feel that there is room for me here. I am saddened to see administrators acting poorly with no consequences, while users such as myself, who merely seek to point out their poor behavior and be good wikipedians, are slapped down. I have already made it public that I do not plan to make any new userboxes for two weeks, as a cooling off period (more for others than for myself). In the meantime, I will continue to defend my actions, and my right to expression on wikipedia, as I have little other option - I can no longer edit articles, according to the temporary injunction. I do hope that there are others who will continue to fight the good fight, but I fear that there is precious little opposition to the de facto cabal. I believe in wikipedia, however, and will do what I can to make sure that it is not compromised beyond repair. Thanks for being reasonable and sensible - wikipedia needs more folks like you. --Dschor 01:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Pedo project box

Just to let ya'll know, this box was speedied out of process, too. Thankfully cooler heads appear to have gotten involved, and it has been restored for the time being. Perhaps persistence in fighting for the truth will pay dividends? --Dschor 02:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked you indefinitely. I have put this page on my watch list. Please make any input to your arbitration case here. Fred Bauder 04:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You have blocked me without justification, and your block will be overturned if it has not been already. Please explain why you have taken such drastic action. --Dschor 11:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

userboxes

I may not like or agree with most of your userboxes but I accept your right to have them. You DO NOT have the right to attack other user's and as such I have removed your attack templates against Interiot and Kelly Martin, if you put them back I will go to Jimbo himself if I have to so that you will stop attacking other editors. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Also thought I'd note that I have also brought this up on AN/I here. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd also ask that you please don't replace them. It would at best be a pyrrhic victory at best if you did so and were blocked (or banned), and by not putting them back it would go a long way towards demonstrating good faith. There are times when it is best to suffer in silence, and choose for yourself the time and place to stage your battle. - brenneman^(t)(c) 02:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I DO have the right to my opinion. I DO NOT have any attacks on my user page. My opinion about a candidate for ArbComm is a perfectly reasonable thing to have on my user page. I'm not even sure how Interiot is involved in this, as I have never stated an opinion on that user. I have apparently been blocked indefinitely without justification anyway, so there is little I can do. Overall my opinion of the administrative staff of wikipedia is being impacted in a severely negative way due to the abuse that I continue to receive for merely expressing myself in a civil and thoughtful manner. --Dschor 11:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the veracity of these statements, this way isn't working. There are two possibilities: either you change your approach and work within the system however injust and draconian you may feel it is, or you will be forced out.

That doesn't mean it's right or wrong, that's just how it is.

brenneman^(t)(c) 11:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The upsetting part is that I have been working within the system, and the abuse is only escalating. It is wrong, and if this is how wikipedia is, it needs to change. --Dschor 11:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

On the subject of userboxes, I cannot accept the absurd condition promulgated by the ArbComm. I create userboxes as I see fit, and so long as they are not provocative, I cannot see how this will cause any harm. Most of the boxes I have made have been widely adopted, and uncontroversial. I implore the ArbComm to allow my two-week hiatus to stand as the sole sanction for me actions - it is not an appropriate condition to ban me from editing my own user page, and a two month ban is absurdly long when seen in the context of the other sanctions being doled out in this incident. --Dschor 09:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Administrator Abuse Hotline, please leave your message after the tone.

This has become a very sad joke at my expense. Jtkiefer, Knowledge Seeker, Voice of All, Doc Glasgow, etc... all have taken it upon themselves to judge me. They have no justification for their actions against me, aside from their own intolerance and bigotry. Let my block stand as a testament to administrator abuse - the cabal is alive and well, and is coming after you next, if you dare to question their authority. I am certain that so long as I am banned, wikipedia is headed in the wrong direction, away from free speech, free content, and freedom in general, and toward a regimented groupthink that will kill the project. Silencing criticism will only accelerate the decline of wikipedia, because it will drive away the very editors who are most important to the project. You have all failed to follow the basic principles of wikipedia, and you should all be stripped of administrative powers until you can learn to respect the opinions of others. I am still hopeful that sanity will be restored, but at the current pace of delusion, wikipedia will be a closed system of closed minds in very short order. Please refresh your understanding of what wikipedia is about, and then unblock me, or you will continue to be part of the problem, rather than part of the solution. --Dschor 11:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Please remove block

I have been blocked with no justification, for attempting to craft a middle way in a wheel war. I have been crushed under the wheels, apparently. Please remove the block against me, so that I may take part in the RfAr against me. Thanks. --Dschor 12:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Be careful. Your own edits on the templates and on your talkpage are tipped towards an extreme pro-trollish position. You don't get a free ride. My advice to you is to just stay away from the concept of "free speech" and "justified templates"; your editing there was a clear attempt to provoke/troll/make a point. In the light of your editing there I'm beginning to have my doubts your about good faith. Could it really be just coincidence that you're making certain edits on templates that were previously deleted...? With your history, there is legitimate cause for doubt. Staying away is probably the only way to avoid furthur arbitration. -Zero^Talk 15:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

according to the block log you have been unblocked with the afforementioned agreement that you only edit your user and user talk pages and the arb case against you. Please be aware though that you are on a very short leash here and you will be blocked if you replace those attack templates again. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 17:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that I am not in a position to defend myself - even though my actions are unlikely to have any negative effect on the project, it seems clear that any minor excuse to block me will be acted upon promptly. You have made your point - I do not have the right to a user page that describes me, or to create templates that do the same. I will do my best to refrain from upsetting my fellow wikipedians delicate sensibilities. --Dschor 20:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I see that I have been unblocked, but the autoblocker is still not allowing me to edit my own user page. Let me know when this is fixed. --Dschor 20:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I've reset the autoblocker for you. --Doc ^ask? 20:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

See this and please take note. It can hardly be surprising that anyone regard you as wanting to edit your userpage as an act of questionble faith. It won't cause any problems if you don't insist on editting through the page to add yet another offensive userbox, which you've been specifically advised not to do by the arbitration committee, admistrators, and by many others including myself. -Zero^Talk 20:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for resetting the autoblocker. I have removed some templates from my page. I do not plan to add any userboxes for the time being, as I am on a two week hiatus from userbox creation. People need to try to assume good faith. I'm not here to piss people off, I'm here to contribute. --Dschor 21:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia

Well, this is an odd turn of events. The speedy deletion of a userbox has led directly to the deletion of a Wikiproject. I was not aware that Wikiprojects could be deleted based on author's request, as there is more than one person on the project. I am in no position to act on this now, but it is clear that such a project could be very helpful to the encyclopedia. What a strange turn of events... --Dschor 20:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The WikiProject has not yet been deleted; it has been nominated (by a user other than the project creator) for deletion (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-08 23:58Z

Nevermind, I see now that the WikiProject page was deleted and later restored again to allow MFD to continue. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-09 00:01Z

Whew

This is an excellent first step in de-escalating this situation. (Is that even a word? I mean, clearly it's a word by definition since we both know what I mean, but... ahh, forget it.) I think that there is a great big happy middle ground where fluffy bunnies frolic, and if everyone can just take turns making little steps towards it, we'll get there eventually. This mess with the project deletion might be a good thing. A couple of good authors have been wounded by a conflict that they didn't even know existed.

I'm sure we could have a little bitch-fest about the out-of-process deletions, etc. We'd probably have very similar things to say about it. But I'd like for a second to shine the spotlight on you, if that's ok. Any thoughts on your part in the collateral damage?

brenneman^(t)(c) 03:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I still feel that I have been persecuted, and I am sad to see that this has escalated to even more lofty levels of absurdity. I'm sure you can imagine how I feel about the ongoing speedy deletions (Speedy Deletion is not a Toy). As for my part, I actually had no idea that such a project existed - I was merely proposing a hypothetical when I first mentioned such a project. To find out that it was a real WikiProject actually gave me some hope that there was room for a middle ground on wikipedia. I elected to templatize the userbox displayed on the Project page, in order to add myself to the project and display my membership. I suppose I could have imagined that it would attract attention, but to be honest, I actually have an interest in this area, and felt that it was a fortunate coincidence to find a project on the topic. I feel awful that the project was deleted, but I actually think it helps to demonstrate the perspective from which I came to this topic. It is obvious that I would not have found the project at this time, except for the out-of-process deletions that you mention. I still feel that my original template was a reasonable attempt to find the "great big happy middle ground where fluffy bunnies frolic" - but it seems that there are quite a few people here who do not agree. I have removed the userboxes from my page in deference to community sentiment, but I still contend that wikipedia must allow such expression in order to be true to the foundation principles.

Bringing the WikiProject into this was an accident, but it is too soon to tell if it is for good or for bad. I hope that this all will lead to a more reasoned discussion of my perspective, which has been marginalized by the ArbComm, the Clerks, and assorted administrators. I fear that it will lead to a more and more restrictive and reactionary response on the part of ArbComm members, and administrators in general. Only time will tell. --Dschor 09:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, I think your suggestion of a Wikipedia:WikiProject_Paraphilia is excellent. This could easily be accomplished, and would provide a larger group of articles for the project to monitor - good thinking. --Dschor 09:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

The proposed decision page is for arbitrators only. Please make such proposals ore proposed rewordings on the workshop page, where it will be looked at and moved only if appropriate. This case will close soon however, and I don't think we will be entertaining new proposals unless new evidence is presented. Dmcdevit·t 09:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

My apologies - I don't have the time to keep up with the rapid pace of the RfAr. I trust you have moved the proposal I crafted to the workshop page? Who deems a proposal appropriate, anyway? I certainly will appeal if the current proposal is passed without changes. --Dschor 10:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The arbitration committee. It's our job. See WP:AC and WP:AP. Dmcdevit·t 10:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed that the fellow who asked for me to be included in the RfAr is currently disruptively nominating userboxes to TfD? Certainly this is more troubling than my simple creation of a harmless userbox? --Dschor 10:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

An administrator has blocked you for two months in enforcement of the ban in Remedy 6.1 When you resume editing at the end of the ban, you will be on probation (details in the decision). After two months, you can apply to have the probation lifted on the grounds of good behavior. --Tony Sidaway 00:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Ouch. I was going to to write:

Yu've got the "This user would gladly re-create any userboxes that have been speedied out of process." box on your page.

It's probably going to be deleted via the TfD anyway, but is there any chance that you could remove it of your own violition? It's yet another salvo in this pointless user-box war, and I'm trying to get everyone to lay down their weapons and get back to writing the encyclopedia.

But the above is what usually happens when David goes head-to-head with Goliath in his home turf. I'll look forawrd to your return.

brenneman^{T}{L} 02:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the userbox as a disruptive edit within the spirit of the probation ruling. --Tony Sidaway 02:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Please just be decent enough to wait until the TfD has been completed. I can't even vote, and it was added in good faith. It certainly is not disruptive, and is in keeping with the spirit of wiki. --Dschor 09:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

As for the block, it is hardly a surprise. I number of the persons on ArbComm have made their views on user space well known. I did not expect to get a fair hearing from the ArbComm anyway. Just adding me to the RfAr was a violation of numerous guidelines, policies and processes. No shock that it would end badly. You can call it fair if you like, but considering the minor sanctions placed on those engaged in wheel warring and intentional provocation, my sanction seems grossly disproportionate. If I come back to wiki, it will be in the hope that this place can grow and change in spite of the ArbComm - because therein lies the only hope for this project. --Dschor 09:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Sadly I cannot even comment on the rediculous nature of this block anywhere aside from here. Others can see that the decision is completely unfair, and I hope that they will act on my behalf to have the ArbComm decision reversed. There is no possible justification for the behavior of the ArbComm in this matter. --Dschor 09:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You can appeal the ban to the Committee or to Jimbo Wales. --Tony Sidaway 22:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

If you contact me by private e-mail I can try to help you. Haukur 01:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE REVERT MY USER PAGE TO THE LAST VERSION BY DSCHOR

Tony Sidaway has edited my userpage in violation of common sense and decency. His edits are not WP:CIVIL, and constitute being a WP:DICK. Please revert my user page to the last version by Dschor. Thanks. --Dschor 09:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE REVERT MY USER PAGE TO THE LAST VERSION BY DSCHOR

I will be going on wikibreak for the week. I hope to be unblocked before I return - it certainly would restore my faith in the community. If I am still blocked when I return, please expect this page to become the repository for edits to be made upon the end of my block. --Dschor 09:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

No, you won't. You are banned, not blocked. Banned from editing Wikipedia in its entirety. That includes this talk page, despite the software feature that enables you to edit it. If you continue, this page will be protected. Your disruptive behavior here gives me no reason to question my decision, too. Dmcdevit·t 09:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

As my edit in itself could (in retrospect) be seen as provocative, it may be appropriate for someone to make a further edit. I used my judgement of what was suitable for Wikipedia; others may disagree. --Tony Sidaway 09:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

All right, I'll apply my judgment. I see no more reason to censor this userpage than, say, that of User:The Epopt. I'm restoring it to the owner's last version.

I don't see any reason to prevent the author from using this talk page as a sandbox for preparing useful edits, however banned he may be. - Haukur 13:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. If Sean's page also contained inflammatory stuff and he was banned and unable to deal with it, I would have done the same. But I don't edit war. --Tony Sidaway 15:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed the inflammatory content. The Epopt's user page does not include similar material, nor does he face Arbitration Committee findings and remedies relating to his inappropriate use of user boxes. Banned users are banned. They should not be arranging for editing by proxy. Dschor may resume editing when his ban is complete. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why "This user believes that George W. Bush's edits to the constitution need to be reverted." should be considered inflammatory while "This user is an Anarcho-capitalist pig-dog." should not be. Nor do I see why kicking this user while he is down is more appropriate than taking on someone respected. Nor do I see any reason to prevent good edits to the encyclopedia regardless of how they come about. If a banned user points out a good edit that should be made I will happily follow the suggestion. Haukur 21:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a matter of taste. Sean makes no attack on anyone, except a little ironic self-deprecation. Dschor accuses his President of altering the constitution. I do agree that my edits may give the appearance of kicking a man while he's down, however the discussion leading up to that was on the talk page of the template in question, where Aaron Brenneman suggested that we approach editors and ask them to remove the template from their pages. Since Dschor is not able to do that, I performed an edit, taking the opportunity to remove several highly inflammatory, most inappropriate, sections of material from the page. WP:NOT and all that.

On editing by proxy, I'd steer clear of that. --Tony Sidaway 22:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that's one spin - here's another: On one hand we have a userbox which implies that people who hold to a particular political ideology are "pig-dogs". On the other hand we have a userbox which criticizes what some see as the devaluation of the constitution of the United States under the present government. It does so in a humorous Wikipedia-referential manner.

Another template on Sean's page reads "This user opposes gun control." and has a picture of a gun. That's as inflammatory and divisive as the "This user opposes the Iraq war and advocates immediate troop withdrawal." box which you tagged for speedy-deletion.

The issue is not that Dschor is unable to remove the boxen from his page and you have to help him. It is amply clear that he does not want them removed. Pick on someone your own size. Haukur 22:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think someone finally gets it. --Dschor 01:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Your user page is currently listed on CAT:CSD, but I can't see any tag indicating that you wish to have it deleted. I'm assuming the category is being included by way of the many templates that you have. Please try and correct this. Thanks. enochlau (talk) 16:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Dschor is currently banned from Wikipedia and is unable to edit his user page. I removed several templates from his user page which seems to have fixed the problem. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer if you reverted to the last version by Dschor. I do not appreciate an edit war on my user page. (or spurious listing for deletion for that matter) --Dschor 01:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Mainspace Sandbox

Here I will be adding content to be prepared for the main namespace upon the end of my ban. Thanks for your patience.

Warner Canyon Ski Area

Warner Canyon ski area is located in the Fremont National Forest, on land now owned by Lake County, approximately nine miles east of Lakeview, in southern Oregon. There is one chair lift serving the hill, and the facilities are operated and maintained by the non-profit Fremont Highlander Ski Club. The lift is a triple chair, with two landings. Total vertical rise is 732 feet, with mostly intermediate terrain.

{stub}

[7] [8]

Fremont-Winema National Forests

The Fremont-Winema National Forests, administratively combined in 2002, cover territory in Southern Oregon from the crest of the Cascades on the west past Lakeview in the east. The northern end of the forests is bounded by highway 97 on the west, and 31 on the east. To the south, the state border forms the boundary of the forests.

The Fremont National Forest is named after _ _ Fremont. The Winema National Forest is named after _. The Forests are owned by the American people and managed by the US Department of Agriculture Forest Service. The Warner Canyon Ski Area was part of the forests until a land swap transfered ownership to Lake County.

• National Forest Official Website

Cooper Spur Ski Area

Cooper Spur Ski Area is located on the east side of Mount Hood, Oregon. The resort has one double lift chair serving seven runs, and a vertical drop of 328 feet.

[9]

Anthony Lakes Ski Area

Anthony Lakes Ski Area is located in eastern oregon, near the city of La Grande, Oregon. The resort has one triple chair lift, and a vertical drop of 900 feet from summit to base. The summit elevation is 8000 feet, and the terrain is mostly of an intermediate and expert level. The resort also offers Cat skiing on nearby peaks, and includes a boardercross course as well.

[10]

Spout Springs Ski Area

Spout Springs Ski Area is located in the Blue Mountains of eastern Oregon. The resort has two fixed double chair lifts. Most of the terrain is easy to moderate in difficulty.

[11]

People Causing Trouble

Ban reset

I have just reset your 2 month ban, since you have been editing your talk page, including today. Whilst banned you may not edit Wikipedia at all — anywhere — and doing so resets the ban. (So you'd be better off not replying to this message!) -Splash^talk 16:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The ban is a load of crap anyway. I am contributing to Wikipedia in a positive and constructive manner, and if you feel that my actions are detrimental to the project, please let me know. I am banned because I make a good target (I'm a pacifist). Thanks for the bait. --Dschor 04:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It's an bit of an act of tomfoolery to reset your block, especially considering your good-faith contributions taken into effect. You seem to have incited an bit of an situation regarding your actions, so I took the libery of constructing the stubs for you (With all credit to you). If you'd like, I can discuss you continuing your sandbox preperation for articles during your block per the rfa page. Then I can prepare your stubs for you, and given your contructiveness, its possible an early probation could be placed into effect. -Zero^Talk 17:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Your help would be much appreciated. I am having an awful time using the wikipedia without the ability to fix the massive number of errors that one encounters. It is especially frustrating not to be able to fix red links. I must admit, I have done some anonymous editing in mainspace to fix typos and such - I hope that will not be construed as a reason to reset my ban as well. I have always been a good faith contributor, in spite of what others may write about me. --67.168.241.139 04:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I should warn you that according to wikipedia policy, editing without logging in can be considered sockpuppetry and is considered attempting to circumvent a ban. and may so reset the timer. If you stop now they may choose not to call you on it since it was obviously done in good faith.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 07:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Help

I have noticed your request for help. How can I help you?--Commander Keane 03:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I need help from an experienced wikipedian to assist me in overturning the ban that has been placed on my account. I am a thoughtful contributor who has unfortunately been proscribed from creating and editing pages on the project. The Arbitration Committee appears to have made a factually incorrect determination, and now my editing has been severely negatively impacted. I would appreciate whatever assistance you can provide in prevailing upon the ArbComm to remove the ban and reinstate my account. I wish to be able to edit my own user page, create articles, and edit articles, without resorting to anonymous editing and making a meatpuppet of myself. The few edits I have made that have been identified as disruptive were intended as humor and/or attempts at compromise solutions to ongoing conflicts. The ban that I am serving is not helpful to the encyclopedia, and sets a poor precedent as well. I appreciate your attention and help in this matter. --67.168.241.139 04:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I only help new users, not those banned. The ban appears to end in two months, come back then.--Commander Keane 04:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have disturbed you. Unfortunately it is exceedingly difficult to find assistance in my situation, as nobody wishes to be on the wrong side of the ArbComm. I am a relatively new user, and the ban imposed has a duration almost as long as the time I had been an active editor. The vast majority of my edits have been very useful to the encyclopedia, and as a relative newbie, I find the ban imposed wholly out of proportion to the need. Perhaps you can refer a less experienced wikipedian to the appropriate resource for contesting a ban? --67.168.241.139 04:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

As a result of this apparently admitted circumvention of the ban, Dschor has had his ban reset. Please see the ban log of the Pedo RfAr for further details. Johnleemk | Talk 09:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Can anybody help me in contesting this ban, or will I simply be ignored? I find it wholly incomprehensible that this cannot be resolved. The Pedo RfAr had only a tangential connection to my edits, and the sanction appears to have been grossly out of proportion to the supposed harm done. I have no other forum in which to request a review of my case, so I hereby formally request that my case be reviewed by a neutral party to determine a more fair and appropriate sanction. Thanks. --Dschor 16:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you're supposed to appeal to the Arbitration Committee by e-mail. Haukur 17:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

My emails were not replied to. Is it necessary to spam the entire committee to get a response? --Dschor 17:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)