I've lost interest in editing here. Too much arguing over things that should really be common sense. Good luck to all. Carbonite | Talk 21:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW, the same to a large extent applies to me too. However, I am trying to do edits to pages where conflicting views are less. --Bhadani 01:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

ClownshowEdit

Carbonite, I can't think of anything to say to you that I havn't put down on my own user page the past few days. If I can offer you some advice, extricate yourself from the discussions and policy making processes of WP as much as possible and join me, and several thousand other good editors in writing and maintaining articles. Let the clowns have their little mock parliament, to fight argue and spit obtuse rhetoric all over. We can block and revert vandalism, we can write and improve articles, we can even AfD the garbage thats out there. Once we do these things, leave it. Let other people argue if the action is merited or not. I am of the mind that having done my part, in any action, other editor/admins can take it from there. I don't need to debate, ad hominem, my actions. If it were wrong, then someone will change it. If it were right, then so much the better. People will always look for methods to compensate for what is most lacking in their personal lives. So within wikipedia, we have individuals who have no real power or influence in the real world overcompensating by bullying and harrasing and arguing simply for the sake of argument. I'll leave the clownshow to them, and work on making an encyclopedia that has good, solid and useful knowledge within it. Anything else, now falls far from my purview.

I hope that some small part of what I have said here will moderate your desire to leave the project. In my opinion, you do and have done good work here. Shame to pack it in over such a cut and dried issue as the paedophile debate thats going on at WP:ANI. You blocked the problem user, you explained your action, and in my opinion you could have left it at that. Let the wonks and clowns argue if your action was a benefit to the project or no. As it is often said "There is very little that an administrator can do, that can not be undone". Good luck to you, whatever you ultimately decide to do. Thank you for your past contributions, and hopefully for your future work as well. Regards, Hamster Sandwich 22:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

BlockedEdit

I have blocked you indefinitely from Wikipedia for hate speech and inciting attacks on other users on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. If you feel you can refrain from further attacks, contact me or another administrator to be unblocked. --Carnildo 22:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I removed this post while trying to unblock Carbonite, and so restored it to its previous state. Hamster Sandwich 23:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Come back!Edit

I'm sorry to hear that happened to you. Please come back, we need editors like you. — Moe ε 23:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Ditto to both SD and Hamster Sandwich. Don't let a couple people without common sense take you away from a project like wikipedia. -Ravedave 00:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Carnildo had what I can only assume was a moment of madness. Please don't let that get to you too much. You were quickly unblocked and people at AN are obviously critical of these blocks. If we let things like this drive away good users, then Wikipedia will be left to the lunatics. Come back soon. Dragons flight 00:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Though I don't support your indefinite block of Joeyramoney or blocking anyone solely for self-identification, Carnildo's block of you was equally wrong. I urge you to return and put this behind you. Superm401 - Talk 02:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Oh dear, no, please don't leave! I have seen your RfA through back in March 2005, and we need more people like you. At the moment you may feel burnt out from the project and perhaps real life has got the better of you, so perhaps take a short WikiBreak before making a long-term decision on Wikipedia. I seriously hope that you are well. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 15:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I concur that you should not leave. You did the right thing, and editors like you are needed, most direly. —Nightstallion (?) 16:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Last few wordsEdit

I left because it seems that common sense is no longer valued here. If Wikipedia wishes to allow pedophiles to edit, then I don't wish to be part of Wikipedia any longer. While I'm still interested in the encyclopedia aspect of Wikipedia, it seems that a majority of users are more interested in the "anyone can edit" aspect. I've always believed that openess was a means to an end and that common sense would dictate limits. As my views and those of the community are apparently no longer in alignment, I feel that it's time for me to depart.

When I left, I hadn't yet been blocked by Carnildo for "hate speech". This is yet another reason why I see very little reason to consider coming back (although I do appreciate many of the kind words posted here). I wish Wikipedia and all of its editors the best of luck. Carbonite 03:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Carbonite, no-one's views are perfectly in alignment with their community's - that's what makes the world such an interesting place. There is no community view - the community is simply the aggregation of everyone in it, and their views, whether sensible or idiotic (and those judgments themselves are a matter of perspective). There's nothing wrong with holding a contrary view to most other people - it's one of my hobbies, in fact (as you might have noticed). Have some time out to think about stuff, but I'm sure you'll be back - for what it's worth I think you do tend to see things in black and white when an equally valid way of looking at them (which would induce less anxiety in you) is to look for, and enjoy, the shades of grey, and even colour, that might interfere with the simple perspective.
If you were to return (I think you will) I would counsel you to return as an editor only - you seem a decent, well-intentioned chap, but I'm not sure Admin status is something you're especially suited to (nor me - I have no intention of applying for it). Happy travels. ElectricRay 14:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Get well soon. Cheers, -Will Beback 10:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I respect your devotion, Carbonite. I would leave if I had the willpower, but I'm too much of a Wikipediholic (or whatever you call it). I don't believe it was hate speech per se, but it's over now. I hope to see you around in the future, be it here or anywhere else for that matter. Aaрон Кинни (t) 11:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Sysop powers restoredEdit

I have restored your sysop permissions - you were not supposed to have been desysoppsed. See explination here Raul654 09:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mark. I do thank you for correcting what you perceived to be an unwarranted desyoping, but I actually requested to be desyoped [1]. The request was made before the whole Carnildo "hate speech"/ wheel war incident. If you could have a steward removed the sysop bit again, it would be appreciated. Thank you. Carbonite 11:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
My bad. Sorry to have troubled you. Raul654 19:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

ArbitrationEdit

A request for arbitration where you have been listed as a party has been opened by Raul654 (per Jimbo Wales). Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war, as well as provide evidence at /Evidence and comment on proposals at /Workshop. —Locke Coletc 13:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Lousy newsEdit

About your leaving...I'm not one to beg someone to come back but just wanted to say that I have appreciated your work and I recognize your contributions. I Wish you the best.--MONGO 21:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to add my voice to what MONGO said. I also wish you the best, and hope you will come home eventually. Guettarda 04:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

BoggleEdit

Do you really believe a bona fide pedophile would announce that fact with a userbox? --James S. 01:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Final decisionEdit

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war case Raul654 23:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

User categorizationEdit

You were listed on the Wikipedians/Massachusetts page as living in or being associated with Boston. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians in Boston for instructions. bmearns, KSC(talk) 15:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Situation of administrator abuseEdit

Hi, I'm in a potentially awkward position with an Administrator. I have read the Wiki pages on dispute resolution but I'm still not sure how to proceed.

The Admin ContiE has a personal grudge against me for reasons I do not fully understand. He has been this way since I began frequenting wikipedia.

I have done work improving the furvert article. He has basically gone on a crusade against any edit I make. He controls every furry category article and several others ruthlessly. He is an iron fist and bans anyone he edit wars with. I had uploaded pictures and he deleted them with no talking. He seems to believe I am every person he has had an edit war against. He is always using personal attacks, calling me troll without reason. I uploaded them again and he voted them for deleted, but to his surprise the person who runs the images, thank you Nv8200p, found they were acceptable once I tagged them properly. Just recently he removed both the images without himself discussing it in the talk page (unless he was the same person who discussed only one) with the edit here [2] Then ContiE assumed bad faith, added his constant insult of troll in the talk page. It appears on a completed different wiki, a comedy one in all things, somebody else stole my username and I believe this was Conti himself and uploaded them. ContiE showed it as his reason. While vandalism like his, I would revert and mention it, he would ban me permanently if I undid his edit. That is why I am asking admins for help. He holds a couple of accounts on wikipedia and I think they are administrators so I have to be careful who I tell about this. Arights 06:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

AfDEdit

An article you have an interest in, Jonathan Bishop, has been nominated for deletion. You might wish to express your opinion on the proposed deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Bishop_(3rd_nomination). Pontyboy (talk) 10:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

TfDEdit

TfD nomination of Template:ParticleEdit

 Template:Particle has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.

Notice of changeEdit

Hello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that you will not longer be able to request restoration of the tools because of your prior inactivity. You have until December 30, 2012 to request restoration or else the policy will prevent you from doing so in the future; you would need to seek a new WP:RFA. Until December 30, you can file a request at WP:BN for review by the crats. Thank you. MBisanz talk 04:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

(delivered by mabdul 22:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC))

ArbCom elections are now open!Edit

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!Edit

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)