User talk:Delicious carbuncle

I responded to your comment on my talk page. Philippe (WMF) 01:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please refrain from edit warring, especially if you make edits without (or before) explaining them [hint: ignoring previous comments is not giving an explanation]. Nemo 21:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

You mean explaining by leaving edit summaries, as I did, or by starting a discussion on the talk page, as I also did? You appear to be abusing your admin rights here by blanking and protecting the page, especially after you have made your opinion clear that there should be no such policy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Processes

I came here to ask you to stop edit warring, but I saw I already warned you in the past. Talk:Wikimedia Chapters Association/Elections/2013 Chair is an important process page which is needed to collect input on the new chair, and I won't allow you to make it impossible for any Wikimedian to use Meta for its coordination purpose. It was agreed by other participants that the discussion was offtopic, and you should probably have raised it at the user's talk page; you can still do so, even though the page has already been amended I think, and you must do so for comments like this to RexxS. I've blocked you for 1 day as previously done to other participants in the discussion before it was closed; next improper edit will get a longer block. In the meanwhile, if you really think that some comment is libellous, instead of using it as excuse to undermine a wiki process, ask its removal per Oversight policy (I'm sure you know how to use email). --Nemo 07:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Nemo bis, I'm not surprised that you showed up here or that you blocked me. I'm not very familiar with Meta - where do I go to report your continued abuse of admin tools? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nemo_bis&diff=5290411&oldid=5287837:

I'm curious how you deemed that there was no consensus for this policy. It seems to me that the preponderance of respondents approved. -- Avi (talk) 03:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Proposal_for_a_policy_on_involved_administrators&diff=5292175&oldid=5265262:

This simply can't happen - I have not read the page, but you [Nemo_bis] are the last person who should close this. Reverting closure for reasons of propriety.

--Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat#Meta:Proposal_for_a_policy_on_involved_administrators. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Fæ's comments are gone (for now) and if no one cares that Nemo bis is abusing the admin tools left and right, I can't be bothered to waste any more of my time here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

You're right. Exposing Nemo's abuse is a waste of time. They don't care. Issues and abuse are "off-topic". --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

They really don't. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Meta:Requests_for_adminship/Nemo_bis_(removal) – I mentioned Nemo bis' ownership / POV-pushing on Child_protection (the multiple attempts to censor a statement from Sue Gardener) and how Nemo bis blocked you. I believe that it would be enlightening if you were to share your experiences with Nemo bis with the community. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Child protection revert reason ambiguity

In your revert message you said "Don't link policy pages to user essays like that one". Is 'like that one' supposed to mean that it would be okay to link to some user essays from there, but you don't like the Viewpoint censorship essay? Or is it supposed to mean that you think we should not link to any essay from proposed policies? --Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Both. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Malleus

Do you have to pick a fight with Malleus? Can't you see that you two are basically the same person - disgusted with blatant corruption and abuse? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, I'm not involved in any dispute with Malleus - what are you talking about? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Over on the forum - can't find it anymore but I thought you were one of the ones having a go with him. If not, it doesn't matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Great! Let's agree that it doesn't matter and I can continue to ignore you. Please use my email instead of leaving message for me here - I like to avoid meta as much as possible. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)