{{rollback}}

== Hello! / Buenos Diás / ''Ohayo'' ==

'''19 November 2009''': 1000th edit. This[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:174.50.39.146&offset=20091180123&action=history] is NOT how you want your last minutes of Wikipedia to be like, unless you were trying deliberately trying to make me laugh. If so, they totally win.

{{User:Gerrit Erasmus/Userboxes/Civil}}

''Welcome!'' My general Wikipedia focus is on the rather non-glamorous maintenance end of the line. You know, the stuff that no one really notices that has to happen constantly of Wikipedia would fall into anarchy within hours. There might be a handful of bots that do some of the horrifically dull things like add a signature when you were lazy, but basically ''all'' new articles and ''all''edits are patrolled by at least one person. When problems do arise, we start the general Wikipedia [[dispute resolution]] process and participate in all the necessary discussions. Most people who come to Wikipedia don't realize how much is happening without in the background, but on top of ''every'' thing being added and changed being patrolled, there are dozens of discussions about any number of things that are article-scale size or larger. Actually, most of it doesn't look like English if you try to read. I started that way, at least. You begin to speak in WP:THINGS style because even normal internet slag is apparently unacceptable!

For now I am hesitant about adding any large amount of content ot Wikipedia such as new articles. For reasons (seriously) out of my control, my brain can't really handle or end up with a neutral perspective on any work of non-fiction I might have to write. So... I go where writing anything is a-okay so long as it's productive; XfDs! My best lengths of writing are for matters of opinion or justice/policy, and I can turn even a 5-word explanation into a small article like this into is turning into. I enjoy the ideals of logic and common sense that Wikipedia holds over trying to set any strict regulations, so I focus on article deletion discussions, spotting and reverting vandalism, and random [[WP:RFC|requests for comment]. Naturally, some debate can get somewhat heated, but I generally go to great lengths to avoid. In the past this has meant a self-imposed [[WP:TRUCE|truce]] before saying anything extreme, or at least removing myself from article or article talk edits and speaking directly with other editors about disagreements. You'd be surprised how many <br />

I'll always talk things through with someone who objects to my tagging of articles or comments for suggestions, so long as they are civil. Pleeeease don't think it's ever personal if I mark your article for deletion or open a discussion for it... I just have to treat any article I run into equally and I'm sorry if it was yours. My talk page is open! There are plenty of alternatives to deletion we can work out, and plenty of ways to fix some common article troubles.

===My (extremely unofficial) WikiPhilosophy===

Quite literally, I have a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome#Social_interaction predisposition toward a lack of empathy] that I feel is an oddly beneficial asset in an oversight or administrative actions. Wikipedia is a large community making decisions by consensus, but a "gut" feeling is used a lot and this means I can always tag guidelines or logic behind most everything I say. (See more about [[Asperger Syndrome]] if curious) <br />

I will always [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]]... even under unusual or suspicious circumstances it's always best for keeping tempers down as much as possible. No one ''actually'' wants to argue for the fun of it... right?

<br />

====Some extensions of existing policies and guidelines that can offer more insight in tight spots====

*Always assume you are in the minority when contributing to a discussion.

*Just because I have several userboxes dedicated to passive behavior does not mean I can be bullied away from important topics.

*Consider at which times being either knowledgeable or clueless about a topic might better assist a discussion before commenting.

*If you're willing to sit down and talk something over, so am I.

*Manually confirm vandalism repair and reverts on top of using any special assisting script with some automated functions.

*Though not an administrator, I will not hesitate to use discussion or deletion tags, nor will I hesitate to contribute in their discussions.

*Pages are "usually" deleted in the safest manner if they go through a [[WP:AFD|consensus deletion discussion]].

*Speedy delete is a fragile matter and should be used only with precise consideration as witnessed catastrophically in project [[WP:NEWT]]

*Always explain the use of a guideline cited instead of just marking them as fact.

*NEVER evade direct questions and ALWAYS provide evidence of claims in discussion and debate.

*Though never alone being a reason, [[WP:DUCK]], [[WP:ENN]] and [[WP:HAMMER]] are oddly-appropriate generalizations of many disputes, helping you get a starting point.

*If one of the above 3 might apply, look backwards through the window it creates to find the more refined examples of Wikipedia policy and philosophy they might mean.

*Comments made by article creators or contributors are welcome in deletion discussions, but will be scrutinized more heavily and weight of the statement considered.

*Without exception, read the entirety of all discussions you intend to comment in, and dive into links and diffs to cite as evidence in a divergent opinion.

*If you know someone is entirely in the wrong but you are being hounded or just harassed in general? Laugh at them. It feels great laughing at recurring vandals as you're in an unspoken race with other patrols seeing who can get it rollled back the fastest...

<br />

----

----

{{wdefcon}}

'''General groups and affiliations''': <br />

{{User wikipedia/WikiElf}}

{{User Rollback}}

{{User wikipedia/Administrator someday}}

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Userbox/User Death Note 3}}

{{User edit war negative}}<br><br><br/>

{{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}}

{{User wikipedia/PROD Patrol}}

<br><br><br/>

'''Quick Links''': <br />

[[Special:Newpages|New pages]] for spam check — [[Special:Recentchanges|Changes]] for vandal control — [[Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace|Talk templates]] for possible warnings and comments — [[Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup|Cleanups]] for constructively tagging articles<br />

[[User:Cyde/List_of_candidates_for_speedy_deletion|Uncurse]] those with the dreaded A7 — [[WP:CSD]] to be used ''rarely'' if possible — [[WP:RAA]] if out of options

<br>

=== Special Events and Milestones ===

'''4 November 2009''': I can no longer say that civility policy has managed to deflect all unnecessary conflict on Wikipedia for me, after one person has proven to be in violation to nearly a legal standard. An extremely dangerous editor has made a deliberate effort to locate me away from Wikipedia 'concerned' I had about a heavily promotional article for his company he had added to Wikipedia. Just a talk page message? Oh no, that would be far too public a place to "politely" say I should have asked this person about concerns (I did, that's why we have talk pages here). Send an email via the link on every user's page to send someone email that's offered here already? No, there are logs for that, too. Why bother with those when you could when someone can spend hours canvassing persons of similar user names listed in online directories just in "hopes" of finding some you just want to talk things over with? Why not, say, edit your articles to address tags I may have left? Apparently those are far too rational and normal reactions to have despite it being what every other Wikipedia user knows to do.

Disgusting. Since it's not actually criminal in any way at this point, there's not really anything else I can do yet. Said person should be thankful I'm only marking it as a conflict of interest for me to ever again edit or follow his contributions or or his company, instead of reacting in a any ridiculous manner... Like trying to contact him outside of Wikipedia for something I claim is so harmless it belongs on a user talk page-- oh wait. That's what ''he'' did. Oops. New Civility policy: I shall assume good faith and practice complete civility with any editor who has not done anything this psychologically disturbing to anyone on Wikipedia, and in those cases I will just ignore you.

'''9 November 2009''':[[WP:ROLLBACK|Rollback rights]] requested and granted by administrator! This will significantly improve what I can get done in patrol time. Thanks to the community for trust enough to give me the ability.

Last edit, signed <b>♪</b> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps">[[User:Datheisen|daTheisen]][[User talk:Datheisen|(talk)]]</span> 07:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)