User talk:Mirv/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives by date
archive1 (27/01/04)
archive2 (pre-12/04/04 history)
archive3 (04/12–07/29/04)
archive4 (07/29–20/09/04)
archive5 (20/09–26/09/04)
archive6 (27/09–03/11/04)
archive7 (03/11–22/11/04)
archive8 (22/11–05/12/04)
archive9 (05/12–17/12/04)
archive10 (17/12/04–11/01/05)
archive11 (11/01/05–24/7/05)
archive12 (24/7/05–12/12/05)
archive13 (12/12/05–25/4/06)
Others
rubbish bin
AOL-using lawyer
Arbcom election
User talk:Mirv

All New: 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Orphaned: 500 1001 1501

Leave comments below. I refactor this page as the voices in my head command. Anything written here may be moved to an entirely inappropriate location, summarized in a misleading and self-serving fashion, translated into multiple dead languages, archived where no-one will ever find it again, deleted without explanation, encrypted, or graven in stone tablets and sealed in a vault.

I will respond on this page. If you are here to discuss an article, save us both some time and put your comments on the article talk page. Leave me a note here if you want to make sure I notice it.

Please note:

• I watch this page closely and will able to deal with it as I think necessary, so it's not necessary to remove messages even if they appear to be vandalism or are by a banned user.

Contents 1 Administrator powers 1.1 Protection 1.2 Deletion 1.3 Blocking 1.4 Rollback 2 Template:Waytoomanyboxes 3 proxycheck 4 ArbCom elections 5 Jewbacca Block? 6 RFA thanks 7 List of ethnic slurs 8 User:Nasrallah Block? 9 Need urgent Help in dispute resolution 10 3RR Violation by Irishpunktom 11 List of Palestinian children killed by Israelis in 2004 12 From Time Immemorial 13 Wik? 14 Open proxies 15 Issues with the rape article 16 User:ListenToThis 17 Dead RfC archive up for deletion 18 Soviet Union 19 Thank you 20 InterLink on a protected page 21 Edit war 22 Page Protection and 172's Activities 23 Admin request 24 Libertas RFC

[edit] Administrator powers

If I have misused my magic powers in any way, this is the place to tell me.

[edit] Template:Waytoomanyboxes

Cyrius caught it (damn, I almost thought I slipped under the radar! :-) I've seen more than one page now where people are just stacking up tags: attention, VfD, speedy is a popular combo, as is totallydisputed, VfD, cleanup... I wrote this as a metajoke. Thanks for the CSS tip, but I'm actually thinking of our readers, who don't have this luxury (at least not in an obvious way). People just shouldn't go crazy with template notices like that, but I'm guessing that's not going to become policy any time soon. :-) 82.92.119.11 01:11, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I have exactly the same complaint; people are using these ugly tags rather than doing the actual work of cleaning up or improving the article. . . Unfortunately, you're quite right that they're too popular to be easily gotten rid of, which is why I just hide them with my CSS and forget about them. —No-One Jones 01:24, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] proxycheck

Hi Mirv, I just thought I'd let you know that proxycheck (which you linked to from your "Open proxies" page) works just fine under Windows, too, if you compile it under Cygwin. ^^ -- Schneelocke (cheeks clone) [[]] 01:17, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. Now if only I knew the first thing about compiling. . . :) —No-One Jones 01:24, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Running "./configure" and "make" after unpacking the tarball is all you need to do. ^^ I haven't tried to actually use the tool yet, though. -- Schneelocke (cheeks clone) [[]] 05:12, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom elections

Oh! So close. Sorry you didn't make it into the ArbCom. You would have been a great arbitrator. But look at it this way: you now get most of the credit (by being just a few votes shy) but without any of the responsibility. Cheers! – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 18:08, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Jewbacca Block?

He violated 3RR on AIPAC: Four reverts in less than five hours. One is a partial revert.[1] [2] [3] [4] --Wiesenthaler 07:08, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please note, Wiesenthaler is an alleged sock puppet (see wikipuppets), and the diffs provided are useless. Jewbacca did not violate the 3RR.--Viriditas | Talk 11:14, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] RFA thanks

Salve, Mirv!
I wanted to drop you a line to thank you for your support in my successful RFA candidacy. It was very gratifying to see the kind remarks posted in the debate. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 17:31, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] List of ethnic slurs

Mirv, thank you for editing List of ethnic slurs. I was just about to sit down to tackle it myself and wasn't looking forward to it. Slim 07:51, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome—but you know, in the time you spent reverting and arguing with Wiesenthaler, you probably could have fixed it yourself. Oh well. . . —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 08:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't agree. I didn't (and still don't) know which of the racial slurs that editor put up are "legitimate" slurs, in the sense of being published elsewhere already. There would be no point in editing his descriptions if he had invented the slurs, so I was faced with going onto Google to check for sources, which is time-consuming. I was about to start doing that when I saw you had edited it, which is why I was grateful.

I'm confused as to why this page has special status in Wikipedia. Edits are normally required to be referenced, especially if contentious. The more contentious, the more reputable the source is supposed to be. No original research is allowed, no novel narratives, and all editors must follow Wikipedia:CIte sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Yet on the slurs page, it seems, people can write whatever they want. Slim 19:25, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] User:Nasrallah Block?

Probable sockpuppet User:Nasrallah has violated the three revert rule while vandalizing my User page (User:Wiesenthaler). Am I allowed to revert my own User page more than three times? --Wiesenthaler 17:28, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's a gray area; I certainly wouldn't block someone for too many reverts of vandalism to his own userspace, but some sysops might; the best way to deal with it would be to revert three times and take it to WP:VIP afterwards. I'll block Nasrallah now, as s/he clearly deserves it. I think I may have to have a chat with Tim Starling as well. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 17:36, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You're going to block Nasrallah for writing that Wiesenthaler is a sockpuppet on his user page, which the latter has admitted. But you will not block Wiesenthaler for calling other editors pigs and bastards; for vandalizing Yasser Arafat; for inserting material about incinerated Jews into the Ethnic slurs page; for the Nazi and Zionist remarks; for writing jou instead of you; for writing I like kike on his user page, etc etc etc. There's something seriously wrong here. I would like to see how fast a white supremacist would be blocked if he wrote I like n*****s on his user page. Slim 19:31, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Do you miss Viriditas/Nasrallah that much already? --Wiesenthaler 19:48, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You're going to block Nasrallah for writing that Wiesenthaler is a sockpuppet on his user page, which the latter has admitted.—I blocked him for editing a user's userpage against that user's expressed will, i.e. for vandalism. you will not block Wiesenthaler for calling other editors pigs and bastards [. . .] for the Nazi and Zionist remarks. . .—I might be able to; sockpuppets created to violate policies may be blocked, but if he's a sockpuppet of the users he's accused of being, it would be pointless; those users hurl personal attacks as a matter of course and are currently in arbitration at least in part for that behavior. for vandalizing Yasser Arafat—You may want to re-read Wikipedia:Vandalism, which explicitly lays out what is and is not vandalism, and reconsider that statement. for inserting material about incinerated Jews into the Ethnic slurs page—I'm not in the habit of blocking users for adding relevant, on-topic information, no matter how offensive that information is. If I did that sort of thing I have no doubt that I'd be desysopped promptly. for writing I like kike on his user page, etc etc etc.—People write all kinds of crap on their user pages; Wik maintained a lengthy hate list on his for some time and was never blocked for it. One sysop currently openly professes bias against millions upon millions of people on his user page. It's best either to ignore this kind of thing, politely ask the user to take it down, or remove it yourself with an explanation; and again, if I went around blocking people because someone found their user pages offensive, I'd be drummed out of sysopship quicklike. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 22:52, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And Wiesenthaler's edit summary on the history page for the edit above is "Something stinks alright. Better check your souls for dog feces" That's the kind of language a number of editors have had to put up with incessantly since Wiesenthaler arrived on the scene, on Talk pages, in edit histories and on User Talk pages. Yet here he is, still editing. Slim 20:02, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

How long have editors been putting up with the abuse and racist Zionist POV biases of you, Viriditas, Jayjg, Jewbacca, Humus sapiens, IZAK, Lance6Wins, Yoshiah, MathKnight, Gamaliel, Evolver of Borg, Jfdwolff, etc etc etc? --Wiesenthaler 20:15, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Since there is a bug in the IP blocking system that prevents blocks for expiring, I was browsing through the blocked IPs list to see if there were any addresses expiring, for me to manually unblock (since that's what many admins are doing). I found User:Wiesenthaler there, expiring at 21:16, 22 Dec 2004. That's why I unblocked him. However, only then I thought of taking a look at his talk page, where I found a message by you left there (who was also the one who blocked said user), saying he got banned for life. Now I know I don't have anything to do with this, so I can't really know what's being going on with that user but all I want to know is, did I do anything wrong? He was indeed expiring just now, so how could he have gotten a permanent block?

Either ways, I apologize if I did something wrong there. I'll wait for a response.--Kaonashi 17:14, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Indefinite blocks, like the one I placed on Wiesenthaler, incorrectly show the current time and date as the date of expiration. Unblocking him was a (perfectly understandable) mistake, but I don't think it matters: he told me in private correspondence that he will no longer be using that account or any others. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 18:51, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And yet he is still editing even today using other sockpuppets. Let's just restore the block, to ensure that he isn't tempted to resurrect this particular sockpuppet. Jayjg | (Talk) 19:04, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Alright then, I understand. Thanks for clearing that up.

Jayjg, really? That's pretty bad.--Kaonashi 19:30, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Need urgent Help in dispute resolution

I need your help (may be you can refer me to some body if you are on vacation). It is very urgent in dispute resolution.

Thanks

Zain 22:16, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR Violation by Irishpunktom

Hello, this is over at Yasser Arafat

Irishpunktom reverted 4x in 23 minutes as follows:

Reverted Jayjg 23:44 Dec 22 [5] to his previous version [6]

Reverted Mperel 23:35 Dec 22 [7] to his previous version [8]

Reverted Jayjg 23:27 Dec 22 [9] to his previous version [10]

Reverted Jayjg 23:21, Dec 22 [11] to his previous version [12]

Actually reverted a fifth time under his ip 195.7.55.146 12:23 Dec 22 [13] to his previous version [14]

--MPerel 00:25, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

How many times, and to how many people are you going to post this? Why not just talk to me? --Is Mise le Méas, Irishpunktom 01:13, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Why not just talk to me?—Isn't it obvious? If you go tattling to sysops, you don't have to do the hard work of addressing edits on their merit and thus have a better chance of establishing your POV. Notice how during this dispute, MPerel didn't even edit Talk:Yasser Arafat before spamming the above complaint. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 19:41, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hello. I did talk to him here in Talk when I tried to discuss the merits and problems with this particular set of edits he was making. His only response was to ignore me and revert several others and me back to his version. Tattling? I've been here for a couple of months now and this is the first time I've asked for admin help. I asked a couple of admins like you who I observed have been involved in handling revert issues in these particular articles because I thought that was appropriate. I knew you had an obvious bias, but I actually believed you would be neutral. I see I expected too much, that you are only willing to enforce rules on behalf of editors who hold your POV. Don't worry, I won't ask for your help again. --MPerel 20:27, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

I did talk to him—for the last two items there, you offered no evidence but a flat statement for the supposed "irrelevance" and ignored this comment, which went some way towards explaining it; you also said (two days ago) that you "didn't have time at the moment to address it", but apparently you had time to keep reverting it. (The other points seemed the kind of minor disagreements that can be addressed by minor editing rather than wholesale reverting, and I don't know why neither of you tried that.)His only response was to ignore me and revert several others and me back to his version.—and to answer the question of its relevance that Jayjg raised; see previous link. Tattling? I've been here for a couple of months now and this is the first time I've asked for admin help.—Doing something for the first time is still doing something. I actually believed you would be neutral. I see I expected too much, that you are only willing to enforce rules on behalf of editors who hold your POV.—Please don't presume dishonesty: You left the above message about 20 minutes after I logged off on December 23. When I returned around 06:42 the same day, I read the message and saw that it checked out. Since the matter had been called to my attention, I believed I would have to place the block; however, Ambi had already blocked him at 06:08, so there was no need. I've blocked users who hold my POV and I've blocked users who hold opposing PsOV, but I'm getting sick of doing it, as it always causes a huge fuss that simply isn't worth the time and stress. I've received far too many 3RR notifications; yours was simply the last straw. From now on I'm just going to ignore all of them unless they meet the conditions stated in the frontmatter. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 20:56, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I didn't even realize someone had blocked him. Charles, listen, I have probably overreacted and I apologize. This was sort of a last straw for me as well, I've gotten a little disheartened by some of the hate speech going on around Wiki lately and it has me a little frustrated and sensitive to even minor infractions. Normally, I probably wouldn't have jumped on IrishPunktom or you like this. Maybe I just need a little break from this place... --MPerel 21:27, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

I've probably overreacted too; like I said, it was nothing about your complaint specifically that bothered me, you just walked in at the moment my patience ran out. A break might be helpful; I've found that avoiding the .1 percent of articles and users that are responsible for 90% of the fighting, instead just sticking to uncontroversial editing in uncontroversial areas, can do wonders for my attitude towards Wikipedia. It makes me realize that nearly every user here can and does work cooperatively on building a high-quality free encyclopedia, and that editing doesn't have to be a vicious battle. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 22:03, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] List of Palestinian children killed by Israelis in 2004

Charles, it's easy when I manage to miscount the transwikis. I mean, I looked at my own tally and came up about the same as you, I can't explain that. What's the proper procedure for transwiki'ing the content (which I'd be happy to do, as there isn't consensus to keep the material here). Mackensen (talk) 17:36, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't have an account on wikisource, and I don't know that they'd appreciate a massive dump of information. Mackensen (talk) 17:39, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My own count comes up much the same. I do see a consensus. If you consider that both transwiki and delete move the material out of Wikipedia, then there's a consensus that this material should not be here. However, I agree that there isn't a consensus to destroy the material outright. I think in such a case it would be best to transwiki the material. Mackensen (talk) 17:51, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] From Time Immemorial

Hey, you might want to check out From Time Immemorial - we've got some hard core POV warriors going at it. john k 07:02, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you can also take a look at free market. I reverted someone who has been quite active in inserting randriod POV all over the place in recent weeks; I can't do it again because of the 3RR. 172 07:44, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wik?

Are you sure Gzornenplatz == Wik? Or was that just a witty comment about how both have the same distaste for certain micronations? --Golbez 10:30, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

In all fairness, whatever one can say about their methods, both Wik and Gzornenplatz are in the right about these "micronation" disputes. 172 12:01, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps, I have little opinion on the subject. Well, I do have some opinion, on some, but that's not for here. :) I was just curious if Wik were back. I started just before he departed, and at the time he was, IIRC, the #2 contributor (behind only RamMan/RamBot), so to a budding Wikipedian like me, he was somewhat of a legend at the time. I know, odd place for hero worship. ;) --Golbez 18:13, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Open proxies

Hi, I don't quite get how to make sure I block an open proxy. All of the blocks I've recently done save one are of the sollog pattern vandalism. They seem to be switching IP's fast. If you could please check if they are open proxies, we can extend the block longer or infinite I would think. Thanks - Taxman 00:24, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Issues with the rape article

I've tried to put these observations on the talk page or on the temp talk page directly but I'm still having trouble with feeling too churned-up and shaky every time I try.

The way I see it is this: NPOV calls for all points of view, save perhaps for the truly fringe, to be represented fairly. There are, I would say, three main points of view on the issue of false reporting:

• It is an issue not worthy of serious consideration. Whenever you hear of a supposed "false report" you can be quite sure that it's really a true report, and those calling it "false" are really engaging in victim blaming. Or, if the victim herself said "no, it didn't actually happen", it really did happen and the victim must have been pressured into retracting her statement.
• False reporting happens sometimes, but we know that it is not a particularly widespread problem. We know that it is not a particularly widespread problem because the authorities we consult say that it is not particularly widespread.
• False reporting happens sometimes, and nobody knows just how often it happens. We cannot take the 'authorities' at face value when they say it's not a widespread problem, not when we can find cases where it's very clear false reporting did happen and the authorities whose nose it happened right under say "oh, even though it happened, it's still a 'myth that it happens" and not only refuse to treat the false reporting as a crime but even announce beforehand that they will never do so. Moreover, when we look at the authorities who are telling us "authorities are agreed that false reporting is almost unknown", we actually find that many of them are discounting anyone who does not agree with that premise from the category of "authorities".

The first of these views is the one which comes closest to being "truly fringe"; however, it was receiving representation in the article, due in no small part to it being the view of our drive-by anon who has come around ten times at last count and tried to make that the only point of view represented by the article. (Ironically, when Kevehs came in and started making accusations about the article being POV-pushing, she cited the mention of this viewpoint as evidence of POV being pushed, as if no one really held that view and it was only being cited as a straw man.)

Between the other two viewpoints, the problem is that so far, the second has failed to acknowledge the existence of the third.

• The reactions of certain people in positions of authority to a blatant incident of false reporting were quoted to demonstrate that authorities don't always take false reporting seriously, and Kevehs made the accusation that the "second part" of a quote (really the third part) had been left off in order to push a POV -- but the part that was left off was the woman saying "It is rare and this incident in no way minimizes the validity of the other reports." The point is that she wasn't quoted in the first place because she was an expert authority whose view on whether it was rare or not was the one that settled the question; she was quoted because she was the supposedly expert authority who referred to false reporting as a "myth" even when it happened right in her metaphorical backyard, and whose response was not 'what can we learn from this?' but 'we must not learn anything from this; even though we know it happened right here, all other reports are just as valid as we thought this one was until the student came forward and confessed.'

• The fact that in place after place you can find people claiming "this is what the FBI statistics on false reporting are" and yet they're quoting different numbers was cited in order to make the point that many people who are presuming to speak from authority and presuming to cite authoritative statistics may not in fact be correct. The entire point was dismissed and the whole section removed as "useless speculation"; the actual FBI statistics, Kevehs announced, would be encyclopedic information, but the fact that numerous differing figures are being claimed to be the true FBI statistics, she announced, is useless -- even if it supports that third viewpoint, which is that just because particular authorities announce that the rate is this or that doesn't mean that's the end of the story.

And ... I apologize for probably pushing this over the 32KB limit, but ... I needed to get this out in some semi-coherent form, and I couldn't do it where all my edits were being presumed beforehand to be bad faith. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:16, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] User:ListenToThis

After re-blocking User:Wiesenthaler, I noticed you blocked User:ListenToThis for violation the 3RR. I see no evidence that ListenToThis has violated the 3RR. And if you block ListenToThis for being a sockpuppet, you should surely block Alberuni's latest sockpuppets Pravda and RomperRoomReject as well. You can't uphold policy by both applying it selectively and violating it. I'm unblocking ListenToThis now. Jayjg | (Talk) 19:13, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am not applying policy selectively, nor am I violating it. I blocked ListenToThis for being an obvious sockpuppet created to get around the 3RR; I did not block Pravda or RomperRoomReject because there's nothing wrong with being a sockpuppet as such. It's only when the sockpuppet is clearly being used to dodge certain policies—the 3RR, in this case—that it needs to be blocked. ListenToThis was obviously created only to get in a few extra reverts; it had no user page, no talk page, and no contributions other than making the exact same revert as someone else approximately an hour after that user's third revert. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 23:50, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ah, I see, it's me you're accusing again. Well, it's not the first time you've accused me (falsely as it turns out), and no doubt it won't be the last. In fact, if you are indeed referring to me, it was 5 hours after my 3rd revert, and 4 hours after I entered this latest obvious sockpuppet on the public page for tracking these sockpuppets. Lots of people are now watching that page, and I have no doubt that some of them are pissed off enough with Alberuni and his abusive sockpuppets to reply in kind. As for your sockpuppet sleuthing abilities, they certainly fell down in the case of Nasrallah, from whom I have quite recently received an e-mail, and who turns out to be just a regular person, who no doubt got as sick of Alberuni's abuse as everyone here should be, but somehow isn't. Jayjg | (Talk) 00:25, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I didn't mean to accuse you of sockpuppetry and I'm sorry if it came off that way. I neither know nor care whose sockpuppet it was, but it was quite plainly a sockpuppet created simply to get in three extra reverts, which is a behavior I want to discourage no matter who's doing it or what their agenda is. As should you. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 02:15, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have discouraged sockpuppetry from all sides, though my primary focus has been the abusive sockpuppet army created by Alberuni. In my view this should have been everyone's primary focus, since these sockpuppets were created to violate Wikipedia's primary policy (which is Civility, not 3RR), and to undermine Wikipedia's fundamental collaborative and consensus building process. The other sockpuppets seemed to appear mostly in response to Alberuni's many sockpuppets (and in response to the as yet unclassified Goldberg family of sockpuppets), and I felt sure they would disappear when the "Alberuni and friends" sockpuppets went away. So far I appear to be correct. The illness was Alberuni's abuse, and that needed to be dealt with first, rather than reactions to it. Jayjg | (Talk) 03:04, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Charles, I'm sorry if I didn't make my question clear, and I apologize if it seemed like sarcasm. My point about Irishpunktom was that, sockpuppet or not, s/he violated 3RR, yet you didn't block him/her and you called the 3RR violation report "tattling." Yet with ListenToThis, you did block him/her for suspected 3RR violation. I am therefore genuinely (not sarcastically) asking why you blocked one user for 3RR, but not the other. Slim 02:27, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Why are you even asking? You ought to know perfectly well why I did what I did: You quoted nearly all of my conversation with MPerel but left out the part where I explained exactly why I didn't block in that specific case. Had you quoted that part, your question would have been answered. Why didn't you? —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 03:35, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

HI Charles, I'm getting a little confused because you keep deleting or moving text. My point, again, is this: You blocked ListenToThis because you believed s/he was a sockpuppet to get round 3RR. The main issue for you, as you made very clear, was the 3RR violation, not the sockpuppetry, because in and of itself, as you pointed out, sockpuppetry is not an offense. The issue, therefore, was 3RR violation. However, with Irishpunktom, who clearly did violate 3RR, not only would you not block him/her, you reacted to Mperel's request that you do so with the claim that Mperel was "tattling," and you seemed quite annoyed by the request. Therefore, my question is simply this: given that, for you, the main issue was 3RR violation, not sockpuppetry, why did you block ListenToThis for a perceived 3RR violation, but not Irishpunktom? Slim 03:44, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

I am not going to answer this question again. If you want to know why I did not block Irishpunktom, read the post in which I explained to MPerel exactly why I did not block in that case (you know where it is) and stop wasting my time. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 04:17, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I read it. It doesn't explain the difference in treatment. You're being very rude, and there's no need for it. It's very sad that you regard an editor asking you to explain your blocking policy as a waste of your time. I'll take your lack of an answer as the answer. I hope that, in future, you will try to act consistently, regardless of your own or anyone else's POV. I realize it can be hard to exercise admin powers consistently and I realize mistakes are easy to make, but you're not showing any good faith in fobbing off my queries, and by deleting and moving questions and answers, which served only to confuse and prolong the debate. I will not trouble you again. Slim 04:41, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dead RfC archive up for deletion

Hello. User:Amgine/Maureen's RfC is up for deletion. You made your views known on requests for page protection, so you might want to consider voting on the deletion. Vacuum c 22:22, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet Union

Will you be able to protect this article? We could also use help trying to calm down a attempting to insert POV. Thanks. 172 23:57, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thanks for your support on my RFA request. It seems that had I waited one day with self-nominating, it would have succeeded. Jordi·✆ 09:04, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] InterLink on a protected page

Thank you for fulfilling my request on Wikipedia:Copyrights, I've got one more dating back to November, for Wikipedia:Designated agent, as stated in Wikipedia talk:Designated agent. Thank you in advance if you can find a moment for it. Ciao, M7it 02:17, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you again. Ciao, M7it

[edit] Edit war

Someone needs to protected Soviet Union right away. Would you be able to do this? Happy New Year. 172 14:23, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

BTW, in case this is confusing, there seems to be some sort of glitch causing the edits that I'd reverted not to show up in the page history. 172 14:33, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Page Protection and 172's Activities

On my calculation it took three minutes from 172's last untimestamped request on your talk page to your protection of the Soviet Union page.

Do you always protect pages on his request?

Do you consider his pattern of misconduct revealed in Arbitration proceedings before you do so?

Do you consider it appropriate that 172 exercises de facto control of the content of articles by ensuring that pages are protected when it suits him and users blocked when they disagree with him. On my count, in the space of a week or so, he has placed about a dozen requests to block me, to protect pages I'm involved with and to even get me banned for doing no more than disagreeing with him and exposing his poor scholarship, which included citing UPI as a definitive source while it is owned by the religious cult the Moonies.

I would appreciate a prompt reply.

Libertas

On my calculation it took three minutes from 172's last untimestamped request on your talk page to your protection of the Soviet Union page.

Perhaps because I was active at the time. That's probably why he asked me to protect the page.

Do you always protect pages on his request?

I protect pages when I think it's necessary, no matter who requests it. In my experience, when 172 says that a page urgently needs protection, he's usually right.

Do you consider his pattern of misconduct revealed in Arbitration proceedings before you do so?

If a page needs protecting, it needs protecting, no matter what some user has done in the past.

Do you consider it appropriate that 172 exercises de facto control of the content of articles by ensuring that pages are protected when it suits him and users blocked when they disagree with him. On my count, in the space of a week or so, he has placed about a dozen requests to block me, to protect pages I'm involved with and to even get me banned for doing no more than disagreeing with him and exposing his poor scholarship, which included citing UPI as a definitive source while it is owned by the religious cult the Moonies.

I am not familiar with the specifics of whatever disputes exist between you and 172. As is my practice, I did not review the diffs of the editing dispute until after I protected the page, so I had only a vague idea (gleaned from the edit summaries) of what was going on. I do not want to get involved in this dispute, so please do not try to drag me into it.

I would appreciate a prompt reply.

I hope this is prompt enough. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 00:05, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Admin request

Hi, I just finished an archive and summary of the dispute at Talk:Soviet Union. Because this has been a particularly hairy dispute, I think the archive should be protected. Besides which, it is an archive. (I ask you because your name is on the protection notice of the original article.) Thanks.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 22:58, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

That's probably unnecessary: talk pages and their archives are usually not protected unless there's some pressing reason, like an ongoing revert war or persistent vandalism. Neither seems to be a problem for Talk:Soviet Union/Archive 3. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 02:20, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

All right, that makes sense. Thanks in any case.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 08:49, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Libertas RFC

Just wanted to let you know that I've opened a user conduct RFC regarding Libertas, primarily over habitual personal attacks. Your request for him not to make them is included in the evidence section. As such, you might want to certify the basis of the dispute (it's currently awaiting a second certification) or otherwise provide your input. Let me know if you have any concerns. RadicalSubversiv E 03:50, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Um? Is this a cross-post or something? The diff linked doesn't show me telling Libertas anything, and as far as I remember my only conversation with him was in the section above. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 04:14, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not a cross-post, just tired and pasted the wrong diff. Try this one RadicalSubversiv E 04:57, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That edit is by Improv, not me. . .? Again I don't remember ever advising Libertas against personal attacks. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 08:05, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Complete brain fart, somehow had you two completely mixed up in my head. Sorry for pestering you. RadicalSubversiv E 08:35, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• wilful pattern of self abuse—for some reason I don't think RfC was really intended to deal with this sort of thing. :-)

  *sniggers*, nice one. --fvw* 13:38, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)