User talk:Mirv/Archive 3

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

Messages left here may not be seen for months. Use e-mail if you absolutely must contact me.

---

Administrator powers

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

Protection

Every page I protect is on the wrong version, of course, so to conserve valuable electrons, just leave a link to the page and a number from the list. Thanks.

If I accidentally protected a page to which I have made substantive edits, tell me here. I will unprotect it immediately.

The Rowdyruff Boys

Thank you for acting so swiftly on my request. The version you protected was reverted yet again before you had an opportunity to protect the page. The older version is the latest entry under The Rowdyruff Boys page by me. I don't understand the person's objection to the content that I submitted. I stated in the document that there were many fans that wanted these characters to return. Note, I said many, not most. It's not my POV; it's a statement about the desires of the public as a whole. It would be like saying "many people like the flavor of Pepsi," even though Coca-Cola sells more product tham Pepsi. He also demanded proof of there being "many" fans. I provided him with a link to an online petition with over 450 signatures from people who wanted the characters' episode to re-air on Canadian television. I also have many, many fan emails that I have accumulated over the past four years that support the statement that these characters have "many fans." These observations aren't hearsay. They have been experienced by me first hand. I have tried to accomodate whatever possible issues this person may have with the entry, but to no avail. I respectfully request the 17:19, 7 Jul 2004 be the protected entry.--King Moonraiser 19:56, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I should not, and do not, choose the version on which I protect an article. Sorry. Try to raise Marcus2's attention on the talk page. —No-One Jones 13:15, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think you might as well unprotect the page for the Rowdyruff Boys. Apparently, User:King Moonraiser isn't active and has made no reply to my last edit on its talk page. What do you say? Marcus2 20:21, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Okey doke. Do try working out an acceptable compromise rather than revert-warring, though. —No-One Jones 23:48, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche

(moved from end of this talk page)

You protected the wrong version of the page, for all the reasons you so presciently noted in your page devoted to "the wrong version." I would like to humbly suggest that "{{disputed}}" be added to the protected version, in addition to the already added "{{NPOV}}". Also please note that there is a new proposed version of the page (Lyndon LaRouche/draft) that seems superior to either previous version, from the NPOV standpoint. 64.30.208.48

If the disputing editors have reached some sort of consensus on the article, any one of them can ask for its unprotection—or, since John Kenney and AndyL are both sysops, either of them can unprotect the page.

In the meantime, I will add the accuracy dispute.

P.S. m:The Wrong Version is a clever joke for which I only wish I could claim credit, but I think Angela, Pakaran, and Jimbo Wales wrote most of it. —No-One Jones 17:38, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Deletion

Did I speedy-delete something that wasn't a candidate? Did I delete something for which there was no consensus to delete? Tell me here.

Blocking

Your self block was in violation of wikipedia policy, that is why I unblocked you. Hcheney

Now I suppose I'll have to demand my own de-sysopping. :) Seriously though, when was that addition to the policy discussed? I can't find any evidence of it on the talk page. —No-One Jones 13:15, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

racialist

moved to Talk:Racialist

Jural

Thank you for your revison on Sean Penn. I think Mr Jural is not yet up to speed on what this project is all about.

[[PaulinSaudi 13:50, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)]]

Et in pulverem reverteris...

Like the skull WITHOUT the bones ;O) Kind of cute ! Keep up the good work! The tyrants will fall by themselves as a side effect :O) - irismeister 23:11, 2004 Apr 16 (UTC)

That other guy

[i.e. Kenneð]

No, he's not me, I think he just wanted other people to read my rant. - Lord Kenneth 00:46, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)

RfC/VeryVerily

Please restore VV's user disputes page on Wikipedia:Requests for comment. More than two users have certified it (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/VeryVerily/Page status disputed. Hanpuk and I favor keeping it up due to the ongoing disputes between Hanpuk and VV over the Cambodia-related articles. (Please see my comments on the talk page. 172 13:47, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Thanks for taking a look. However, I still think that policy allows us to maintain the listing of the VV page. Milton also posted some comments on the status disputed page. There are also other users posting comments on the original Wikipedia:Requests for comment/VeryVerily page. In all honesty, though, the policy isn't my principal concern in and of itself. I simply don't like the idea of continuing to list Hanpuk's user conduct dispute page while there's no listing of VV's page. We're presenting only one side of the story as of now. 172 14:53, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi, VeryVerily made the claim that two users had not certified the dispute against him on the Request for comments page. Two users have certified the dispute however, me and HectorRodriguez. Hanpuk 15:53, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

RfA triplication

Sorry about jumping in on you there. You must have posted the triplication notice between the time I actually viewed the page and when I started editing it. I restored Plato's vote on AndyL, which is the only one I could find that was lost in my edits. Feel free to double-check my work. --Michael Snow 22:10, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nice to see you again so soon

Sort of. Your intervention to try and cool down Saddam Hussein is much appreciated. I've started a quickpoll for VeryVerily and 172 based on their reverts. You probably shouldn't vote, since you become an involved party by intervening, but any comments are welcome. --Michael Snow 22:56, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Allegation article

Hi there, I saw you contributed to Talk:Michael Moore and US foreign policy, what is your take on Oil for Food Allegations? Get-back-world-respect 03:43, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think it's a haphazard collection of complaints about the oil-for-food program, which seems to be little more than a playground for the local right-wingers. However I mostly stay away from articles on modern politics (it's not my forte), so I'd rather not get involved; best course I can think of is to summarize it and fold it into Oil for food, as is done with most of these Criticisms of . . . articles. —No-One Jones 03:49, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And I cannot count on you declaring this in the vote as well? Get-back-world-respect 04:01, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi there, thank you for you help to find a consensus in the vote for deletion of "oil for food allegations". The article was merged with oil for food, but there are serious problems now, mainly because two users have extreme disagreements and no one else helped. Bcorr now suggested a peace-plan, and I thought you might be willing to help again? By the way, if you are interested in a project about learning, especially vocabulary, please check my page and let me know what you think. Get-back-world-respect 19:07, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Crown of Thorns

Edit conflict! Did I get your recents edits all into the version. I was doing major editing. Say, I'm just gonna steal that skull still life for Skull (mythology)! Wetman 04:48, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Matter of Paul Vogel

The matter of Paul Vogel has been accepted for arbitration. Please present your request for relief at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paul Vogel. Also present any evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paul Vogel/Evidence. Fred Bauder 01:30, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

Montreal street names

moved to Talk:Montreal, Quebec

Question

Ugen is adding comments under other people's votes on RFC..is he allowed to do that? If not please remove them. GrazingshipIV 16:59, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

You can ask for them all you want he does not have evidence of a NPOV violation, and even if he managed to scrape up one, there is no way it could be considered the way I normally operate. GrazingshipIV 21:03, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

Oh no no no- he takes away one of the disputes he takes away ALL of the disputes I'm not playing this tit for tat bullshit. If he wants to remove any dispute he has to remove ALL disputes too many people have voted and commented. GrazingshipIV 00:15, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

If we are going to play this technical game then I think the page should be deleted due to inability to certify. GrazingshipIV 00:17, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

RfC

I'm glad that you find me constructive, but I can't say the feeling is quite mutual at the moment. I'm not sure whet gotten under your bonnet, but your refactoring (removing my endorsement of Danny for example? How rude!) of the page has not been done w any sort of demeanor nor implementation common to other RfC pages. While you may have been right about the arrangement of the page, and I do appreciate your efforts there, I would ask you to take a step back from this situation. A number of your actions and statements have been in my eyes counterproductive, and I haven’t noticed your involvement in any of these particulars prior, demonstrating a lack of obvious rationale for your aggression and intensity. If you have some separate complaint against me, bring it up with me elsewhere. I have known you to be particularly compromising and competent in the past, and would ask that you re-evaluate the particulars here and now. Sam Spade 17:00, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

---

I was just commenting on RickK's summary. 172 17:39, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

RfC redux

The RFC page has not been properly certified. Also Spade is changing his disputes I wonder whether or not this is allowed? Eitherway please take the page down as time has expired. GrazingshipIV 00:30, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

Is not charge 3 (the new charge) illegitimate concerning the rules of RFC that is must be single dispute...and how can he now ask for a comment that he was not invovled in (temp banning)? GrazingshipIV 00:45, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

This is true; if he has added new charges (perhaps something you did while still new, something that has little bearing on the current dispute) then he has to show evidence that he tried to resolve them. I'll make sure he does. —No-One Jones 00:49, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Actually I resolved the conflict through mediation with Kingturtle-over 2 months ago. It was about an edit war between me and anthony, he had NO involvement.GrazingshipIV 00:53, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

I have asked him about it; see the talk page. —No-One Jones 01:02, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

ok I reverted my response due to the votes so it's the statement that was there for the voting-but its hard to not keep responding when NEW charges keep coming. GrazingshipIV 01:15, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

OK, Kingturtle has vouched for me, I think Spade's charge is pretty much patent non-sense at this point. GrazingshipIV 02:04, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

Ugen64 as not intervened in any one point of dispute from Spade, particularly in the NEW point of dispute spade has included-his certification according to the rules of RFC is illegitimate. GrazingshipIV 19:33, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

I concur with Grazingship's assessment here - Ugen64 is not qualified to certify the RfC, having not attempted to resolve the matter with him. Snowspinner 19:36, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

He did intervene in the dispute over Grazingship's talk page (whether that intervention was at all effective is beside the point) so he can certify that part of the dispute.

I disagree. Commenting and intervening are two different things - the use of the word intervene implies an attempt to resolve, discuss, compromise, etc. Snowspinner 19:48, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

He asked Grazingship to "leave [Sam Spade] the heck alone", which was an attempt at resolution, albeit not very helpful—but I think anyone who wants to comment can figure that out for themselves. With that RfC on such shaky ground already, I doubt that it matters one way or another. —No-One Jones 19:54, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

As to Sam's new disputes, they are already under close scrutiny; I wouldn't be surprised if he withdraws them very soon, as he did with the allegation of NPOV violations. —No-One Jones 19:41, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

I've noted why Ugen cannot possibly certify the page. Mirv, have you considered the policy you are allowing with that...so he throw a baseless charge out there and when everyone realizes it's nonsense he can just withdraw it. Take this page down it is illegitimate. GrazingshipIV 00:48, May 14, 2004 (UTC)

Read my new addition to the talk page, please. —No-One Jones 01:17, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Trolling

moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/GrazingshipIV

Lst27

A general note to people who may be wondering whether this user is in fact Alex <removed>. You may observe that Lst27's decision to remove his self-nomination for adminship, after it had received considerable opposition, is entirely consistent with Alex <removed>'s behavior when nominating himself in the past. --Michael Snow 21:12, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/172

I'm really surprised that you would endorse a summary that says Censuring someone who actually knows the material because some ignorant fuck who has never read a book in his life doesnt approve of it and wants to post his own ill-informed opinion will be the death of Wikipedia. Abusive language is always inappropriate. RickK 02:17, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

You are right that the language is inappropriate; however, the idea behind it was and is correct. —No-One Jones 19:32, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

Hi. I've edited my comment on the Requests for comment/172 page. Since you are a signatory, I thought you should know that what you are signed to has changed. I will understand if you remove your signature. Danny 23:19, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

nomination

You've been nominated to be an admin, and you need to accept (or decline) the nomination on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. All the best, -- Viajero 10:37, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Congratulations on admin status. The vote showed overwhelming support, as I expected. 172 02:01, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

In need of community support

I'm in need of community support.

Right now, I am on the verge of being driven away from Wikipedia through the relentless efforts of a single problem user on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/172, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, and Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/172 vs VeryVerily.

The same user who refuses to accept the results of the Augusto Pinochet poll (see also [1]) goes through my user history every time he logs on and then starts reverting things that I've written arbitrary. He manages to divert attention away from the articles onto ad hominem attacks, thus poisoning the well against me. [2]

He has been doing nothing else for the past couple of months, other than making some minor changes to pages that he finds through the random page feature. Meanwhile, I've been working on articles such as Empire of Brazil, Dollar Diplomacy, and Franco-U.S. relations. I'm tired of letting a problem user define my contributions to the encyclopedia, as opposed to my work.

I may have said some regrettable things in the past, but my editing practices are scholarly and methodical. When I make an edit, my choice is based on a consideration of the quality of the encyclopedia. Unlike the user who avowedly admits to trying to escalate a personal feud (see, e.g., [3]), I do not decide which pages to edit and what changes to make on the basis of personality feuds, emotional POV whims, or a desire to get attention.

Although this user shows little evidence that he understands the content of the articles, I have shown considerable restraint, given my professional expertise. [4]. Only through community support (i.e. lobbying the arbitration committee)will this user be stopped. Otherwise, Wikipedia will die unless we stop vandals and clueless POV-pushers from running rampant and driving away valued contributors.

Please feel free to direct questions and comments to my talk page or e-mail at sokolov47@yahoo.com.

Sincerely,

172 02:01, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Sysop

Congratulations! You are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. Good luck. Angela. 18:33, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Our Daniel Pipes loving friend

Do you think there's any way we could get the fellow banned? All he does, so far as I can tell, is repeatedly revert the Pipes article without discussion. Isn't this just vandalism? john k 07:13, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If he argued on the talk page for why the article should be written from the perspective of being on one's knees, that would not be vandalism. But repeatedly reverting an article and refusing to make any real effort to discuss the content comes pretty close to vandalism, I think. But, yeah, let's see if contact can be made. john k 08:03, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

worse than bad

Maybe I am wasting my time, but I just added the truly horrendous Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to VFD. Care to vote? -- Viajero 22:33, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

deletes

Replied on my talk.

your assistance, please

Although I hadn't planned to after listing it on VfD, I have ended up rewriting and adding a fair bit of material to Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict after user Wikisux (sic) took an initial stab at it. If it isn't already I'd be most grateful if you'd add this article to your watchlist. There is another user who keeps reverting it and I could use a little support. TIA. -- Viajero 13:40, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I would like to help with this article, but I'm not in a position to do the kind of serious research necessary to write anything halfway respectable—being on summer break, I have no access to my university's libraries and am sharing a dialup connection with seven others. I'll keep an eye on the article and protect it if necessary, but that's all I can do at the moment. —No-One Jones 18:06, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

page protection and stupidity

Well, ...I've the same old brain all day long...

Thank you for your kind remark on WP:PP.

I take my stupidity as a sign from The Almighty/Destiny/Heisenberg and postpone my request a day or two. ;-)
--Ruhrjung 21:16, 2004 Jun 17 (UTC)

Moloch revert

Thanks very much Mirv. It's always nice to know someone is reading the stuff. I've already asked User:Trc on his talk page to explain what problems he finds with my revision, which doubtless indeed could be improved. jallan 17:54, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

RFROAA

I like it! See my comments on the talk page. BTW could you take a look at Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines/things we agree on, and things we will, I'm trying to identify points of agreement and disagreement over how to deal with conflict between users. Would appreciate your input. Cheers, Mark Richards 14:52, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Michael

Sorry, "revert on sight" means revert on sight, I don't care how good Michael's supposed edits are, he's not to be an editor if at all possible. Like I said, I don't mind if somebody else adds those things in, but I don't want him to be the editor of record. RickK 18:37, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

Yasser Arafat [protected]

As a member of the Typo Team, I've found that this article contains the misspelling truely (truly). Please correct this misspelling once the page is unprotected. Thanks. -- Saaga 18:15, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

I will, unless someone beats me to it. In the future, if you spot minor mistakes in a protected page, it's best to leave a brief note on the talk page: the sysop who protected the page (me, in this case) is (in theory) not involved in editing the article at all. —No-One Jones 18:19, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't aware of the no editing guideline. However, I did consider putting my comment on the Talk page, but assumed it would get lost among the 'discussion'.

Undelete National Socialism

I know that it has been made a redirect. Andy is an administrator. He took content and then added it to Nazism. Hitler and Mussolini did not coin the term nor invent it. It's pre-history needs a seperate page. I am just asking for it to be restored as its own article.WHEELER 18:52, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Okay. That is something you should discuss on Talk:National Socialism, or Talk:Nazism, or Talk:Nazism/Seperate-National Socialism, or User talk:AndyL, or wherever: Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion is only for requesting undeletion of pages that have been deleted by sysops. —No-One Jones 18:59, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

another VfD

FWIW, I listed PLO and Hamas on VfD: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion#PLO_and_Hamas. Care to weigh in? -- 23:08, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

unprotected

Mirv, I have unprotected your talk page. Few talk pages have been protected in the history of the project and only for compelling reasons. I do not believe protecting talk pages of users who are merely "away" for a time is wise and do not support setting such a precedent. Even if you are away from the project for a time, other users may wish to leave messages for you to read upon your return.

Best regards

UninvitedCompany 20:15, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wow, great destination. Buon viaggo! -- Viajero 20:33, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Grazie mille. I'll have to upload a few of my photos; Siena#Il Palio could do with a picture of the race. —No-One Jones 23:08, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

fxs

Thanks for fixing the Talk page of the Media article. As you may have noticed, Humus tried to move it back to its previous name using Cut & Paste, which is a no-no, and in the course of reparing the damage I used the revert button which of course reverted all his recent edits to that page, not just the move. I look forward to seeing some of your pics. -- Viajero 20:20, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

PLO & Hamas

As you will have seen, there was no concensus to delete PLO and Hamas. My feeling is it should be reduced to a paragraph or two, with a maximum of say three quotes. Any thoughts? -- Viajero 11:33, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think that would be fine (either that, or replace it with a real article on the relationship between the two groups); however, that would almost certainly lead to a nasty edit war, loud whinges on the mailing list, and threats of banning, all from the usual suspect—that's what happened after we tried the same thing with Palestinian views of the peace process. I think leaving it alone (with a {{TotallyDisputed}} message to let people know that it's garbage) until we have something clearly superior with which to replace it, would be best. —No-One Jones 15:31, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, I had a go at it. It is now a three-paragraph stub with two quotes. We'll see what happens. Please take a look. Thaks. -- Viajero 11:29, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's an improvement on the propaganda that was there before, definitely. I'll see if I can improve it any further—there may be intelligence reports or something with worthwhile information. —No-One Jones 14:59, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Holy Grail

But that image relates to text below. Get us another Holy Grail image (got a secret stash of public domain art anywhere?). I hate to revert your edit. We need a Grail. Parsifal photo from c. 1880... or something. Wetman 00:59, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize that the image had been moved down for a reason. I'll see if I can find something appropriate for the intro. —No-One Jones 01:56, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

RFC management

You exchanged a request for an article comment inappropriately, deleting one link and a major point of the description. Please check back if you can agree with the current version. Get-back-world-respect 06:33, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The current version is fine. —No-One Jones 14:12, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Protection of FOX News

Given our history, you're not the best person to protect the article - but fine it deserves protection no matter who does it. But you should add a {{protected}} message to the top of any article you protect. VV[[]] 05:52, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Omitting the protection message was a slip, now remedied. —No-One Jones 05:55, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. VV[[]] 05:57, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

holidays

(cross-posted)

Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Self-blocking_to_enforce_Wikiholidays

It seems to me, and some folks that I've been chatting to, that there are some good reasons for admins to refrain from self-blocking when going on holiday, and instead simply leave a note on one's user or user talk page to the effect that one is going away and may be some time. I notice that some time over the last couple of months you've self-blocked, and I wondered if you would discuss the matter with us? Interested to hear your perspective. Thanks. Martin 21:36, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Synarchism

Adam's "Version" is not just POV -- it is part of an on-going campaign of vandalism (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche/Evidence). It provides no meaningful or useful material on Synarchism, but instead provides Adam Carr with another opportunity to spew a bunch of venom against LaRouche. This should be settled at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche/Evidence, not on the Synarchism page. --Herschelkrustofsky 00:19, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Article content disputes should, in general, be settled on the relevant article talk pages. As to the dispute between you and Dr. Carr, I'm not going to get involved. Let the arbitration committee settle it; in the meantime, I'll do no more than I've already done: protect the pages over which you two are edit-warring. —No-One Jones 00:32, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Pettiness

I see (and saw ;) no pettiness in either case. In both situations the violation I created the RfC in regards to was only the tip of the iceberg. Graz was a dangerous troll, IMO a sockpuppet of a previously banned user. He had a very sinister methodology that you chose to ignore in your partisanship.

Honest question: What do you have against me, and what do I need to do to resolve it?

I happen to think you’re a good editor, when your not persecuting me or advocating for some dubious character I am railing against. My guess is this has to do w Paul Vogel. OK, it turned out I was clearly wrong to have gave him the time of day. Does that help at all? I stand by my attempts to reform him, but in hindsight they were a waste of time, regardless of my idealism. I like the idea of reforming problem users. Obviously it fails alot, but to me it feels moral. I really enjoy the group editing process, and the idea that a truly diverse group of editors can achieve NPOV. Maybe I have gone too far in helping some people, maybe you have. Maybe not, but what do I need to do to convince you of my good faith? Sam [Spade] 02:50, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have nothing against you personally (your advocacy for Vogel was clearly honest, if misguided), but your methods leave something to be desired. If Graz was in fact a dangerous troll and sockpuppet (of which previously-banned user, BTW?), rather than a hot-headed and ill-mannered but basically well-intentioned user (as I think he was), dragging out and blowing up a minor interpersonal dispute between you two was a poor way to deal with him. The Wikipedia community is fairly good at recognizing people who are only here to wreak havoc, and the arbitrators have dealt well, albeit slowly, with such troublemakers.

But Graz was a borderline case; he had made trouble and good contributions in equal amounts. AndyL, on the other hand, is a model Wikipedian; he has contributed vast amounts of well-researched, well-written, NPOV material on a wide variety of topics, many of them highly controversial, and has remained polite and reasonable while doing so despite the twits (e.g. Vogel) with whom he has to deal—and yet you made every effort to cast him in a bad light because of a few minor mistakes, long since admitted and reversed. This you did despite your continuing defense and advocacy of dodgy characters like WHEELER and Vogel. Why? Andy has misbehaved, yes, but his misbehavior was minor, far less significant than the misbehavior of some of those whom you have chosen to defend. I find this baffling, and it makes me question the sincerity of your stated desire to reform problematic users.

So, if you want to convince me of your good faith, continue your efforts to reform troublemakers, but apply them equally; don't defend some while jumping down the throats of others. Demonstrate real fairness, and I'll have no reason to doubt that you are, in fact, just trying to be fair. —No-One Jones 03:13, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

1. Andy is now an admin (quite unfortunate but true) and thus aught to be held to a higher standard
2. I have never found Andy to be "polite" or "reasonable", having edited many a contentious page w him
3. WHEELER has been amazingly polite, considering, and Vogel was an odd case, the 1st troll I encountered apon coming to the wiki
4. Both Andy and Graz (who I think might have been User:Lord Kenneth) were especially rude to myself, which admitedly affected my respose

Sam [Spade] 03:20, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Andy made a mistake, admitted it, and undid it; I don't know if there's any higher standard to which he might be held. The rest is a matter of opinion, and you are rather lonely in your assessment of Andy as "never . . . polite or reasonable" and WHEELER as "amazingly polite, considering [what?]". Any time you wish to address the substance of my points—your defence of some users widely seen as problematic coupled with attacks on users whose behavior has generally been unquestioned—this page is open. —No-One Jones 03:35, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Andy has shown a pattern of such mistakes, but clearly I am counter-concensus, and am willing to accept that. See [5]. If you still want to delete the page, I no longer oppose. Sam [Spade] 18:36, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

I am ever so sory for affending you with my personal opinions on pages. I am new to Wikipedeia and wanted to make my own contribution. Ever so sorry Iva Biggan.

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand why you're apologizing. Where do you think you offended me with your personal opinions? —No-One Jones 14:50, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

our friend 209.135.35.83

I added OneVoice to RFAr: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:209.135.35.83_and_occasionally_69.138.236..23.23.23 Care to add anything? -- Viajero 14:25, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Personal attacks on the mailing list

I am sending the following message to multiple users I'd strongly appreciate it if fair-minded users responded to the latest string of baseless personal attacks on the mailing list ([6], [7], [8], [9]). Stan Shebs, Fred Bauder, and RickK started attacking me ferociously since it came up on the mailing list that one of the articles I'd written was featured, Russian constitutional crisis of 1993.

I know that I have made mistakes on Wikipedia; but those mistakes were not motivated by anything other than a passion to make Wikipedia into a serious, professional, quality encyclopedia, not a dumping ground for ungrammatical POV rubbish and fiction. This is making it harder and harder for me to be as efficacious as a user as I want to be. (The distorted impression of my work that these attacks engender are at the root of quite a large number of conflicts on Wikipedia.) That's why I feel that they should finally be thoroughly discredited. 172 06:00, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Requests for comment/24.168.92.117

Hi. I've created Wikipedia:Requests for comment/24.168.92.117 (Keith Wigdor). I saw that you tried talking to this user on his talk page about his edits, and I was wondering if you'd want to certify the dispute. Quadell (talk) 17:30, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

My only involvement with the user was when I asked him to stop screwing around with RfC, and that was some time ago, so I don't think I should be certifying the dispute. —No-One Jones 23:14, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)