User talk:Michael Snow/Archive (Apr-May 2004)

toctallies
I like them, but I can't be bothered with the manual labour ;) Sam Spade 00:36, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Kenneth, and for completely different reasons, Paul Vogel, are very interesting tests of the wiki system. For one thing I think they believe what they say, at least roughly (outside of the insults, which are over the top). They are also both questionable as to if they can/will become sound editors. My preference is clearly for Paul, but there are pro's and cons for both. I am clearly not Kenneths advocate, however ;) Sam Spade 00:47, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Take a look at my contributions some time, and you'll see I work on almost nothing but. Its no wonder I get into so many controvercial/heated deiscusions, due to the areas in which I edit. But these are my interests. I like sharpening the limits of truth, and polishing the edges of NPOV. Besides, it prepares me w mountains of material and experience for real life POV debates ;) Sam Spade 01:08, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi, was your comment on Fennec on WP:RFA supposed to be a vote? Or just a comment? Angela. 00:27, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

message
Thanks for the notification. GrazingshipIV 19:00, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)

Did you know vs. In the news
You expressed interest in the front page layout on Talk:Main page. Could you please vote in the poll there? Thanks, silsor 07:24, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

Categories
The "soon-to-be-activated" category system has been "soon-to-be-activated" for quite some time now. Magnus (the developer) hasn't devoted much time to testing it, so we haven't been able to take it live yet. It is at least part of the CVS development branch now and actually being tested at http://test.wikipedia.org (which, as a whole, is very broken right now). So I'd say in 2-4 weeks the thing might actually be taken live, major bugs notwithstanding.--Eloquence* 22:36, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Hi Michael, please could you try to explain your edits in the edit summary more often. It would help explain why you are removing things from pages seemingly without reason, such as and. I worked out that the 2nd was because you had redirected the page you removed, but it would be better to know this without having to check. I can't see any reason for your removal of one of the log archives from Changing attribution for an edit though. Angela. 22:38, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

I apologise for suggesting you removed it. I must be readings the difs backwards. Too much time on the RTL Wikipedias I guess. :) I've reverted my edit now. Angela. 22:54, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your note re: Anthony. You're right about his sense of humor, and I'd missed that he'd actually been accepted for arbitration. He alternates between irritating me and convincing me he's worthwhile....I guess today I felt more irritated than usual (perhaps because his behavior at Anchorage has been the one thing I find totally irrational and childish about his work here). Thanks for helping me get some perspective. I'll stay away from Anchorage awhile, then, unless that table's data mysteriously disappears. :-) Thanks for the work you do here, both as a contributor and a voice of reason -- you're very good at both. Jwrosenzweig 23:17, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

sure
Go ahead and take it down. He made me rather annoyed by doing a variety of small scale, petty things, none of which really addded up to much. Basically I felt he was being an expletive, and needed some way to express that, w the main goal of him perhaps being ashamed, or at least recieving a scolding. Due to technical policy factors (only somewhat), and the lack of support from the higher ups (the main factor) Things never really went anywhere with the complaints. I decided to back away from the page he appears to have "claimed", and he in turn appears to have backed off from a page where I had a longer term involvement. None of this is really all that important, and even when I put him on quickpolls I didn't ask for him to be banned for any length of time, but rather just to recieve a talking to about obeying policy, general politeness, etc. In summary, go right ahead, thats prob the best thing to do, this is not currently an ongoing matter. Sam Spade 21:24, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Navigation boxes
Can I get you to change your vote for the navigation boxes (tables) on MediaWiki talk:Communitypage to support? That seems to be the best way to overcome the current impasse.--Eloquence* 22:47, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

AMA co-ordinator election is now on
You may now vote for user:Ed_Poor or user:Alex756 in the first ever AMA co-ordinator election. Follow the instructions on AMA Coordinator Election Procedure for more details.

AMA members who wish to abstain from voting must also e-mail wikipedia_ama_voting@yahoo.co.uk with notice of that intent.

To clarify anything before voting, ask user_talk:Zanimum or user_talk:Jwrosenzweig on their talk pages.

AMA members have until April 30, at 11:00:00 EST to vote. -- user:zanimum

Thanks for supporing my nomination as an admin...
...I appreciate it. Dpbsmith 10:06, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't really care whether they're called shorthand, shortcut, rapidnames, getwords, buzztype, acrowiks, quickpaths, x-tunnels, clearview, magnilinks or miniroutes. Just keep them around, please ;-).--Eloquence* 23:18, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)

Re:Hanpuk,Richardchilton,Lancemurdoch,HectorRodriguez etc.
He said so himself on IRC. Also, they have the same edit patterns, interests, and ideologies (ie on Khmer Rouge). It's actually very obvious, especially given the number of other similar accounts he's used. His strategy is actually explicitly laid out on Richardchilton's user page. There is more at Requests for comment/Richardchilton. Maximus Rex 18:53, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * RE:IRC logs. I'm kind of busy at the moment, but I'll see what I can do tonight to find what he said with regard to his Hanpuk account. Maximus Rex 19:21, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * It's possible he's been more "careful" with the Hanpuk account. But he's not fooling anyone who doesn't want to be fooled.  Of course he denies they're sockpuppets; that's the whole point of having them! -- VV 22:24, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Agree with Maximus. It is obvious from dealing almost daily with this user that Hanpuk is the same person; I could list examples if I must, but their focus and style is clearly the same to the naked eye. Of course, he denies it; trolls are liars, that's why he created multiple accounts. This user should simply be banned once and for all, so the time of so many good contributors is not perpetually wasted; his statement on User:Richardchilton should be evidence enough. 172 is trying to draw a moral equivalency between this user and me (e.g., on RfC), because I have been active against him, in a further attempt to smear me and condemn my anti-trolling efforts as "edit warring". -- VV 19:23, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think this was what I was thinking of. Maximus Rex 13:57, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

RFA triplication
Oh, no trouble. I hit an edit conflict after my first save&mdash;two minutes or so&mdash;and I noticed you were working on it. The only other votes posted in the interim (Plato's vote on Roozbeh and Snowspinner's comment on AndyL) were posted in the first iteration of the page, where they belonged. &mdash;No-One Jones 22:17, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Snowjob? Your "lying hypocrisy" has just been exposed above and made quite clear.

Obviously, any such "censorship" of "criticism links" is only ok with you and only when certain "topics" and only when a certain "religion" or only when some specific and certain "ilk" is "concerned", right Texture?

Holocaust

Today, the term is also used to describe other attempts at genocide, both before and after World War II. More generally, holocaust is used for any overwhelmingly massive and deliberate loss of life, such as that which would result from a nuclear war - sometimes called a "nuclear holocaust".

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."-George Santayana

For example, does one historical genocide ever justify another?

Palestinian Holocaust and Genocide by Israel---1948-Present

Palestinians are dying, unjustly, that is all that need to be said to act on this issue and change the situation. They live in poverty, unable to govern themselves and build themselves up as a nation due to the extremely strong restrictions that bind them. The anger of such groups as Hamas is understandable, but their use of terrorism hides the integrity of their cause. It is also understandable that Israel takes certain measures to protect their people from terrorism, but they are now destroying a race &#8211; they are committing genocide. It is only when these humanitarian injustices of Palestinians are solved and this unrecognized Holocaust is put to an end that the true path to peace in the Middle East can begin.

This has been an issue for well over 60 years but the international community as a whole has been unable to stop it: hence "Terrorism" and "Suicide Bombers"

It is really quite clear that you and your "ilk" are the ones that always refuses to learn the real lessons of history and still lies hypocritically to avoid and deny the TRUTH and will pay when it eventually repeats itself.-PV

- Holocaust Talk Pages and False Bannings and Censorship by the usual suspect ilk. ---

"1) My claim of your anti-Semitic trolling nature is based on your behavior on this page."

Your "claim" is a completely false one, and it is personally insulting. Palestinians are Semites, too. Therefore, the term "anti-Semitic" is a misnomer. Telling their side of the story is NOT any my "trolling nature", whatsoever.

"2) Aside from being pure POV, that's not relevent to a discussion on the Nazi holocaust."

It is relevant to a discussion of the term "holocaust", which is NOT POV. ANY HOLOCAUST.

The article section is "quite appropriate" for the reasons I have just given, what information, specifically, was "not suitable" and "why" for the position in the article? HOW DARE you personally insult me with falsely and personally insulting me and calling me any "anti-Semitic" or "troll nature" because you do not understand just how relevant and important that section within the article actually is? You are such an narrow-minded bigot that you do not see what the future holds for all Jews, everywhere, with your own selfish and biased bigotry and ignorant pov editing of the truth. A blood curse be upon all of your ilk that always censors the Truth for any such selfish and foolish and bigoted narrow-mindedness!

"3) I'm not at all sure how to respond to a blood curse. I suppose I'm flattered. Snowspinner 00:58, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)"

You shouldn't really be "flattered" at all. Such "blood curses" always do come true, eventually, as did the one when the Jesus was murdered by the same ilk that chose pov and selfish bigotry

over the Truth. I was only warning you that the "Jewish Holocaust" of 50-60 years ago would not be the last, if the real lessons to be learned from it, were not learned, and were not actually taken to heart. Obviously, the same ilk then, 50-60 years ago, even 2000 years ago, is the very same ilk, now. Time is running out. Kalki or Jesus will return, them being only the "symbolic representations" of the sword of TRUTH, which is ETERNAL. Good luck!


 * Look, a totally random rant about subjects I haven't come within miles of on Wikipedia. I'm not sure what prompted the anon to include me in the discussion, nor do I see any point in it. I might have removed it as being basically vandalism, but usually I leave what people post here alone, and this does no real harm to me. But it does feel a little odd to post to my own talk page. --Michael Snow 02:33, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

message concerning quickpoll
I applaud your suggestion that mediation should be used. Mediation is not used enough and the current conflict in particular shows that temp bans are highly ineffective. GrazingshipIV 04:43, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

the quickpolls quickpoll
I *think* it could be included in the Recent Changes page (like they quickpolls used to be), to ease finding it. Just a suggestion which I imagine you already had in mind. Pfortuny 18:15, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Adminship
Michael, I'm amazed you have not requested adminship. You would clearly benefit from having such access as you would be able to deal with the deletion of the RfC pages yourself. I have nominated you at Requests for adminship. Please say on that page whether or not you accept the nomination. Angela. 21:37, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

What was supposed to happen with this?
From the deletion log:
 * 14:53, Apr 15, 2004 Merovingian restored "Ratshit"
 * 14:52, Apr 15, 2004 Merovingian deleted "Ratshit" (content was: 'thsrththeeshgdzgsdrg')
 * 18:04, Apr 2, 2004 Angela deleted "Ratshit" (listed on Vfd a week. Transwiki'd to Wiktionary)

After I deleted it, it was recreated by 144.137.16.149 with the content "thsrththeeshgdzgsdrg". I'm guessing that Merovingian saw this, speedy-deleted it, then realised there was more than one deleted revision. He probably thought he had made a mistake in deleting something with a previous history so restored it. I've redeleted it now. Angela. 00:17, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry about the hinting
You're quite right. I only said something because I wanted to avoid a firestorm of accusations and suspicions when the election will be entirely non-controversial once results are announced. I would also note another reason why I am not worried about influencing the results, but I think it would be an egregious form of hinting, so we'll talk about it once the results are posted. I did just want to let you know that I agreed, and I weighed the potential damage of seeming to influence results by making a comment, but felt at the time that it was something that would do more good than harm. I hope I am correct. Let me know if you think we botched things seriously -- I do want to do a good and fair job. Jwrosenzweig 16:53, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Glad we're on the same page. :-) I agree with your comments (and had forgotten you'd yet to vote).  I do also want to commend you for so quickly becoming a rational and moderate Wikipedian in whom I have full confidence.  One of the reasons I took the comment about hinting so seriously is that it comes from an editor who has earned my full respect.  I would ask you as a favor to vote soon, if you feel your mind is made up: this election already feels like too much of a production to me, and I would like to be able to announce the results and be done.  You are of course free to disregard my request, and I won't be upset by it if you do. :-)  Keep up the excellent work, Jwrosenzweig 17:46, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)  P.S. I don't know if you've noticed, but sectioning is broken here somehow -- if you try to edit a section you end up getting the section before.  Perhaps you can sort out what happened? :-)  Just a thought. --JR
 * You're quite welcome. I thought about describing it, but realized it would be quicker and more effective to do it and allow you to look at the diff. :-) Jwrosenzweig 18:24, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Proposed mediation between 172 and VeryVerily
I'd be willing to talk to you about the idea of mediation, but I'm still hesitant about agreeing to this right now. It's not that I'm dismissive of the idea. Heck, I'm a regular reader of OJPCR and JSTOR: The Journal of Conflict Resolution (archives), but I haven't seen it work out really well on Wikipedia. I'm worried that it'll turn into yet more ground where users can swarm, get upset, and wind up start sniping at each other. 172 04:52, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't know much about the mediation process, but I'd be open to it. I'll note I have not reverted more than three times per day since the last quickpoll, although 172 has. (In fact, his behavior has not changed; he's gone from calling correct fixes "illiterate and ungrammatical" to now "gibberish".) I also don't know whether mediation has ever succeeded or can here; 172 has gone from being belligerent and abusive to all users to additionally stalking me specifically. What would mediation change which the quickpoll experience he has had has not? That's not necessarily a rhetorical question, since, as I said, I don't know much about it. -- VV 05:48, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * BTW, I fundamentally disagree with those who effectively argue that the three revert rule takes precedence over what's best for each individual page and the quality of the encyclopedia overall. 172 08:01, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * This of course is because 172 regards what he wants as best and of highest quality. The possibility that others might differ, and thus under this principle be justified in prosecuting unlimited revert wars, is regarded as unreasonable, as who else but him could possibly be right? -- VV 08:13, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thank you both for at least being open to the idea of mediation. Given the history of this situation, I appreciate that both of you may be skeptical about any method of dispute resolution.

Let me try and address some of these points. First of all, mediation is supposed to be a private process. Please take a look at Mediation. I hope that will give you an idea of what the Mediation Committee has in mind, and as it says, it's possible to be flexible about the exact procedures for a particular case. So I think mediation would avoid having the community "swarm" the way it does for quickpolls. It can't prevent you two sniping at each other, which is still happening to some extent in these posts, but it will stop other people from sniping at you.

Speaking of quickpolls, the issue here is not just violations of the 3-revert limit. Rather, I see it as a rather long-running interpersonal dispute between you two; reverts are just one manifestation, though perhaps the primary one. At a fundamental level, I don't care how many reverts you are making or whether the 3-revert limit takes "precedence" over any other consideration. What I care about is that this dispute interferes with all of us making a better encyclopedia.

What I think mediation could accomplish here is:
 * Provide a less combative, and more private, environment than other attempts at dealing with this dispute (quickpolls, requests for comment, etc.).
 * Get you two to actually communicate with each other, which you have not really been doing before, in my opinion (communication via edit summaries is the absolute worst form of communication in this situation, so bad that I won't even consider it communication).
 * Encourage each of you to try and understand the other's perspective on the situation.
 * Give you the benefit of an outside party's observations and suggestions.

Since you are both willing to at least consider mediation, I would suggest at this point that you actually start the process. You could consider it experimental, if that makes you more comfortable. Since mediation is always voluntary, you can of course withdraw at any point if you then find it counterproductive. So, the question I am now asking is, Will you try mediation? If so, who would you accept as a mediator? There is a list at Mediation Committee, although you don't need to restrict yourselves to the "official" mediators. --Michael Snow 15:34, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Piddling" - please resist undue dignification
''You state on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration that you found no evidence of Kevin attempting to resolve his dispute with Dwindrim by other means. I just realized that Kevin is probably referring to his listing of Dwindrim on the RfC page. The listing was not certified within 48 hours, and I have since removed it. (this is for information only, not to suggest that the arbitration committee should actually hear this piddling dispute) --Michael Snow 20:53, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)''

I appreciate that you recognise the truly petty nature of this dispute. I agreed to mediation only to get this nutbar individual from reverting my talk page every few minutes. At least it seems to have worked. Thanks for taking off that stupid notice. Denni 06:30, 2004 Apr 24 (UTC)

message on vogel
I read your e-mail I suggest you contribute to the arbitration committee we need to have a good case in order to get a good result. thanks. GrazingshipIV 02:29, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

Mediawiki Meta namespace
Do you know if anyone is doing a Topical index of the media wiki name space? --Voodoo 09:45, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I asked the wrong question, sorry about wasting your time. You're right, there is probably no point in having a topical index of messages. I meant to ask about a topical index of the meta site pages. There seem to be a number of pages there that should really be a part of the project namespace. Do you know if there is an index of those pages other than the main page? Also, what's the point of having that site *and* the project namespace, there doesn't seem to be a clear division between those sets of pages. --Voodoo 19:40, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In that case, do you know of a complete list of pages on meta? If not, what did you use to generate the wikipedia namespace list? --Voodoo 23:37, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

congrats
Congrats, you're now an administrator! Read the guidelines, refresh yourself... oh what the heck, you've been here far longer than I have :-). ugen64 01:32, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)


 * Congratulations, Michael! Cribcage 04:56, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Secretlondon deserves one too, but somebody else beat me to that

There's no rule that says you can only get one... :) Martin 22:11, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Strangeness
You seem to be becoming involved in the circumstances on RfC in a way while likely goodnatured, has proven to be thus far unhelpful. On graz's user page you misrepresent (prob misunderstand would be more accurate) my position. I clarified, but he promptly deleted what I had said. I am botherd by him calling me a racist, not by him having my coment on his user page. The comment I want removed is the one announcing I am a white supremacist sympathizer, or some such. Aso, Ugen helped me create the page, and signed it earlier today. Thanks, Sam Spade 17:40, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I am seeing hints that he is trolling otherwise, and so I think I will look into broadening my case in any respect, which could end in making compromise unlikely. I am still trying to assume good faith on the part of graz, but some of his early experiences on the wiki appear troubling, as does the tremendous number of stubs he has created. Sam Spade 17:50, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

response
Mike I think you are a very good wikipedian as I have said previously. The issue at this point is for Spade to respect my boundaries I will remove the page in May of 2005. That came about from Sam's repeated vandalism of my talk page. I told him if he continued I would push the date back.

Sam, in my opinion, has trouble respecting other users. I will not take down the comment until the stated time because that is the boundary I set. Given into trolls and vandals is not how one maintains the credibility of rules (even wiki-rules). So I won't take it down. But I would agree to not call Sam a racist directly anymore. That lordken comment was a bit out of line. GrazingshipIV 17:41, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

He knows I don't want him editing my page he has been told to direct his comments at the RFC talkpage-thats why his comment was removed :) GrazingshipIV 18:09, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that if he doesn't respect this one he will not respect others. I also believe in my statement and it really will be taken down in May. But as many people who have casted their votes so far have said, Spade is a troll for the most part. Thus, I deal with him as such and I think giving him what he wants now (appeasement) would do more damage to wikipedia and myself, than holding my ground and riding through the controversey. GrazingshipIV 18:19, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

I would not mind having that discussion, but this right now is RFC and he is trying to get a vote that I am slandering him and that I "Apprently do not comphrehend NPOV policy". Of course that is a smear hence allot of people are voting for me. When the RFC is taken down and he withdraws that smear. I will be HAPPY to negotiate. GrazingshipIV 18:50, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

Message
You expect me to engage in some sort of unilateral action against an aggressor. I am no Chamberlain and this is not munich. If Spade wishes for me to take it down he must repent for his slander (points 2 and 4 on RFC) and agree to enage in no future racial action (at least here) and to never edit my user or talk page. With that agreement I would take the page down. But giving in now would only encourage future trolling. GrazingshipIV 00:11, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right, it is somewhat of a poor analogy. After having discussed things on IRC I am willing to unilatterally disarm for wikipedia's sake. If you are withdrawing your offer (to delete the page) then I am afraid this will go on and on most likely it will escalate.

I never presented myself as innocent or a victim. I presented the situation as stupid and big waste of everyone's time (no one more so than my own who would rather be editing than being involved in mindless busllhit) which it is.

I have allot of time for wikipedia (though it is becoming increasingly limited) I would rather spend it editing my articles and helping promote free access to knowledge than stirring up conflict.

It's pretty simple I'll archive the comment and take it down from my talk page and the page will be deleted. Or we can continue to do this moronic dance. GrazingshipIV 18:29, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

Reference
I just wanted to let you know that I recorded the results of my Washington State Bar Association check on you at User:Hcheney/Michael Snow. Please feel free to link there if you feel it may benefit your campaign. If you do not approve of it, I would be more than happy to remove it. --"D ICK " C HENEY 03:21, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Lst27 or Alex
Yeah, I noticed that, but I didn't really need any extra convincing. Perl's user page on en: is a redirect to his WikiBooks account now, meaning he's given up that account. Assuming he stuck to his usual pattern, that means he has a new account on en:, so when I see a user behaving like him I consider it fairly obvious. Also, if you still want any extra proof, Lst27's account was created a few days after the failure of Perl's first self-nomination. Oh, and while they haven't edited any articles in common to my knowledge, they have the same general interests.

It's really quite sad. If Alex hadn't been so obsessed about it, he would've been an admin months ago. I haven't tried to total them all up but I think he's written far more articles here than I have, and other than the VfD thing he doesn't really fight with people. Isomorphic 21:15, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I wasn't witch-hunting. What I'd really like is to help the guy break his ridiculous cycle.  It's so transparent to the rest of us, and it's killing his credibility.  He seems to have a lot of potential.  A real shame. Isomorphic 21:40, 17 May 2004 (UTC) (Oh, and I'll admit that I just like sleuthing for its own sake.)

Arbitration
I have to run now so I won't go into the issue right now. But I wanted to again thank you for the amount of time you have spent and have indicated willingness to spend trying to resolve this matter. I don't know whether you have an opinion of your own as to who, if anyone, is primarily at fault, but in any case it seems to me you've shown remarkable dedication to the project. (This is not to say I don't have some criticisms of your past comments, but that is inevitable.) I hope and expect what you to say to the arbitrators will be fair, even if I disagree with it. VV 20:58, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Unprotection
Hi, perhaps it was ill-advised to unprotect Pinochet; I was hoping that some bold action on my part would break the logjam; in any case, it was failure, and as soon as the reverts started up again, I asked another admin to protect the page. Perhaps mediation or arbitration will point a way forward; we'll see. -- Viajero 08:13, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

RfC page
I put 172 on reviews for admin actions, since he was using the admin revert. I'll make a note of that on the RfC page so people don't think I'm just beating on one of them. Snowspinner 23:51, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

I made a separate RfC page for 172 - they are different users, and people may well have different comments on them. But there are now two RfC pages. Snowspinner 00:03, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

What are you and now Snowspinner trying to accomplish? You only seem to be complicating things, creating more entanglements. Are you trying to fatten your resume for Wikimedia Board of Trustees or something?

Personality feuds cannot be resolved on Wikipedia. The only answer is to keep both parties from crossing paths, and the best response to personal attacks by either party is ignoring them. Yet, the request for comments pages are just going to turn into the usual Wikipedia ad hominem attack fest.

If you treat a personal feud as much-to-do-about-nothing, which it really is, it'll be far less distracting to everyone. BTW, you might not want to disregard this word of advice. I'd been an admin before you both first started contributing to WP. I've had a lot of expierence dealing the law of the jungle that governs this site. 172 01:57, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Personal Attack
Out of interest could this be considered a personal attack?

"What are you trying to accomplish? Do you want more revert wars or less? If the answer is the latter, then use the admin powers you are charged with, as opposed to acting like a schoolyard tattletale. 172 01:40, 22 May 2004 (UTC)"

Respond on my talk page thanks. Comrade Nick @)--^--- 10:55, 22 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Cf. . VV 11:18, 22 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Ok, Thanks Mike. Comrade Nick @)--^--- 6:43, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing the "Temple Undergarment" article
That certainly worked out well, thanks!. Dpbsmith 03:33, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

I stumbled across your "arbitration" sandbox today. It seems like you've been spending more time on this matter than I'd be willing to. BTW, I wonder why you breeze through the "Other affected pages." Not that I'm making any judgments, but these seem to be the pages that reflect especially badly on VeryVerily (the pages where he was retaliating against me for my role on the Pinochet page). Sorry if I'm being a bit blunt, but out of curiosity, are you trying to get me purged and censored like Wik? Out to revoke my adminship? Or are you attempting to pad your resume for the Board of Trustees elections?

I've been here much longer than you have (and I've made nearly four times as many edits), and sooner or later you'll too find out that personal squabbling on Wikipedia only dies down when everyone forgets about it. It gets rekindled when a couple of meddlesome sysops jump in and start leading efforts to get more people to devote more energy and more time focusing on the conflict.

Behind the facade of one "behavioral" charge after another, this essentially is a case of two users who equally dislike each other and who are equally guilty of breaking the three revert rule. Once everyone has figured that out (which requires common sense rather than "arbitration committees"), it's time to focus on the content and the substance of the changes of the articles as opposed to the personalities. 172 06:36, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

It should be clear now even to you who's stalking who. VeryVerily reappeared after an absence for a day, reverting work mostly by Eloquence, who made progress toward unprotecting Augusto Pinochet and expanding the intro while VeryVerily was gone, right away upon return. He also provoked an edit war on My Lai Massacre, which I had been trying to prevent by linking both the VC and NLF to the article. He even reverted an entire section I had added to History of Chile, an article he had never even touched before, without comment, thus provoking an edit war. And watch him turn around after I make these comments and play the victim. The only thing this user does on Wikipedia is pick fights with me (likely because of severe psychological problems, I am beginning to believe). I mean, just look at his user history. He hardly does anything else. 172 07:30, 28 May 2004 (UTC)


 * 172 cut and pasted this note several places (with variations); I'll post a short defense here. Eloquence's work built off on 172's version and incorporated nearly everything I found objectionable; I attempted a new rewrite based on the sandbox, created for this purpose.  The My Lai Massacre battle is over the same "common names" policy issue which was discussed and resolved months ago when "HectorRodriguez" was pushing it.  The new section in History of Chile was laced with large-scale, emotive POV (e.g., "perhaps the most brutal and large-scale repression in Latin American history") with no balance, and was anyway long and out of scope for this article.  It is true I've responded to 172's escalation with escalation of my own (e.g., reverting with no/little comment), which perhaps reflects less well on me.  But, like I've said, being the "victim" hasn't done much to help me, whereas 172 has gotten off scot-free with his tactics for a long time, and now, thus, I'm in some cases willing to match them.  (I don't know how much faith to put in this arbitration process, either, although I should perhaps give it a chance to work.) VV 08:23, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Re: "[It was] long and out of scope for this article." I am going to expand all the sections of the History of Chile article, perhaps making it into an article series like History of Brazil, if I can get this vandal off my back. And what does HectorRodriguez have to do with anything? 172 08:30, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Protection
Hi there - I did, indeed, visit your talk page, protect it accidentally, then immediately unprotect it. I find the protect page button inconveniently placed, and seem to make a habit of protecting things rather than viewing or discussing it! Can't remember what took me there at the time, well spotted though! See you around, Mark Richards 22:36, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but since your arbitration request is still pending, I'd like to ask that you take something else into consideration. Please take a look at Talk:Anarcho-capitalism and review all the postings by Kev. I was shocked when I found out that Kev's comments on Talk:Anarcho-capitalism might as well be my own thoughts and experiences, even though I'd never interacted with this user.

Although I participated in these revert wars, I found myself trapped in a feud that was not of my own making, as did Kev. BTW, I was critical of your arbitration sandbox because it focused too much on the page histories and not enough on the talk pages (such as the one at which I'm asking you to look), which would really shed light on the nature of the conflict. This was the reason behind my frustrations earlier, for which I apologize for being excessively curt in my dealings with you. 172 02:28, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Example user
That page looks real odd now - I think the new software and done something odd to it. However, I'm not sure of the way you want it. Also, I would like to propose the addition of another criteria for RfC page:


 * If a 75% supermajority of polled users vote to have an RfC page de-listed and deleted, then that RfC page will be de-listed and deleted. This would not be a poll listed at Current polls.

What do you think? --mav 03:34, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

If you want to talk to me about my candidacy for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees, go to User:Michael Snow/Candidate statement and discussion