User talk:MSTCrow: Difference between revisions

/Archive 1 /Archive 2

Do not post anything on this page. Due to abusive Wikipedia admins (not that all of them are) and useless, malicious users, I have decided that Wikipedia cannot be saved from itself, and will be leaving as soon as this fraudalent block put in place by aforementioned abusive admins, expires. There have been enough articles and sites about what is wrong with Wikipedia and why it is failing, so I won't write an essay on that. Only that there are far too many bad people with bad faith who have access to computers and no adult oversight.

Welcome to my current sovereign talk page. Please do not edit or delete other people's posts. Disruptive or vandalistic posts will be removed. All posts left in objectively good faith will remain as a matter of record (I won't get into circular debates with users who believe that any speech possibly known to man is permissible, per AGF).

Remember to stay cool

Concerning this edit of yours, I'd like to remind you that threatening someone with a block in that tone of voice won't get things anywhere even if you did feel that his edits were a personal attack. I will also speak to Sdeodeo concerning his edits, but I ask that you assume good faith of one another and recognize that you both want to help people get through dispute resolution. Thank you. Cowman109^Talk 23:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It clearly wasn't in good faith or following WP, so it certainly wasn't a case where there was a question of whether the other user was behaving in an ethical fashion or not. Some users just aren't on Wikipedia to contribute.

MSTCrow 00:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from, but looking at Sdeodeo's contribs, he has indeed contributed to Wikipedia and has mediated several medcab cases. While you and he may have not gotten along for some reason, going as far to say that he isn't here to build a Wikipedia isn't going to help. Perhaps it's best to just recognize that you two have had your differences and agree to leave eachother alone? Cowman109^Talk 00:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I am purely defensive, if he ceases attacking and attempting to slander me on project pages, he would of course have nothing to worry about.

MSTCrow 00:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediation recommendation

I see you jumped into Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-29 Schizophrenia to help mediate the issue there. As a friendly suggestion, you may want to clearly provoke a response by asking those involved a question - you can't expect them to know what to say, they need to be asked a question first such as whether they will accept you as a mediator or not :). Also I recommend using the talk page of the article in question to work things out so the issue is available to a wider audience. Please see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Suggestions for mediators for some helpful information, and by all means don't be afraid to ask for help should any trouble arise. Thanks! Cowman109^Talk 00:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• If you need help, I am brainy when it comes to psychology. If I may be of assistance, do not hestitate to ask. Good luck. Your one true god is David P. A. Hunter, esq. III ^{Talk to me!} 09:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Peppered Moth mediation

User:Michael Johnson has suggested ending the mediation. Do you agree? I haven't heard from you in quite a while. Rick Norwood 14:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

What was the current status of the mediation? - MSTCrow 21:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Since I did not hear from you in quite a while, I closed the case. Rick Norwood 13:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

your opinion please

I'd appreciate your opinion on matters in the Discussion of article "Dissident Voice". Thank you. Ste4k 16:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Transhumanism userbox

Thought you might be interested in the Template I have placed in my user area as per the [[Wikipedia:German

An automated message from Werdnabot

Hi there, I tried to archive your user talk page, but it seems that you have an error in your Werdnabot directive that prevented me from correctly archiving your User talk page. Please review this error, or contact Werdna648 for assistance. Werdnabot ^(DNBF)/_T\^C 09:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Check your Wiki settings

You might want to check your password and change it if necessary. Someone's been leaving bizarre messages in your name.--RattBoy 13:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Your comments are designed only to provoke, and will be ignored. - MSTCrow 20:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

¡I guess they weren't ignored, as you responded to them!

So you're admitting that the bizarre post was your edit, ¿yes? Well, then, pay attention: your attempts to intimidate me with threats will not work. You are not the owner of Wikipedia, and you have no power beyond that of a simple editor. As an editor, your interests will best be served in the long run if you use references and information as your tools, not baseless attacks and intimidation. Thank you for understanding.--RattBoy 22:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Civility

Please be civil

Please don't tell lies by inference. At least try. --Calton | Talk 00:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

(rv - noooo, he's removing propaganda thinly disguised as sources) is uncivil behavior.

Nooo, it's an accurate description of what he was doing, as opposed to your inaccurate -- to be charitable -- description. But given the undisguised propaganda you keep trying to insert, not to mention the fake vandalism warnings and the fake civility notices, I'm not in any way inclined to be charitable, especially to one who insists on insulting my -- and everyone else's -- intelligence. Attempting to bully people using policies you neither understand nor follow yourself gets you zero slack from me. --Calton | Talk 01:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Please be civil

Planting vandalism templates on experienced editors recommending them to use the sandbox and take a look at the welcome page to learn how to contribute is extremely rude. Please think twice before you use these templates on anybody. Bishonen | talk 01:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC).

The standard progression in vandalism tags starts with that one. If you wish for the tag to be worded differently, that is not something I have control over. - MSTCrow 01:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I see you keep it up. I'm quite serious. Stop now before I block you. Especially never use the {{blatantvandal}} tag without really knowing what you're doing; it's intended for extreme or obscene vandalism, not for content disputes. Neither Calton nor Rattboy are vandals. Bishonen | talk 01:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC).

You are mistaken. Calton has been blanking sections of NPR, which is a clear act of vandalism according to the rules. The rules state "vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia," as well as "it needs to be spotted, and then dealt with." Then it goes on to say "if you see vandalism (as defined below), revert it and leave a warning message on the vandal's talk page using the system below. Check the page history after reverting to make sure you have removed all the vandalism; there may be multiple vandal edits, sometimes from several different IPs. Also, check the vandal's other contributions — you will often find more malicious edits." You may disagree with the current vandalism policy, but it is inappropriate to threaten other users with bans for not following the rules as you would like them to be. See WP:Vandalism - MSTCrow 01:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't even seem to have read the bits of the policy you quote; you seem to be picking sentences from WP:V at random. Don't wikilawyer with me if that's the best you can do. Bishonen | talk 01:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC).

You are rude and insensible. I will not deal with any user who does not know what they are doing. - MSTCrow 01:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Man, the irony is just thick. --Calton | Talk 01:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's another rule you probably haven't read: WP:3RR. You're already unambiguously in violation of it on National Public Radio -- and no, your tendentious wikilawyering relying upon your misinterpretation of "vandalism" won't help you there. Now cut out the bully-boy tactics, because continuing them aren't going to get you anything but an inevitable exit from Wikipedia. --Calton | Talk 01:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted twice, not three times. Anyone who looks at the history of the NPR article will see that "Bishonen" is either lying, or did not bother to actually investigate it for himself. The fact that he has to stoop to accuse me of "wikilawyering" for adhering to Wikipedia Policy shows that "Bishonen" has not ever read them, or that he chooses to openly disregard them. He charges others with "wikilawyering" to obscure that he doesn't pay any attention to WP at all. I will not deal with "Bishonen" any longer, as he is dishonest and unprincipled. If this is to continue, I request that another admin be brought in that is agreeable to all sides. - MSTCrow 01:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

(After edit conflict) I've reverted twice, not three times. Counting, another of your strong suits:

• 1st - 20:43, July 23, 2006 r/v
• 2nd - 21:31, July 23, 2006 Reverted, Ideogram is blanking information, refer to talk page. Do not revert edit again, as this constitutes vandalism.
• 3rd - 00:59, July 24, 2006
• 4th - 01:38, July 24, 2006 r/v due to vandalism (blanking of section)

• I could reasonably throw in this edit, since you used it as an opportunity to slip back in an external link -- making 5 reverts -- but I've enough for proof of violations. And since you've made me go to all the trouble of compiling all this to refute your all-too-obvious lie, I'll just go and paste these into the 3RR report page. Honesty IS the best policy: this was simply a warning, but attempts at denial tells me I'd better escalate this. --Calton | Talk 02:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, looks like someone beat me to it. Too bad, so sad. --Calton | Talk 02:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Block

Hi. You have been blocked from editing for 24 hours due to a 3RR violation. Please be more careful in the future. Thanks. El_C 02:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I came here to do the same thing as El C. Here are the reverts you made to National Public Radio within a few hours:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] I'm sorry, but having studied the talkpage discussion I can't give any credence to your claims to be merely reverting vandalism. Bishonen | talk 02:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC).

ArbCom case

This is not going to work. What other steps in dispute resolution have you tried? Have you thought about a Request for Comment? Mediation? It's inappropriate to run to ArbCom immediately (the "previous attempts at dispute resolution" isn't very optional), and all that's likely to happen is a temporary block to get you to cool down. The edit summary you're using as your case on civility is fairly weak. I honestly would recommend that you ask an admin for help in withdrawing your request for arbitration, apologize to the users involved for moving too hastily through the dispute-resolution process, and then try again from the beginning, including considering walking away from the article you're locking horns over. Captainktainer * Talk 02:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

MSTCrow (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

None given

Decline reason:

Quite clearly broke 3RR

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

reported by User:Ideogram (Result: 24 hrs)

Three revert rule violation on National Public Radio (edit|talk|links|history|logs). MSTCrow (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log):

   * Previous version reverted to: [177]
   * 1st revert: [178]
   * 2nd revert: [179]
   * 3rd revert: [180]
   * 4th revert: [181]
   * 5th revert: [182]

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

   * [183]
   * second warning (removed by MSTCrow as "vandalism")

Time report made: 01:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

   * 24 hours. El_C 02:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

There are only two reverts present on the log, not 4. Ergo, the user was improperly blocked and should be unblocked.

Please do not remove warnings from your talk page or replace them with offensive content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. If you continue to remove or vandalize warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. --Pilotguy ^{(roger that)} 02:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to edit my talk page. I want to be unblocked so I can kill my account. I've had too much trouble with people on here. Being a Wikipedia editor is like being a cop, you work with the worst. I'm tired of all the games and admin abuse, and I just want to leave now so I don't have to be a part of a failed enterprise. - MSTCrow 02:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to be unblocked in order to leave. --Ideogram 03:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, why wait? Leave now instead of doing the drama-queen act. --Calton | Talk 04:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Being a Wikipedia editor is like being a cop, you work with the worst. No, it's like being a cop in that you have to follow and enforce the rules instead of making them up as you go along and trying to bully others with them. Actually, by your analogy that doesn't make you a cop, it makes you a jailhouse lawyer. --Calton | Talk 04:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Guys? He's a blocked user confined to this page. Please don't taunt. Bishonen | talk 05:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC).

I assume that in deference to Wikipedia, Calton and Ideogram will be blocked for personal attacks. - MSTCrow 09:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack probation

You assume Calton and Ideogram will be blocked for personal attacks? Man. The only reason you're not blocked with bells on for making personal attacks is that I'm unusually reluctant to block for that reason--I'm kind of known for it. That reminds me: I'm putting you on personal attack probation. That's general PR probation, meaning you will be blocked if you make any egregious personal attacks. It's also a specific warning with reference to your "vandalism" accusations. Calling somebody a vandal is a serious accusation, and doing it groundlessly is a serious personal attack. You do that for instance here: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. Good faith edits are not vandalism. Editors and administrators contacting you on your page are not thereby vandalising it. Calton is not a vandal. Ideogram is not a vandal. Rattboy is not a vandal. I'm not a vandal. Don't accuse anybody of vandalism again unless you catch them vandalising something. When in doubt, don't use the word. Please refer to WP:VAND, an official policy page, for what vandalism is. Note especially the section "what vandalism is not": "If a user treats situations which are not clear vandalism as vandalism, then he or she is actually damaging the encyclopedia." Bishonen | talk 10:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC).