User:Xaa/talk archives/081605

Thumb-up

Hang in there.
Xaa 13:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, you did that at just the right time. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 22:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the wonderful comment re:Spanish profanity, it needs additions, but I leave some on else to it. D. J. Bracey (talk) 22:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Mohler

Thanks for getting back to me. Can you give me guidance on where I should go next on my dispute? Should I contact Flex, the user who put the NPOV dispute tag on my page, and see what he (I assume) thinks? Should I go somewhere else on Wikipedia to pursue mediation or something? I thought about sending him a message to see if he could identify specific sections to carry the NPOV warning, instead of the whole article, or telling him that if he doesn't come up with more specific criticism, that I will remove the dispute tag unilaterally in say, two months time. I want to be fair (and I sure don't want a "revert war" or anything like that.) Alan Canon 20:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Dear Xaa, thanks for going to bat for "me" on the "fourth opinion" on Mohler. I am still Mr. NPOV-wannabe, and writing this article was, in part, a conscious experiment to see if I could. (And the results are not in yet to my satisfaction: I am not just offended by Flex, but inspired, and motivated by him.) Don't have time to tell you how much you've helped me (and hopefully, the article.) Thank you for doing actual work for me: my taboo is asking someone else to help me, and you just did. I like Flex too, he seems pure in outlook, so he has something in common with me. How much might we accumulate in Wikipedia, if we can work together?

Xaa, your help to me as Wikipedian is also help to me as a person, thanks. Alan Canon 07:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

RE:Amorrow

I'm going to contact User:David Gerard about a check user on him and hopefully we can find out which IP block he is editing from and then just ban it. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 07:48, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Iraqi insurgency

I can't protect anyone's edits right now on Iraqi insurgency. -Ril-, a super-troublemaker just got on the page and is helping NoPuzzleStranger, mostly just to cause as much of a problem as possible. Anyhow, I think I reverted 3 times already. --Noitall 20:01, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Encouraging other editors to join edit wars is totally inappropriate. Furthermore, edits on behalf of another editor who has requested them to be made, to avoid the editor breaking policy (e.g. 3RR), are explicitely forbidden by arbcom precedent. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 16:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Not quite certain who this is directed at. If it's directed at Noitall, then it should be posted on his page, not mine. If it's directed at me, then it simply leaves me baffled. Xaa 17:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Me too. I got the same post @ my talk. I don't think it was directed @ me, nor you Xaa (but I could be wrong). I am not in a edit war myself, and I don't do other people's edits ... they can do that themselves. JDR 18:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Reddi got rid of the vandalsim. It was Reddi's edits I was trying to protect from NPS when -Ril- got involved. Unfortunately, he is a troll, see comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/UninvitedCompany, so that is why he left threats over here. Sorry, but I can't control -Ril-. --Noitall 19:11, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... I still think I'm going to stay out of this one, sorry. I've yet to see any fight like this resolve pleasantly, and I still think the proposal I posted to here is a better solution overall - it resolves more than the VfD problem, but also resolves the very problem you are having right now; if it doesn't cite, it doesn't stay. Xaa 19:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

If my observations are correct

it looks like you give a shit about Natalee Holloway. --24.251.143.179 05:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• What I think of her is, unfortunately, entirely irrelevant. Xaa 05:13, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

VfD proposal

First, [1]. I would strongly suggest you disable the email feature via preferences; it is no accident that mine is presently switched off.

If the emails are as bad as you say they are, you have several, not necessarily mutually exclusive routes available. The most obvious is to file an RfAr — a possible outcome of that is that Amorrow is banned, at which point his edits may be reverted by any user on sight. If they contain direct threats, you would, I think, have little difficulty in obtaining such a ban. It is even possible that Jimbo could hard-ban him for ever (the ArbCom usually limits itself to a year at a time). An email of a post to Jimbo's talk page would be how to work on that. I am unsure how you know that he has emailed you from both home and work: does he have your actual email address somehow? If the emails are direct rather than through WP, you could let the ISP in question know.

I hope you do not plan to leave Wikipedia over the actions of one rather disturbing user. It is the nature of the beast that keeping threatening users away for ever is very hard to do, and the community at large is rather spineless when it comes to dealing with them. At least this time, an admin with guts came along and did the deed; there was little opposition thankfully. I think if you disable email, and simply remove any messages from him from your talk page, that the silencing effect will probably be enough. Giving him the satisfaction of responses should not be done. You say you find the project "fun"; if Amorrow is driving you to leave, switch off email, take a wikibreak of a week or so, and then come back. See if the break in communication puts things to bed.

To the question of the VfD proposal, well, whether you withdraw it or not is of course entirely up to you. Since very few other users have commented on it, withdrawing it will not stifle discussion particularly. I'm sure you're aware however, that simply blanking the page leaves everything in the history.

Don't be driven away by a single user. -Splash 18:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I am honestly not sure what I can say that might make you stay here. The technical point about filing an RfAr is that the likely outcome is that it would allow all of his edits, from any account or IP address to be reverted on sight without further reason. As things are, his edits should be allowed to stand, unless someone removes them for some other reason (e.g. WP:RPA). This is the difference between a block and a ban. Whether an admin-imposed indefinite block invokes the same effect as an ArbComm-imposed ban is for the wikilawyers, usually, and so would be highly controversial. I think I might enquire over at WP:AN about this for my own clarification. But certainly revert-on-sight would make his life much less rewarding.

If you are decided that you are going to leave Wikipedia for now, then at least consider returning in the future: he is sure to get bored when you're not around to attack; archiving your talk page and leaving a Wikibreak message on your user page would make that plain to him. I'm about to archive my talk page too, in a couple of days, since it has tipped over 50k again. The personal emails are more difficult, but I presume you're already not replying to them, and can arrange for your mail software to delete them on sight. Why not let his employer know what he's been sending you using their facilities?

With your experience and knowledge, Wikipedia wants you around, without meaning to sound patronising. It would be a great pity if you were lost to even the most unpleasant of users, although you would regrettably not be the first. Please don't leave permanently. -Splash 19:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)