Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:36, 16 July 2008

Template:Werdnabot

Misplaced Pages ads	file info – #46

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Socks of Prester John

In the category Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Prester John, the entries show as talk pages. Possibly the tags need to be placed on the uesr pages? Lester 18:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Nah, it doesn't matter as long as either the talk or the user page is tagged and there's no point tagging both as you end up doubled-up. Sarah 22:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

They have made a return under these IP's to do the samething again.

166.190.32.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

166.190.49.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

166.190.79.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

166.190.118.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

166.190.138.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

166.190.156.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

166.190.241.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). and no doubt there are more.Bidgee (talk) 05:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

and more :(

166.191.27.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

166.191.86.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

166.191.76.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

166.191.126.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

166.191.206.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Bidgee (talk) 06:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No point blocking them though as they're most likely allocated randomly upon each re-connection for each user by his ISP. Timeshift (talk) 06:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

but could be added to the sock puppet page as IP's used. Though something needs to be done to stop it. I've request temp full protection for some pages. Bidgee (talk) 06:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Timeshift (talk) 06:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Bidgee for all that, that's great. We've range blocked 166.190.32.161/24 and 166.191.32.161/24, so hopefully that will take him out for the rest of the night. Cheers, Sarah 09:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:207.47.96.26 seems to have made edits very similar to these sock puppets. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think he moved operations to a Hotel Sofitel! Nunquam Dormio (talk) 19:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible sock puppet Hypopostumus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Also someone just posted on Matilda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s talkpage another possible sock is Putz removal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Bidgee (talk) 04:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the IP pattern, the regular base is in Oakland, California. However, last weekend he appeared to book into a hotel in LA to do his vandalism. On Monday it appears was back in San Francisco, just over the bay from his base in Oakland, though it may have still been Oakland (IP trance may not be that accurate) --Lester 05:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Always difficult to tell - recently we had a trace to Wollongong which turned out to be close to Newcastle instead. Depends on the reliability of the IP provider's geolocation, or even whether they geolocate beyond a certain level. Orderinchaos 06:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

32.158.27.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - now he is in in Florida. he he. PJ would have us believe he is a married man. lol. --Merbabu (talk) 06:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

And always called others trolls when is showing classic behaviour now - of well WP:DUCK territory - clearly gets off on watching us try to keep up with his childishness

32.157.8.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

32.157.119.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) SatuSuro 06:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well, my own previous ISP assigned IP used to geolocate to a town in Queensland when I and my ISP are (and always have been) in Melbourne. Also, a friend of mine, an admin, owns several proxy IP addresses that they use to access sites they consider to be unsafe and the IPs geolocate to a country different to where this person lives. It is possible that PJ has access to proxies, too. I don't think people should be reading anything into his location, lifestyle or marital status as a result of the IP addresses he accesses. It's prolly better not to even discuss any of this on-site other than to note any accounts or IP addresses that need blocking because you can be assured that he is monitoring what we discuss, particularly Lester and I think he will be encouraged by and get off on Lester's reaction. Best to revert, block and ignore, IMO. And if anything needs to be discussed beyond "please block xyz," I think it's best to do so privately via email. Sarah 09:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well expressed and what we all should take careful note of SatuSuro 10:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

On an aside - there is something similar occuring with a Davkal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in the Altmed area of WP. If you find a solution to PJ, then we would appreciate a heads up to implement something similar with Davkal. Thanks Shot info (talk) 07:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't think there is any solution other than block and revert. Sarah 09:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

3RR

Being an administrator does not mean that you can violating WP:LOP at whim or will. You are deleting my posts and my material from my filing at WP:AN/I and violating both the spirit and the letter of WP:3RR. I suggest that you stay out of this one. Your previous involvement made my life miserable for weeks. Please accept the fact that you are not a neutral observer and please recognize that, despite being an administrator, you are subject to the same WP:LOP as every other Misplaced Pages user. This really does appear to me to be an abuse of administrative privileges, such as they are: see WP:ANOT. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 01:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't deleted anything and I most certainly have not violated 3RR. When you make a report to ANi, it's out of your hands and you have no right or ability to control it. I changed the header to a more descriptive one for people scanning the page. I'm sorry but if I have comments to make then I will make them. Once again, if you're unable to deal with others then you need to stop editing Misplaced Pages until you are able. Thank you. Sarah 01:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, I might add that your suggestion I've abused administrative privileges is another ludicrous allegation from you. Please show where I have used administrative tools. Please stop posting false information about other users. Thank you kindly. Sarah 01:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - strong claims require strong evidence. Orderinchaos 09:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Response to 3RR and other accusations by NYScholar

In the above section, NYScholar (talk · contribs) accuses me of committing a variety of heinous offences, including "violating both the spirit and the letter of WP:3RR". NYScholar presents no evidence in support of his allegations but I am not prepared to let this user's repeated false allegations go without a proper response in case it appears to anyone ever reviewing my pages and archives that the allegations might be true. And so I present here the diffs for the posts made to WP:ANI which resulted in NYScholar's 3RR warning to me and his bizarre and ludicrous allegation that I am somehow "violating WP:LOP at whim or will."

• Yesterday, NYScholar started an ANi section titled "User:Stuthomas4;User talk:Stuthomas4" where he makes accusations against other editors of the article The Dark Knight (film).
• Upon review, it quickly became apparent that there were two sides to this story and that NYScholar had been engaging in the same disruptive and antagonistic editing practices that numerous editors have complained about since before NYScholar was taken to Arbitration in April, 2007. Most users who read the arbitration statements at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/NYScholar will no doubt recognise that NYscholar's combative behaviour and disruptive hyper-editing have not changed in the 15 months since the arbitration case. After several editors had commented about NYScholar's disruptive behaviour, I felt that it was appropriate to change the section heading to something more encompassing of the fact that the ANI had developed into more than a mere complaint about Stuthomas4. And so I changed the section heading to "{{Userlinks|Stuthomas4}} and {{Userlinks|NYScholar}}" which can be seen in this diff here.
• In a stunning display of ownership, four minutes later, NYScholar removed his name from the heading and added a comment to the top of the page immediately under the section heading, stating: "That was not my heading; Sarah needs to recuse herself and to stop inserting her views in this manner. Thank you. I posted this AN/I, not she.". This can be seen in this diff here and the location of his comment immediately under the section header is of note.
• I did not revert NYScholar's edit but changed the section heading again to something else entirely that I thought he might find more agreeable but was also an adequate description for admins and editors scanning the contents: "Stuthomas4, NYScholar and others", all unlinked, and I placed the userlinks for both Stuthomas4 and NYScholar immediately under the section heading for the convenience of other administrators and editors who may review the situation. I also responded to NYScholar's comment which he had posted at the very top of that section, and in doing so, I did not in any way edit or delete any of his comments nor did I refactor them to follow the chronological order of that section. My edits were made in one single edit, seen here.
• These were my only edits to this section of ANI between 11:01 and NYScholar's 3RR warning on this page at 11:46 (local time).
• At 11:40 (my time), NyScholar made this post to ANI where he uses the edit summary to accuse me of deleting his comments and disrupting the order of his comments. However, as anyone can see, the post he complains about was in exactly the place he placed it himself, immediately under the section heading as was noted above in the third point.
• One minute later NYScholar edited my comment to remove my signature, his userlinks and "NYScholar and others" from the section header with the edit summary, "I am issuing a 3RR warning to Sarah et al. not to keep changing my posts" This in spite of the fact that I had not changed any of his posts, had made zero reversions and was therefore not in 3RR jeopardy. Two minutes later, Shell Kinney reverted NYScholar with the edit summary, "Reverted to revision 225134352 by Sarcasticidealist; sorry, but the thread has obviously become about you as well - please leave the information."
• Five minutes after NYScholar edited my own post, deleted my signature and edited the section heading, he came here to my talk page to give me a 3RR warning and accuse me of abusing administrative privileges (despite the fact I have never used administrative tools in relation to him), of "violating both the spirit and the letter of WP:3RR" (despite the fact that I had not) and of violating the List of Policies "at whim or will" (despite the fact he has been unable to present any diffs in support of his bizarre accusation).
• I believe it is quite clear that NYScholar's allegations are utterly baseless in this particular instance and typically baseless in general and users should carefully investigate his accusations before accepting them as factual. I was not in 3RR jeopardy, had not deleted his comments, had not used administrative tools, or done anything else he has accused me of doing. NYScholar must cease carelessly making false accusations against other editors and must present diffs as evidence when he does make accusations. His editing practices are disruptive, particularly in the area of inter-personal communication which is a mandatory aspect of a collaborative project. It is by no mere coincidence that he repeatedly ends up in exactly the same conflicts and disputes with numerous different people. Since these issues are not a one-off but rather are chronic, long term and on-going and the same disputes occur over and over with different people, I feel the community should consider implementing community sanctions, such as a restriction on archiving talk pages in less than 24 hours after the last edit to the section, and a blanket prohibition on making accusations without presenting evidence. I intend asking a couple of administrators to review the above and confirm NYScholar's 3RR allegation and other accusations are untrue and utterly baseless. Sarah 13:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been asked to review this, and reading the edit history of the AN/I page, I believe the above is a reasonable summary of what occurred. There's certainly no evidence that Sarah "edit-warred" - the original heading was a mischaracterisation of the situation and its locus, and Sarah's efforts appear to have gone towards presenting a more neutral summary to administrators. Given the high volume of business and the low signal to noise ratio on AN/I, fixing headings is an important part of housekeeping on the page. This is both normal and encouraged, as many headings are irrelevant or vague to the matters they raise, or are troublesome in nature. I have found no evidence whatsoever that Sarah deleted NYScholar's edits. It's interesting because on 15 February 2008, NYScholar accused Sarah of the exact same thing (see User talk:NYScholar/Archive 19). Due to the user's rather odd practice of immediately archiving their talk page making accountability impossible, which continues to this day and is at the focus of the dispute with Stuthomas4 (see history of User talk:NYScholar), some of it is duplicated at the end of User talk:NYScholar/Archive 18. On that page, NYScholar made repeated claims against Sarah suggesting she had "refactored" NYScholar's talk page or removed edits by the user. These were then found to be untrue. Furthermore, in editing Sarah's comment on AN/I, it appears that NYScholar violated the editing guideline relating to editing other people's comments themselves. I believe that at an absolute minimum, NYScholar should be sanctioned - in particular, with regard to archiving posts on User talk:NYScholar and from making allegations of this nature against other contributors. Orderinchaos 14:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I responded on my own talk page and explained again that I do not want to have to take any more time responding to the AN/I in which Sarah changed my heading. Regarding Sarah's own most recent posting above (which she had copied on my talk page, and which I have now linked to there): In turn, I would say to her and others: "Please read the civility policy and I would specifically draw your attention to Misplaced Pages:Civility#Engaging_in_incivility as I believe you are in breach of it on a number of points in regard to your repeated false accusations. Thank you for your consideration."

• I do not think that there are "a number of points" in which I am "in breach of it"; however, I think that there have been "a number of points" in which Sarah and others have been "in breach of it" in Misplaced Pages:Civility#Engaging_in_incivility both in the past (see my talk archive pages) and in the current AN/I.
• In relation to Sarah's reference to her saying that she did not attempt to have me blocked in February 2008 (which is what I am referring to in the AN/I in response to her there), it was she who issued the "Block warning" (User talk:NYScholar/Archive 19#Block warning which led to Hesperian blocking me (I was referring to her attempt to have me blocked, as she is doing now with her requests for blocks and/or sanctions now).
• It was Sandstein who unblocked it on the basis that it was "unwarranted" (See subsequent part of archived talk page 19).
• In relation to what Orderinchaos states above: the full record of Orderinchaos's previous comments with my responses to them and my attempts to straighten out the many misinterpretations that I perceived in Sarah's and others' statements about my editing history in a matter dating back to November 2007 is in User talk:NYScholar/Archive 19 and earlier pages of my talk archive.
• As I have already stated in the current AN/I, which I initiated, in that AN/I I have no intention of "re-living" the nightmare that I went through as a result of Sarah's involvement in February 2008. I have posted the relevant links in the current AN/I, and I will not be posting any more "diffs."
• In terms of recurrent "incivilities" (as per Misplaced Pages:Civility#Engaging_in_incivility) in the current AN/I in which Sarah and others are criticizing me, the record is their own words.
• It is not my further responsibility to document them. They can examine their own past and present words and see the incivilities that they use themselves.
• The matter that Sarah refers to occurred initially in November 2007, and, as I have already documented, was an inadvertent error for which I directly apologized, and it was resolved both at that time (Nov. 2007/Dec. 2007) and later again in February 2008, when she brought it up again. That Sarah has decided to dredge it up first in February 2008 and again, in the AN/I that I posted about the behavior of another user (see the AN/I) led and is leading to many further misinterpretations of the record, resulting again in further wasting of my time and the time of others.
• I have no desire to waste any more of my own time on this matter.
• The record is archived in my own archived talk pages or in the current AN/I.
• I suggest that administrators and all other users of Misplaced Pages pay closer attention to how they themselves are abiding by the policies and guidelines that they are directing me to consider. I have considered them, and, as a result, I have posted this reply here.
• As I state in my current talk page (updated due to Sarah's continuing to post there despite my requests to desist), I will not be commenting on the current AN/I matter any further.
• (Note: Because this section appeared in colors used in archive boxes, I initially thought this section of Sarah's current talk page is archived; but the section below is the same color, so I guess that is not the case. This is the section that I have linked to in my current talk page, in response to Sarah's message there. I will not reply to her any further in my current talk page or elsewhere. If there are typographical errors here, please excuse them; I am tired and going back offline.) --NYScholar (talk) 00:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop making multiple edits to my talk page. Please use the preview button. Every time you tweak your post again, I get another orange bar. If you can't post in one or two comments then please go and post on your own page first and tweak it there until you're happy with it so I don't have to be disturbed by four orange bars for all your tweaks. Please learn to use the preview button, for God's sake ! Sarah 00:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again (for the upteenth time): I do use the preview function in Misplaced Pages; sometimes I miss my own errors while previewing, and I fix them if they are important. I think that you can handle a few orange bars; I see orange bars when you have added comments to my talk page. I do not criticize people for correcting their own typographical errors in the spirit of clarity. Please excuse any remaining typographical errors in my previous response. Sarah knows that I use the preview feature; I have told her that enough times! She chooses to ignore my explanations and to continue to claim that I do not use it. I use it. (Previewed.) --NYScholar (talk) 00:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I do NOT know that you use preview. How could I possibly know that? Do you think I can see into your computer and watch what you're doing? All I know is that every time you post, you need to make numerous edits to tweak and correct your comments and if you were using preview properly, you shouldn't need to do this. It's bad enough when you do it on a noticeboard that others are posting to but when it's on someone's talk page and they repeatedly get disturbed with "new messages" banners for every one of your tweaks, it's incredibly frustrating. Again, I suggest that you post comments on your own talk page and tweak them there to your heart desires and then copy and paste them to wherever you're posting when you're finished tweaking and are happy with the result.

In regard to the above comments, yes, I gave you a block warning, so what? Administrators give lots of block warnings. Doesn't mean that I am responsible for the eventual block or that the unblock somehow reflected on me as you repeatedly insist that I tried to block you but was overturned on "administrative review". This is just not true; one administrator unblocked a block placed by another administrator. The unblocking administrator had no more standing than any other administrator and your repeated claims of "administrative reviews" are utterly ridiculous. Sandstein's comment was his personal opinion of the block, not of my warning to you, so you're trying to connect dots that do not connect when you try to tie his comment to me. The actual administrative review on ANI brought a great deal of support for the block and several administrators endorsed community bans, longer and indefinite blocks, etc and I will also note that while Sandstein unblocked you, he did so without waiting for the blocking administrator to respond (something that would receive a strong rebuke these days) and without full knowledge of the block rationale and when he did have full knowledge, he endorsed making changes to the userpage policy in response to your editing practices.

I think your violations of the Civility policy are perfectly clear and they include your constant false accusations and your rude manner of dealing with other editors who want to discuss content with you. Your groundless accusations against others also show you seem to be operating in a permanent state of an assumption of bad faith and you have an endless stream of violations of WP:AGF. Please consider whether any of your interactions with other editors are grounded in an assumption of good faith - I will leave that between you and your own conscience. I suggest you think about adopting this recommendation from the Civility policy: "Treat your fellow editor as a respected and admired colleague, who is working in collaboration with you on an important project."

Finally, I suggest to you that you mea culpa and promise to stop your instant archiving practices, promise to stop making false accusations or accusations without evidence, and to work on creating a more congenial collaborative atmosphere and improving your interactions with other editors. Your constant defence of your behaviour and your refusal to acknowledge that, after these issues repeatedly come up in your interactions with numerous different people on numerous different articles, the fault may lie with you and your communication practices, are only demonstrating the need for sanctions. I think if you demonstrated an understanding that your editing practices and your combative style of interacting was at the heart of this issue you would find other editors more willing to give you a chance to adjust your practices. You complain that people are not focusing on Stuthomas4, this is because he has recognised his mistakes and apologised and pledged to try to do better. If you likewise recognised your own fault and pledged some strategy for the future - such as stopping your instant archiving, stopping the groundless and false accusations, stopping accusations without evidence, pledged to work on your interpersonal communication etc - you would find people would be willing to give you another chance but if you continue in this manner, you are going to find that you are subject to formal community-based editing restrictions. Currently on ANI it is clear that people are not supporting your editing style and everyone has endorsed some sort of sanctions from blocks to editing parole and so forth. I think you need to take that on board. As I said, I think if there was some sign that you were taking this feedback on board and recognising some of your own failings, instead of trying to blame everything on me you would find that people would be less inclined to pursue sanctions against you. Please consider. Sarah 03:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Phew. Abtract (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

And thank you. ThuranX (talk) 02:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Now we just need a neutral admin brave enough to wade in and close the discussion. :) Sarah 02:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Good comment

		The Special Barnstar
		Bless your heart. Quite a few discussions could use more gentle guidance like that. Vassyana (talk) 02:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Vassyana! Muchly appreciated. :) Cheers, Sarah 02:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 7, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Per user talk:Orderinchaos

Although I've not really done this successfully, contacting people/organisations/whatever about releasing media has been of some interest to me, and as I've mused on Orderinchaos' talk, I wonder if a co-ordinated effort might make it easier for people to be involved, and more successful. I've seen a few users be successful on their own; User:AnonEMouse and User:Videmus Omnia have both done well, and Omnia has some good advices. A reservoir of template messages, responses to common concerns, access to OTRSers to help you ferry things through and so forth might make a real difference. I've not much experience with Wikiprojects, but if a few interested parties could be gathered, I'd be game to try this. If you're interested, let me know. WilyD 13:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Wily. I don't have a lot of experience with asking for images but I did obtain the image on Andrew Laming by emailing Mr Laming at his office and asking him to release an image under a free license as the images we had were from Flickr and weren't professional looking and I thought he would prefer to donate his own image rather than leaving them up and he took me up on the offer. I really think most other MPs would be willing to donate an image if given the opportunity as it really is in their best interest to have a decent image on their biographies rather than having us dig through flickr for casual images that might not be very complimentary. I'm certainly willing to ask people for images but I think we need a central list so we can co-ordinate requests and make sure we don't irritate people by doubling up and sending multiple requests. I'm not really sure where the best place to do this would be but I might start a sub-page in my userspace to start with which can be moved elsewhere if necessary. I have OTRS access, so I would be able to help with that end of it, too. Thanks for your message. Cheers, Sarah 01:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The more I think about this the more I think it could be a good idea. There's a few "how to"s floating around, but no real place to get assistence or whatnot. I think the same formalism of a Wikiproject makes sense, though I've never really been a member of an active one, so I might be wrong. I'd be happy to help flush out a couple pages before any move to the mainspace, maybe advertise the creation to get a few hands. Userspace makes sense to me to create a skeleton before going live. WilyD 17:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The Deletion of Lion's Choice

I haven't been on in awhile, but I've just seen the notice on my talk page that the article Lion's Choice was being (and has now since been) speedily deleted for being a blatant advertisement. I know that the version I created was certainly not an advertisement. (It was nothing more than a few sentence stub!) Apparently it was subsequently filled in with substandard copy. Should I go ahead and re-create the article, or could one of my earlier revisions be restored? I certainly wouldn't want it to just get deleted again; thus I ask. If it would help the article to remain, I could expand upon it a bit as well. Kamoranakrre T. Eyaelitenan (talk) 16:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I just went back and checked that article and an IP added three paragraphs which included information about the "quality product" and the "clean, quick and courteous manner" of service and then proceeded to list menu items - "real roasted beef sandwiches, ham sandwiches, french fries, cole slaw, potato chips, soft drinks and soft serve ice cream products.". I'm quite happy to give you a copy of the article as you wrote it but before you put it back in the mainspace, I would suggest you add at least a sentence or two explaining how/why this restaurant is notable because I think if it were reposted as is there is a good chance it will be deleted as lacking an assertion of notability. Cheers, Sarah 00:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

That'd be handy; thanks! I'll see what I can do with it. Kamoranakrre T. Eyaelitenan (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay then. I will leave a copy of it in your userspace and leave a link to it on your talk page. Just give me a few minutes. Sarah 14:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

E-mail

As the header title suggests, you have been sent one. :) Acalamari 00:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, checking now. :) Sarah 00:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sarah...

I actually read the whole thing. The TL;DR was for everyone else. I read it as "resigning" not re-signing. As I read it, the person bitched and moaned needlessly for 90kb and was retiring. Sounds resolved to me. Beam 01:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your comment. I appreciate that as I really did read the "tl;dr" as being that you had only read the last comment where he said he was "resigning". Anyway, we seem to have reached a conclusion now so it's all good. Thanks again for your clarification. Cheers, Sarah 02:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'm not as big of a jerk as I seem! I have followed NYScohlar the last few days at the noticeboard, making a complete fool out of himself. When I read that he was resigning, I tried to will him to do it by closing it right away. I figured that the best way to summarize that LONG, LONG, LONG bullshit whine-fest was "TL;DR." Just because me and you cared enough to read it, someone passing by reading the Resolved note wouldn't. And I honestly read him as finally retiring. Maybe I was just so happy he was resigning that I wanted him to be resigned. Beam 03:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think you were being a jerk or anything, I just thought you were mistaken. :) I've seen people get confused by the whole "resign" thing before so I realised straight away that you were thrown by that comment. Beam, please do be careful with regard to civility, especially on my talk page. Warning people about civility really isn't my 'thing' and it is something that I have hardly ever done except for in extreme cases, but given the circumstances and my involvement in the case I'm really not comfortable with some of those comments. None of my interactions with NYScholar have been positive but I was quite serious when I said that I don't want him banned or defacto banned or pushed out the backdoor. I understand people reacting badly to him when he behaves as he does and I find him incredibly frustrating, but I do believe that he has sincere intentions and I don't want to see him pushed out the backdoor. I really just want him to collaboratively and congenially with other editors. He is a good content contributor but not very good with the interpersonal stuff but I find that not overly uncommon with academics. I have a cousin who is a professor and has spent most of his life studying and teaching and he is similar in manner but not as bad and so I have some empathy for him. Anyway, thanks again for trying to help out and for dropping by to clarify your closure comments and I'm sorry for misunderstanding your resolved comment. Cheers, Sarah 14:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

NYScholar (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you, NYScholar, I appreciate that very much and I, too, am sorry for any way that I may have contributed to misunderstandings or hurt feelings as that has certainly never been my intention. I'm glad to see that you have been unblocked and I think the bot archiving is a very good step forward that will hopefully prevent any further misunderstandings and concerns about that issue. Thank you again for your message. I do appreciate it and I hope you have a good break. Sarah 00:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)