Misplaced Pages

Templates for deletion

Please see Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion#Universities in the United Kingdom navigational templates. Thanks, mattbr 00:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Please improve

Anthony John Bailey - Kittybrewster 02:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• I don't really know anything about this person I am afraid. Is it not up for deletion anyway? Astrotrain 15:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

Since your name has been dragged into this (not by me), it seems only fair to ask if you would like to comment on this; and you have a pretty good idea of the background. As you and I are not exactly bosum buddies, you may be able to apply a more objective perspective to this ugly situation:

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:81.155.34.127_reported_by_User:Mais_oui.21_.28Result:.29

--Mais oui! 17:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• I am not keen on being quoted there, as I have never called for you to be banned or blocked. The quote is taken out of context. It also seems that the topic has diverted off the 3RR breach that was reported. It is unfortuante that some users are hijacking the 3RR process to attack you though- and the other users who have responded to this trolling should really know better. I am also experiencing problems with an abusive editor (also with his own proven sockpuppet)- and have a false 3RR report against me just below your one. I would advise to not respond to the baiting on that page and hope that admin action is taken the Orcadian IPs- such an IP posted on here a while ago to rant- but he/she/they did not seem to take my advice. Although we have had editing differences in the past (and probably will do again no doubt!), I am not willing to be part of any vendetta. Astrotrain 18:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I have noticed that our encounters have been more constructive of late.

It is all pretty academic now, as that IP address has been blocked anyway; although it is typical of the pattern that within an hour he just switches to a new IP address, to comment at the 3RR!?! Ah, the rich irony...

I'll eat my hat if we see any timely, constructive Admin action out of this frankly surreal farce. I am not aware of any similar tolerance of rampant IP abuse anywhere else on Misplaced Pages. Why? --Mais oui! 18:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Warning

This is a warning about certain behaviour which is uncivil. You were asked a question by Vintagekits and instead of answering it, you archived the talk. When it was reposted with a correct request not to archive open discussions, you archived it again, and again. You were asked a legitimate question, namely why you had labelled an edit (for which a rationale was given in the edit summary) as "rv POV vandal". This edit summary in itself is a breach of etiquette and should not be used against good faith edits, even if they are ones you disagree with. Continuation of this attitude will result in being blocked. Tyrenius 03:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I've blocked Astrotrain 48 hours for this. Astrotrain, if you wish to continue editing here, you're going to have to start following Misplaced Pages's policies a lot more closely than you have been. Incidentally, this is your fourth block, which is why I went for 48h instead of 24h. I'm hoping that you take this time to cool down, and that when you return, you mind WP:CIVIL as well as WP:POV. | Mr. Darcy talk 05:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It was a toss up for me between another warning and a block, so I endorse your action. Tyrenius 05:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Astrotrain will be surprised by this block which was IMHO an excessive unexpected response without warning. The warning WAS appropriate. The way I read it, Astrotrain was trying to reduce the temperature which was being raise by the persistent boring relentlessness of another editor. I think the block should be revoked. - Kittybrewster 10:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Havent you been warned about your breaches on WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Please refrain from this in future.--Vintagekits 11:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I was not following this at the time, but after reviewing the records, it seems pretty clear to me that a block is excessive. I too support its removal. --Mais oui! 10:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative, not punative. The purpose of a block is not to punish you for using an inappropriate edit summary or engaging in incivil behavior, but to correct the issue. If you are asking that a preventative block be removed, then I would think there would at least need to be some recognition that your edit summary was wrong and a willingness to discuss the issue rather than to declare that those with whom you disagree are vandals. --BigDT 14:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of referenced material to suit an agenda is vandalism in my opinion. If trolling and harrassment are to be tolerated in this case then I am not going to bother. It is a shame that good editors are being hounded off Misplaced Pages by POV vandals and their admin allies. Astrotrain 14:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

User:MrDarcy and User:Vintagekits apear to see blocks as punitive. Quote by the latter - I want Kitty punished for stirring up this trouble. - Kittybrewster 14:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Its pathetic the way Darcy and Tyrenius are behaving. They should really be stripped of their admin status for the mess they are creating. Harrassment of other editors is not the way an admin should be behaving. They are only encouraging the trolls who have been stalking us. Astrotrain 19:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I came here because I was going through Category:Requests for unblock. I have no interest in the matter and, that I can recall, have never edited any article on this subject, nor interacted with any of those involved in this issue. I took a look at the diffs provided and upheld the block. Regardless of motivation, calling someone a vandal who is editing in good faith - even if you believe them to be in error - is not being civil. It is important to discuss contentious issues on the talk page, rather than reverting and holding the discussion in edit summaries. If there is an issue that is not going to be resolved, you can make a request on WP:RFP for the page to be protected in order that discussion may be facilitated. --BigDT 19:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I very much doubt that you can describe an undoubted POV vandal such as User:Vintagekits as 'editing in good faith'. Just ignore these stupid Admins Jonto 20:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

There has been no reason given for the block- archiving talk pages is within my discretion and I am not obliged to respond to trolling and harrasment by a user with a history of vandalism and sockpuppet actions. Darcy only blocked me because he has been harrassing me for weeks, supported by Tyrenius, and couldn't wait for the chance. Blocking me for 48 hours is a complete disgrace. There is nothing in the blocking policy to support this action. Astrotrain 20:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• This is yet more harrassment. I am not going to respond to this matter further- I have better things to do that argue with these people. Astrotrain 09:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)