Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TParis (talk | contribs) at 22:43, 22 September 2012 (→How is it possible this?: Might need to ask ANI). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Created Articles

Is it possible to write a function for an export of the list in Wiki-Syntax #] / Diskussion: ? I would find it great.

FYI: refusal to use dispute resolution utterly

There was a discussion at WP:DRN on Christian Right.

One editor, calling the process a "cesspool" in that discussion, seems to view dispute resolution as something which he is absolutely free to ignore. Were it not for the fact that this editor has repeatedly shown colours not compatible with collegial editing, this would not be of great import.

His latest edit on the article talk page shows a rather combative attitude, indeed:

Just to be clear, this material from DRN is not a genuine consensus and is not binding upon the editors of this article

Which is rich as he refused in no uncertain terms to participate in the process, brought a prior volunteer for DRN to AN/I etc.

But wait there's more! (Ron Popeil speaking)

I told you so. DRN is absolutely worthless. The moderators don't prevent personal attacks and they don't follow WP:CLOSE.

In short, I would suggest that the leash you are holding might well be shortened an inch (or two). Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I knew the calm could not last:

the Christian right is an informal coalition of formed around a core of evangelical Protestants that draws "support from politically conservative Catholics, Jews, Mormons, and occasionally secularists" who share their goals

(adding "Bob Jones University to a list of uncited "Christian Right" schools)

*Bob Jones University — Protestant Fundamentalist university, founded in 1927. George W. Bush spoke at the school's chapel hour on February 2, 2000 as a presidential candidate

Making a clear SYNTH link to the Republican Party contrary to the Dispute Resolution result. The source he gives for this claim is an abstract for Into the Wilderness: Ronald Reagan, Bob Jones University, and the Political Education of the Christian Right which was clearly google-farmed for the purpose of linking the Republican Party to the Christian Right, and for no other valid purpose at all. The actual article is far different from the use to which it is ill-put here. (The objectionable part is the "George W. Bush spoke here" implying therefore a connection between "Christian Right" and "George W. Bush" which is not made in the actual article at all!). The actual link shows BJU described as a "fundamentalist Christian university" and not as a "Christian Right university", the article is about the IRS case and the Christian Right's poor relationship with Ronald Reagan, and nothing whatsoever about Bush (clear and deliberate SYNTH violation and violation of WP:BLP as an unsourced claim about a living person. Collect (talk) 12:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

OMG - hjere he absolutely violates the entire reason for DRN:

The Christian right plays a "powerful role" within the Republican Party, which it is "intertwined with which is 180 degrees from the resolution at DRN. And places the WP:FRINGE stuff in the lede to boot. Cheers. -- looks like SS247 is off on a spree. Collect (talk) 12:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

OK -- he has gone past the pale:

Merging back, 2RR, see talk for full explanation (edit summary)

The material "merged back" clearly is politically chosen edit war

The Christian right plays a "powerful role" within the Republican Party, which it is "intertwined with"

is absolutely connected with American Presidential politics on its face, the editor has been warned many times for edit war, and this is a clear example thereof. He also readds a claim which is 'not inthe source given, etc. Collect (talk) 13:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

OMG^2 he is on an editing rampage -- re-adding that Fox News has Christian employees (Fox News Channel, which has numerous conservative commentators, has been the preferred news network for the Christian right; as many of the network's key figures are Evangelical Christians), The Christian right has been a notable force in both the Republican party and American politics since the late 1970's, , and so on and on and on. At least he hasn;t reverted the "timeline" stuff whose only purpose was political. Articles ought to be about the stated topic of the article, and not about political POV pushing, conspiracy and WP:FRINGE pushing, and frankly SS-247 is way past those limits <g>. Collect (talk) 13:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I think an RFC/U is in order.--v/r - TP 14:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

He started one <g>. Does WP:BOOMERANG work in such places? Cheers. - but I would like SS247 being given more than just his 20th warning at some point (15 different admins have warned him now). Collect (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

When I issue a topic ban, I want it to stick. Generally, RFC/Us rarely have room for a boomerang and a new RFC/U right now would be seen as retaliatory. Standingstill24-7's behavior, though, is going to catch up to him at some point. He is playing right on the line because he thinks when he gets a block or ban that he can argue ambiguity and blur the lines. He's going to mess up. His behavior is not collaborative and his battleground behavior isn't going to serve him well for much longer. Patience.--v/r - TP 14:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello. It appears that I'm being talked about. Is there anything you want to say to me directly? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak for Tparis, but since you've asked, let me take this opportunity to say what I'd like you to hear directly: please stop treating politics articles as a battleground. It doesn't really matter if you're the only one doing it, or one of fifty - either way, battleground behavior is harmful to the encyclopedia and generally unacceptable, especially on a topic that's under community probation, and editors who engage in it can and probably will be removed. Do not take the fact that you haven't been blocked or topic-banned yet (only told to "lay off, please") as evidence that your behavior isn't problematic, because that's likely to result in an unpleasant surprise. What's going on right now is people are waiting for you to notice that you're treading very close to the line of "completely unacceptable" and change your behavior accordingly. Please listen when people ask you to tone it down or back off. If you do that - if you can take others' comments on-board and adapt your behavior - you're much less likely to ever hit that point where you cross the line Tparis is referring to. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It does matter if I've been singled out for doing much less than those around me. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I assure you that while I remain uninvolved to the dispute, I will be issuing appropriate sanctions based on each particular editor's actions in the context of each particular situation. The easiest way to avoid sanctions is to edit appropriately.--v/r - TP 18:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I am editing appropriately whereas others are not, yet you single me out for threats. I see a problem with that. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

In the spirit of WP:BOOMERANG, I'd like you to look at Collect's behavior on Talk:Christian right and tell me it's acceptable. Decide for yourself. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

What particularly do you have a problem with? His pointing out to you the correct interpretation of WP:SYNTH or that he just ignored you when you said "I'm not sure that it would overcome your mental block"? Are you looking for a WP:NPA block as well? If you have a concern, point it out to me and I'll address it according to policy.--v/r - TP 21:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I would start with the talk page section entitled "Rebuilding the article.", which led to Alfietucker and Arthur Rubin both warning Collect about his repeated attempts to misconstrue part of the lead. Where's his topic ban warning for that? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

You've misread Arthur Rubin. That last sentence refers to you. You are "SS". StillStanding...had you not noticed? And Alfietucker isn't saying that Collect has misrepresented anything. He said that he believe Collect misunderstands and suggests an alternate reading of it. Is there something particularly concerning about Collect's behavior you'd like me to address rather that what others have said about him?--v/r - TP

That's both true and false, but mostly false. Here's Arthur's last sentence:

I've previously noted SS as being unable or unwilling to understand simple English; if you persist here, I would need to make the sote about you.

Yes, the "SS" here is me, but the "you" is Collect. Arthur's point is that he routinely insults me by saying I don't understand simple English, but if Collect continues to misinterpret what the lead says, then (says Arthur) this will apply to Collect. This is somewhat muddled by the use of "sote", which isn't a word. Charitably, it might be a very bad typo for "same note". Or maybe it really is English, but Arthur is right about my inability to comprehend it.

Alfietucker and Arthur Rubin are not always on the same side of the table, yet they agree with me that Collect was obstinately misinterpreting the sentence for the lead. You can tell because they used phrases such as "for the last time", "you're pushing it", "if you persist here", "raising a straw man" and "don't understand simple English". Note how I pointed out their response instead of mine, to show that there is an objective problem here, not just a conflict between me and Collect. My response was consistent; I politely suggested that he might have some sort of mental block that's interfering with his comprehension.

Assuming good faith -- which is not easy, let me tell you -- Collect is guilty of severe WP:IDONTUNDERSTANDIT or WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Some people might be forgiven for imagining that he may well be intentionally dragging his feet to prevent the restoration of something he deleted. After all, he removed huge parts of the article without prior discussion and has since argued unconstructively, as indicated by this example. Those people would have my sympathy, but I'm certain that if I expressed agreement, I would be singled out for it and threatened with bans. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. You want me to threaten Collect with a topic ban because he has an opinion that two people disagree with? Or is it you wish me to topic ban him because other people said some things about him? Have you considered for a moment, that despite what you said on your talk page about my less than fair objectivity, I gave you the benefit of the doubt when I could've very easily just issued a topic ban and I'm 95% certain I would've had ANI's full support? I gave you a respite because the article probation was new and I was giving everyone a chance to get used to it. You'll find that I'm very objective. In this case, I feel your grasping at straws to test me but it's an unfair test to begin with because it's fundamentally a misunderstanding of the policies involved. I'm very happy to explain any particular policy you have a question about were you to ask, but the way your going about it by pushing boundaries and crying foul of others isn't effective in learning. It comes down to this: Your test has two wrong answers and no right answer. Either I block/topic ban Collect, which wouldn't be in line with policy, or I don't, which wouldn't be in line with your interpretation of policy. So when there are two wrong answers, the only right answer is inaction. In this case, using my tools or position of trust inappropriately will cause more harm to the encyclopedia (and me) than not using them. Have you considered mentoring?--v/r - TP 00:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't care less if you threatened Collect; I want you to stop threatening me. But it would really, really help if you were consistent. For example, you tossed out the accusation that I was "pushing boundaries and crying foul of others", when in fact this applies directly to Collect and much more so than it does to me.

Remember, he's the one who removed a huge part of the article without prior discussion -- "pushing boundaries" -- and then he came here to complain to you when I dared bring up citations that support the re-inclusion of some of that material -- "crying foul of others". When I point out his behavior, you jump down my throat and laugh off the idea of banning him, yet you continue to threaten me with the same. Sorry, I just don't see the parity here.

Remember, we got here because you decided that reverting exactly once after much discussion somehow constituted edit-warring, but only when I did it. What I want is for you to state your requirements explicitly and then be objective in enforcing them. If we are obligated to follow BRD, you need to say so now, not complain afterwards. If we must stick to 1RR, say so. If we should edit only after gaining a full consensus on the talk page, say so. It is impossible to comply with demands that are made only after the fact. It amounts to punishing us for not reading your mind. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

"I want you to stop threatening me." You're right, I should stop threatening you. In the future, instead of warnings, I'll just move straight to sanctions since that seems to appeal to you more. I'm not enforcing WP:BRD although I've considered it. I am enforcing WP:EW.--v/r - TP 01:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

TParis, your incredibly hostile response is precisely why I question your objectivity. I gave you a road map to objectivity: tell people in advance just what you expect and then hold everyone to those expectations. You refuse. Instead, you're going to block me when I cross some invisible trip-wire that exists only in your head and magically doesn't affect other editors. I'm done here. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I "removed" material directly as a result of a DRN discussion which you called "a cesspool" - remember? When such a clear consensus is shown, it is not unreasonable to act on the clear consensus. And I posted on the article talk page as well. So much for your assertions that I acted improperly in any way whatsoever. I participated in dispute resolution, and followed its decisions. Which is what responsible Wikipedians do. Your claim of "no prior discussion" is errant, fatuous, incorrect, misleading, and contrary to what anyone reading the article talk page ( gives a clue), the DRN colloquy (Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Christian_right) and all the posts on your user talk page by multiple editors indicate to be the facts. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Your tendentious comments are getting tiring. You want a road map? It's Misplaced Pages:General_sanctions/2012_Presidential_Campaign/Log right here. If you think there needs to be WP:1RR or WP:BRD on the articles, feel free to propose it. I'm trying to take a "poke and prod" approach rather than a "this is how you'll behave" approach. If you feel I havent been consistent on both sides, I implore you to provide diffs of where I haven't first informed editors of the article probation, and then second given a final warning. Please, be my guest.--v/r - TP 01:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to be a budinski here primarily because ISS has asked me not to post on his talk page, a request I continue to honor. ISS feels he is being "singled out" with respect to sanctions. No one likes to be under the microscope, and it is understandable that ISS is upset over what he feels is unjust treatment. However I would like to point to User:Belchfire as a example of someone "on the other side" who has also been threatened with a block. Belchfire has had some problems with his conduct towards others, mostly with uncivil language in TP edits and/or edit summaries. Recently SwatJester read him the riot act and gave Belchfire a final warning. To Belchfire's credit, he didn't deny his behavior was a problem and stated his intention to try and improve. Maybe its because his account is much older than ISS, but as far as I'm aware he didn't get a single admin suggest to him that he might want to step back a bit. ISS on the other hand has has had at least a dozen admins make polite suggestions on how to improve his collaboration. On the face of it, the treatment that Belchfire received doesn't seem fair compared to the kid gloves that ISS has received. I'll admit I could be way off base here as to the "fairness" of things. There might be plenty of things I'm unaware of, but I'm just calling it like I see it. But the bottom line is that Belchfire owned up and said he will try and do better. That is all anyone can ask. And that is all anyone is asking of ISS. So ISS, you are not being singled out. If anything the volunteer admins have bent over backwards to help you, not harm you.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

To add on, scroll down and what else do you see?--v/r - TP 03:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi TParis. I just noticed this and thought I would stay completely out of it for now. LOL!...but, wow.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Staying out of above for now...but not below. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Please take me with you!!!--v/r - TP 03:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The shuttlecraft leaves in ten minutes...don't be late! ;)--Amadscientist (talk) 04:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Its the same shuttlecraft I used to get me away from all those article before this Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/2012 Presidential Campaign/Log happened. LOL! ;)--Amadscientist (talk) 04:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Break

Would that be the same Belchfire who has been edit-warring at Parents Action League (along with a number of the other usual suspects on both sides) ever since he said he would do better? Black Kite (talk) 17:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes.--v/r - TP 17:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thought so. I see one side is again badgering admins (you, this time) to block SS247 above. Apparently they didn't get the answer they wanted after going to ANI at least three times. Black Kite (talk) 17:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

That would be an inaccurate portrayal of the history. Both the article probation warning and final warning that SS24-7 received were prior to this thread and were from my own independent and uninvolved perspective. If you'd like, I'd be happy to go through the diffs with you.--v/r - TP 18:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh no, I completely understand the warnings he's correctly received, I just don't think there's a full picture there because clearly it takes two (or in this case about ten) to edit-war. There's also stuff like - well for example, check out the contribs for today of User:Mollskman, who I've just final-warned, and I strongly suspect at least one contributor is a sock of a banned editor though unfortunately CU would be too stale to use. Black Kite (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I think one of the reasons SS24-7 is confused as to my objectivity is that the edit he performed that I gave him a "final warning" for was with an editor who had not been informed of the article probation yet. I gave Stillstanding the final warning at 00:37 17 Sept and at the same time gave North8000 the article probation warning. But StillStanding believes I've been unfair or targetting him because I did not give North8000 the same warning when it is actually StillStanding's second warning by me (the article probation being the first) and North8000's first. The problem comes down to this, in my opinion, Stillstanding doesn't like that he got warned. However, had I gone straight to a topic ban, then he likely wouldn't have appreciated not receiving a warning. Others I've warned have taken it well. I don't know why this user thinks I've targeted him but I feel he's had a hard time getting the point. I've treated everyone the same. He doesn't understand that when he reverts an article that has already received 4 or 5 other reverts, he's partaking in an edit war even if it's his first revert. He seems to think 3 reverts is a right. If you think you can explain it to him and also explain WP:SYNTH to him (I can point out diffs of where this has been a problem) then he will have a much easier time editing here.--v/r - TP 22:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you were completely within your discretion to warn StillStanding. His complaint seems to be that your warning didn't provide clear guidance on which behaviors he should avoid. It might be helpful, in the interest of a productive editing environment, to articulate some clear standards: 1RR and/or WP:BRD would be reasonable in this setting. I'm not sure about sanctioning him for a single revert in the setting of a multilateral edit war; that's a very strict standard, and full protection almost always works better in those settings, but I suppose it's up to you. I think StillStanding feels targeted by you because of comments like this one. I'm sure it's not your intent, but comments like that can create the impression that you're simply waiting for an appropriate pretext upon which to sanction him. MastCell  23:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the context might be misunderstood then. What I intended to say was that I'm not going to block or topic ban over something minor that is within discretion at best and harsh at the worse. If I'm to issue a topic ban, it should be for something that deserves it and is unlikely to be controversial and get reverted. As far as the article, I'm trying to encourage all editors to default to discussion rather than defaulting to reverting. I'm trying to poke with the occasional prod. I'd like to see editors do it in good faith rather than because of a WP:1RR and I'd hope that the community sanctions would tip off everyone involved that their behavior thus far hasn't been effective. And so far this is working. Looking at Paul Ryan, I took off the protection mid-day yesterday and still everyone involved is discussing how to include the content appropriately. I understand how anyone would feel they are being 'threatened', but a warning is our standard precursor to harsher sanctions and given the alternative I think he would prefer it.--v/r - TP 23:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I support any sanction you decide on for SS-247 TP, if you so choose. I no longer see this editoras having any redeeming quality and is not here to imporve the encyclopedia, but use it as a battle ground. Should you choose no action, I will support that as well.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:Rtmcrrctr

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Rtmcrrctr (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Rtmcrrctr. -- Homunq (talk) 13:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget to get a second certifier to sign it.--v/r - TP 14:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Tell me you didn't suggest, or even condone, an RfC/U against a user who had less than 100 edits. There's got to be a dozen different routes to hit before that one, especially since the article in question is under discretionary sanctions. Discussion of your advice has come up here. Worm(talk) 13:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

In TP's defense, there was no suggestion that they were referring to any specific user. Homunq (talk) 14:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The comment your referring to is here in this thread and I was talking about User:Arzel who has a few more than 100 edits and I did mention other dispute resolution processes in an earlier comment.--v/r - TP 17:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the diffs :) Worm(talk) 08:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Pure balls

For owning this, I salute you. You have a lucky daughter.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear lord. *turns red*. In my defense, I had my 4 year old with me that day and pretended it was for her (or at least it was evidence I was straight) but shamefully, it was for me. I actually enjoyed Frewin Jones but I guarantee you I do generally have better tastes. I just recently finished "A Dance with Dragons" by George R R Martin if that redeems me at all. I'm thinking I should AfD that article.--v/r - TP 03:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

And if we are all lucky your daughter will still be below drinking age by the time he finishes the next book.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Ohh no, all 6 books are finished ;)--v/r - TP 03:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the idea was, before Martin publishes "A Bounty of Betrayals" or whatever the next one will be called. Homunq (talk) 14:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh right. I thought he was talking about the Jones book; didn't realize he meant Martin.--v/r - TP 17:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Please note this comment addressed to you.

This. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Personal log

Stardate 2012.264. After much introspection, I have tagged both User:Viriditas/RfC and User talk:Viriditas/RfC for deletion per the recommendation of TParis. User:RHaworth deleted both as U1 at approximately 09:50 hours. Interested users are invited to participate in the ongoing thread at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Conservatism#NPOV edit requests. Viriditas (talk) 10:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of it.--v/r - TP 11:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Addendum and personal log of Admiral Mad Sci. Negotiations at Camp Khitomer seem to be succussful. There is much work ahead and the road long, but there be light at the end of the tunnel! I am requesting shoreleave to Risa and shall return in the coming days.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

*Salute*, granted, I've got the Delta Flyer in the main shuttle bay for just an occasion. Feel free to use it and let me know if I can be of any help.--v/r - TP 20:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you *Returns salute*. Tell Admiral Janeway I am expecting to meet her for coffe at the Night Owl in San Francisco when I return. She's buying!--Amadscientist (talk) 21:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Mollskman and Romney

This edit by Mollskman summarized as "per talk" goes against everything that was discussed at talk. Mollskman got a warning a few days ago so he knows better. Binksternet (talk) 05:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I think accusing StillStanding24-7 of a personal attack is worse though and shows WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. I've given him a month off.--v/r - TP 13:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Not saying that he should not have been blocked, but articles that are going to fall under that umbrella should be identified before hand. The Seamus article is not currently identified as such. Arzel (talk) 06:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The article probation says "broadly construed" and it is a term used often in Misplaced Pages sanctions at all levels. It comes down to this: If you think it can in any way be connected to the campaign, then assume it is.--v/r - TP 14:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that lends itself to some interesting situation. For example, broadly construed would imply that Irish Setter falls under that umbrella. Arzel (talk) 18:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

– 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 12:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Advice

I'm asking for some advice here. I've noticed 108.28.53.169 pop up in RC patrol several times, and they seem to be on a very specific mission, adding the words “deep”, “strong”, and/or “close” between every occurrence of “relationship” or “romance” in a certain swath of articles, and other similarly ill-advised edits. Some of them are just iffy, but some are clearly wrong in context. They've pretty much all been reverted (mostly by other people), but it's a huge pain in the ass. What would you do here?

In addition to the warnings on their talk page, I've tried to issue some persuasion:

Some diffs to demonstrate: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerfuffler (talk • contribs)

I would continue to escalate warnings and when they reach a final warning, report them to WP:AIV and we can block the IP for a week. Lots of times, IPs arnt even aware they have talk pages but a block will draw there attention to the warnings.--v/r - TP 14:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

How is it possible this?

Hello TParis,

It is possible that you do not remember this message on your talk page "Calling my involvement -eager to block you is just ridiculous" said User:Iadrian yu when I had an affair with User:Omen1229.

I do not want to bring up old grievances here, however, it is not in order that when I delibatery try to avoid articles Iadrian yu edits , and yet I do not succeed. One user who permanently involves himself in block-shopping concerning me, should not edit in response to any of my edits ,nonethless; Iadrian yu keeps following me to articles he never edited before. And in addition, when he began accusing me on your talk page that resulted in a successfull block-shopping, he also told that "whenever you appear there is a new edit war" . Since it looks to me that this type of behaviour does not strike his socialization skills, would you be so kind as to tell him to give me a wide berth?--Nmate (talk) 22:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't unilaterally impose a interaction ban. All I can do is take a look at his edits to see if he's wiki-stalking and tell him not to. If you want an interaction ban, you'd have to as WP:ANI for that.--v/r - TP 22:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)