User talk:Mugaliens/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome

Hello, Mugaliens/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for [[Special:Contributions/Mugaliens/Archive 1

|your contributions]]. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the [[Wikipedia:New

contributors' help page|New contributors' help page]], where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type

{{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for

newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages

using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have

any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Sandstein 18:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Sandstein! I'm looking forward to being a part of Wikipedia! Mugaliens 10:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Fashion police

Please do not abuse Wikipedia articles for airing your opinions regarding Wikipedia or its editors, as this is considered vandalism. Use the talk

pages of the individuals concerned instead or see WP:DR. Thanks. Sandstein 10:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the... Please explain your position, dude - what in the world are you talking about, particularly after my rather pleasant acceptance of your

rather acceptant greeting less than 4 hours before? Are you a "hit and run" personality?

Who the blazes are you?

First you welcome me, then 37 minutes later you post this crap, which appears to have nothing to do with you, personally. What's up

behind your obvious personal interest and antagonism? Are you insane? Borderline? Who/Whatever you are, please don't trash my personal

page with your crap.

Thanks.

Mugaliens 11:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is in reply to the above and to your post on my talk page. First, please try to remain civil, or you may be blocked from editing

Wikipedia. Thanks.

I am Sandstein, a Wikipedia editor just like you. You chose to add your opinion regarding supposed problems with the

behaviour of unspecified other Wikipedia editors to Fashion police. I noticed this after taking a look at your contributions.

You certainly have every right to voice your opinions in this regard. However, the encyclopedia articles are not the right place for this. People

who just want to read an encyclopedia do not care for commentary on Wikipedia affairs (see: WP:ASR). Please use other fora to voice your

opinion, such as the talk pages of the individuals whose behaviour you object to, or the resources listed at WP:DR.

I hope this answers your question. Feel free to ask more questions about how to use Wikipedia on WP:BC. Happy editing!

Sandstein 11:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Wikipedia editor? Thank you for the nod. Please send me links to the editor tools I need to improve Wikipedia. I'm sure my sixteen years

as an editor can be put to good use, here.

I'll refrain from commentary about Wiki editors within the context of Wiki articles. I appreciate your input on this particular issue.

PS: This conflict will be deleted from my talk page upon resolution.

Thank you for your understanding. You already have all the tools available to editors via the "edit" tab; see Wikipedia:How to edit a page.

However, as per WP:TPG: Please do not remove messages from your talk page. Talk pages exist as a record of communication, and in any

case, comments are available through the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but

be sure to provide a link to any deleted comments. Thanks. Sandstein 11:34, 6

August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Sandstein, for taking the time to explain this to me. I appreciate your input and will soon archive (complete with link) this part of my

talk page so as to present a fresh slate for others. Mugaliens 15:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your repeated vandalism to Fashion police

I'm telling you a second and final time: Stop vandalising encyclopedia articles by airing your grievances about Wikipedia in them. You may be blocked without further warning if you persist. The first warning is in User talk:Mugaliens/Archive 1. Sandstein 04:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record (and to clear my name), I left the following on Sandstein's page: "Also, please note that at 15:55, 6 August 2006, I did remove all references ("grievances" as you called them, although I have no grievances, just an observation) to Wiki at your initial warning, which you gave a little over five hours earlier, at 10:38, 6 August 2006. More 12 hours after I removed the references, you posted your second warning, at 04:44, 7 August 2006, again mentioning references which no longer existed. Why, I'm not sure. Perhaps you can shed some light, here."

He's a smart guy - he should be able to figure out that he left his second and final warning 14 hours after I adhered to his initial warning! Mugaliens 19:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin..?

User:Sandstein is not on the sysop list. What makes you think he's an admin? Bishonen | talk 20:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Warning

I, on the other hand, am an admin and have the capacity to block you from editing. I've been dipping into your history tab, and I see User:Sandstein has been civilly and patiently trying to get you to edit appropriately. It's strange the way you thank him for his input, promise to stop adding your own opinions on Fashion police, and then go right on doing it. Wikipedia has patience with new contributors, but you're approaching the point of abusing that patience. It has been repeatedly explained to you what kind of material is appropriate in articles. Stop adding inappropriate material, or I will block you from editing. This is an official administrator warning. Don't remove it from your page. Bishonen | talk 20:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Amazing - 2021 and 2029 on the same date is quite telling. I'll let the readers ascertain any collaborative effort, if any.

I've been quite civil, as my comments pertest, and the content has been well within Wiki standards. If you feel otherwise, please provide undisputable truth (references to qualified articles which counter any claims that I may have made) and I will, without hesitation, after reviewing your sources, withdraw my comments - unless, however, that I feel my sources provide considerably more evidence for my claim than what's been presented to date. In that case, I will open the case for discussion within Wiki policy and allow the Wiki community to decide, as a whole, and based upon ALL references provided, what's the best approach with respect to the content of the article.

Addendum: Please explain your comment: "Please stop adding inappropropriate material." Any review of the material that I've added will either reflect references already provided, or will will show references which I've supplied. If you feel those references are in error, please list them and I'll either verify, or retract any comments based upon those references. Mugaliens 21:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final Addendum - from previous comments by Sandestein, it had appeared he was an admin. Please reference the numerous pages linked above, and elsewhere with respect to anything I've posted. If you need further reference, I will be happy to provide it (more than 20 pages, including those to which he called me to task as a Wiki admin). He focused rather heavily on another poster, whose comments I've reviewed, and on whom I've made additional comments. His appearance here on Wiki was as an Admin, a point which he hammered home quite hard, as referenced on the other poster's discussion pages. If this individual is not, in fact, an admin, then please take the appropriate action against this individual, as he's considerably undermined factual reporting of a number of events that have enjoyed between 15 and 190 years history, as no more prevalently portraid than in the funeral procession of my Aunt and Uncle, both of whom were servents of their community, my Aunt with particular respect to the Fire Department, which saw fit to give her full military honors, bagpipes and all, at her funeral in 2002.

Thank you, whoever you are, for looking into these accusations, and making what's right, what's right. (note - previous references removed at the request of their families - please respect their right to privacy). Mugaliens 17:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, Sandstein wrote explicitly "I am Sandstein, a Wikipedia editor just like you" in one post. He's not pretending to be an admin, you have misunderstood him--it's perfectly appropriate for him, as an experienced user, to refer you to policy pages, to tell you that you may be blocked etc. What would serve you best at this point is to calm down, take it easy, and try to listen to what more experienced users (=Sandstein and me) tell you. We're trying to help. No, I'm not going to further explain my comments, because Sandstein already has explained everything I say. If you click on the tab labelled "History" at the top of this page, it'll take you to a page that shows you all the edits you have deleted, so that you can re-read them and perhaps better digest them. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 21:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Disengage for a while (excerpt from the Wikipedia:Resolving disputes page

"If you have a dispute, and discussion has ground to a standstill, and attempts to gain new participants have failed, the next step in the dispute resolution process is to stop. Put a note on your user page mentioning the article you have a dispute about, and a short explanation of the dispute (so you, and anyone who happens across your user page will be aware) and go away and work on something else on Wikipedia."

The disputed page was Fashion police. I posted an edit, and it was considered "vandalism" by one admin. I edited the article as per his/her comments yet he/she posted a second "warning" approximately 14 hours after I edited the article as per his comments. I was initially unaware that it was an admin, and errantly believed it to be a vandal simply pointing a finger to avoid having a finger point at him/her. I next politely addressed the issue on his/her talk page, pointing out that his/her second warning came 14 hours after my edits, and was met with an unacceptable and rather vitriolic response.

I'm disappointed that very shortly after my arrival here, I've had to seek advice on how to handle this situation, given on the Wikipedia:Resolving disputes section, to avoid further conflict with this individual. I have exhausted all other avenues, including direct contact with the primary adminstrator and contact with another administrator. I remain quite perplexed at the original admin's beef, as it appears quite personally motivated. I remain hopeful, however, that he/she will regain a sense of normalcy and will refrain from such behavior in the future. If this matter cannot be resolved peacefully, it will be immediately reported through request Arbitration.

Disengaging Again

This is the second attempt at following Wikipedia's policy toward's disengaging. Please respect it.

Please note that you first stated, "User:Sandstein is not on the sysop list. What makes you think he's an admin? Bishonen | talk 20:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)."

You next stated, "No, Sandstein [is]... ...not pretending to be an admin, you have misunderstood him... ...Bishonen | talk 21:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)" and proceeded to unload a lengthy litany. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mugaliens/Archive_3"

If you do not wish controversy, please refrain from starting it. I'm here to edit/enahance entries, not argue. There are many places you can visit on the Internet if that's what you're into. I'm precisely one step away from filing a Request for Arbitration to highlight any further attempts to lure me into an argument. I've complied fully with the edit requests, highlighted a timeline discrepancy which lead to one such remark, and will continue to adhere to Wiki policy. I simply do not understand the gross antagonism here. If you can explain in clear, rational terms which adhere to the aforementioned timeline, please do. If your recommendations match Wikipedia rules, then I will adhere to them. If you're recommendations are contrary to Wikipedia rules, then I will present them in the appropriate forum (request Arbitration) for further review. Otherwise, I will nominate that your admin status be reviewed for censure or deletion. Mugaliens 12:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. I remind you again that it's pointless to delete the posts of myself and others, all it does is give an impression of secretiveness. Visitors to this page can still read every word by using the History tab. Bishonen | talk 13:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I have not deleted anything. I have archived them, as clearly referenced and linked two paragraphs above. Please do not make any further false accusations, as they serve no purpose in resolving issues, but rather, merely inflame, unnecessarily. This will be left here for a few days, then archived in accordance with Wiki procedures as recommended by Sandstein. Furthermore, I do not believe anyone, including both you and I, appreciates others making incorrect and undermining comments on our talk pages, so I respectfully request you to take the time to ascertain your facts before firing any further salvos or leaving less than productive and encouraging remarks. Finally, please view the timeline in Archive 2. I would appreciate an apology, if that's not prohibited by Wiki rules. Thank you. Mugaliens 14:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reviewing Wikipedia's Policy and Guidelines and it's subpages to determine if anything that's been documented herein and on the archived pages which may have violated the rules, either technically, or even the spirit of the rules. I will report any findings in the Request for Arbitration page.

Wiki Admin Policy

Please review the preceding link if you have any further concerns.

Clarification

As this diff shows, your last edit to the relevant article contained inappropriate material. You did not delete the material in that edit; it was subsequently reverted out of the article by another user, Mdwh. I suggest that you stop making false claims of your own innocence and false accusations of impropriety against respected users and admins. You may mean well, but you're off to a bad start here. The main thing is that it is not acceptable to express your opinions about Wikipedia or its editorial culture, such as you did in the Fashion Police article, in Wikipedia articles. That is not what the Wikipedia articles in the mainspace are for, and any edits along those lines will be viewed as vandalism. I hope you now understand this. No good for you will come from your request for arbitration, because everyone you are accusing of impropriety has actually acted quite properly. You will only draw attention to yourself as a potential "problem". Indeed, it was when I checked the latest requests for arbitration that I became aware of all this. How about settling down and starting over now all this has been explained to you? Metamagician3000 11:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recheck the date of the dif against the timeline previously supplied and referred to several times. It's all about who said what and when. Thanks. Mugaliens 11:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The timeline shows that your last edit to the page came after your initial discussions with Sandstein. That edit contains material that is of such a nature as to be interpreted as vandalism. It was not you who removed the material; it was reverted out by Mdwh. Accordingly, it was quite appropriate for Sandstein to give you another warning. I have no problem with you - your more recent edits to other mainspace articles seem okay (I've just been checking them), and your essay on admin policy is obviously well intentioned. I'm just trying to explain to you why things happened as they did and why it's not in your interests to pursue arbitration against anyone. Please see my advice as being intended to help you. Let things be, and if you need help in future feel free to drop me a note. Metamagician3000 12:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I'm an admin here, but I only want to help you understand why others have reacted as they have. I'm not threatening you - just explaining as well as I can. Metamagician3000 12:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I truly appreciate your inputs, Metamagician3000 - thank you. I'm here for a better Wiki. I hope the edits on admin policy prove useful. Mugaliens 17:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this helps a new user get off on the right foot after some initial misunderstandings, it'll have been my pleasure. I hope you now understand that Sandstein was acting properly, even if he came across as unsympathetic. It would be best if you made a note at your request for arbitration that, after talking to some experienced users, you're withdrawing it (even if you do want to add a note that you feel you could have been treated more sympathetically while you were feeling your way as a new user - I have no opinion on that but can understand if you still feel that way). Would that be possible? Metamagician3000 01:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move of Wikipedia:Admin Policy

Before anyone moved the essay, we established a community consensus for it. Please see [1] this link, if you have any questions. I, and I'm sure all others, encourage you to continue thinking about policy and the ways things can be run more smoothely and fairly. It is probably best to draft proposals in one's user talk space until it feels ready for approval or rejection, then to move to namespace ("Wikipedia:") with "Proposal" in the name. Announce at the Village Pump that a new proposal is ready for consideration, and if the proposal addresses administrators in particular at WP:AN especially, and then the process can begin. Geogre 16:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the guidance, Geogre! I'm fine with the move. My only purpose was to consolidate, summarize, and link to existing Wiki policy. If it's edited to more accurately reflect Wiki policy, I'd like to see it reinstated as policy become a good jumping off point for others. Mugaliens 21:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]