User talk:YBM/Archive1

Talk Page archive # 1 - 09/25/2005

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, YBM/Archive1! My name is Ryan, aka Acetic Acid. I noticed that you were new and haven't received any messages yet. I just wanted to see how you were doing. Wikipedia can be a little intimidating at first, since it uses different formatting than other sites that use HTML and CSS. In the long run, though, you'll find that the WikiSyntax is a lot easier and faster than those other ways. Here are a few links to get you started:

There are a lot of policies and guides to read, but I highly recommend reading over those first. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Please be sure to sign your name on Talk Pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, along with a link to your user page. This way, others know when you left a message and how to find you. It's easier than having to type out your name, right? :)

I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. We can use all the help we can get! Have a nice day. Sincerely, Ryan 00:51, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Troll/Abuse on Talk:Bogdanov Affair

My talk page is not the place to post these messages, if you feel that policies are being abust then you should initiate a RfC on the issue. If the Three revert rule is being broken, report it at WP:AN/3. If you want admins to look into an issue, the best place to make people aware of this is at Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard where most admins will notice it. There is only a small chance that people with sufficient time will see your messages on my talk page. I do not have the necessary time to become invovled with this dispute at the moment. Thryduulf 13:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Sophie"

Hi, YBM. I just noticed your edit on Talk:Bogdanov Affair, where you stated that Sophie had been blocked for 24 hours and would be permanently banned if she edited abusively again. I'm afraid my comment on WP:AN must have misled you there. When I said I could see a permaban in my chrystal ball, I didn't mean it was that simple: I don't have the power to permaban anybody, and even if I did, I wouldn't take such a step that fast. I'm sorry if my half-jocular reference to chrystal balls suggested it! No, while I can and will block Sophie if the behavior should be repeated—let's hope it won't—it's not really worth blocking a dynamic IP for longer than 24 hours, just as Cesarb said. Instead, if you find her so obstructive that she needs to be banned, you'll have to go with our rather laborious dispute resolution process, which normally entails first a request for comment on user behavior, and secondly if necessary a request for arbitration against the user by the Arbitration Committee. Only the ArbCom can ban people. If you click on my links, you'll see the instructions for how to perform these kinds of requests. Note also that if you consider you're dealing with obviously outrageous behavior, it's possible to go directly to a request for arbitration, without first requesting community comments. Meanwhile, one much simpler thing is to list the Bogdanoff talk page—as opposed to the user— on Requests for comment. Please note the instructions for that at the top of the RFC page: when you list a page, it's important to describe the conflict briefly and neutrally. I'd recommend you to do that right now, and let's hope the more complex and more confrontational steps in the dispute resolution process won't be needed. Bishonen | talk 15:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Reverting Against Personal Attack Reverting

What I saw was a chunk of data being blanked from the article, and from what I could gather, the comments being blanked were not personal attacks. Of course, if I'm wrong, then the beauty of the wiki is that you can revert those changes. I am presently running through RC patrol, and as you can appreciate, sometimes I misread things in an effort to finish checking an edit for vandalism. Incidentally, as I recall, I used the edit summary rv apparent v.

If I've acted incorrectly in this case, I do apologise. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 03:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your WP:RFC

Hi, YBM. Again, please note the instructions at the top of the RFC page, because right now you're doing the exact opposite of what they say. Please describe the issue—neutrally, no matter how unneutral you feel—and simply, in a way outsiders can understand. Don't continue the debate. Don't sign your username, sign only the date, etc. Bishonen | talk 17:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How could I be more neutral ? Qualifying "personal attack" as "personal attack" is a fact, not an unneutral assesment. --YBM 18:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not relevant to what the article RFC page is for, is my point. An article RfC is supposed to be about the article. What you wrote would have been a lot better in a user RFC (but those are a much bigger deal—you have to use a special template, have done mediation attempts, and have at least one other user endorse you—please see the instructions for user RFCs). I'm sorry if the system seems bureaucratic and confusing. Meanwhile, I'm only a volunteer, and rather busy in real life, so I'm afraid I don't have the time to argue every point over and over like this. Also, I feel I've said my say about it, and my posts are there for those interested, especially what I wrote on Talk:Bogdanov Affair. I'll be cutting back on my involvement in this issue from now on, although I'll still keep an eye on that talk page. Bishonen | talk 18:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

About Talk:Bogdanov Affair again

Hi YBM. As you have seen, the user Sophie has been blocked from editing for a short period for personal attacks and talk page disruption. This user had been warned of her unacceptable behaviour on several occasions. However, you should also be aware that your own personal attacks ([1] [2] [3]) and content blanking ([4]) that you justify with "removing personal attacks", while at the same time calling Sophie's removal of your attacks ([5]) "vandalism" ([6]), have not remained unnoticed.

This is not to say that you should be blocked in any way. Everyone can lose their temper when the discussion becomes heated. It is just a reminder that civility rules (and rules in general) are the same for everyone, and should not be abused. I am willing to act as a mediator between you and Sophie when she comes back to settle whatever disagreement you may still be having. Regards, Sam Hocevar 01:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that any mediation is needed (or even possible), Sophie didn't propose a word to the article, nor wrote a word related to the article content. Basically what she did here on a similar subject before.

Hopefully, the contributions of "EE Guy", CatherineV, Bishonen and myself, the current article is a (sort of) consensus. Bogdanov's auto-promotion has been noticed and stopped, it was my only point from the beginning. IMHO most articles on Wikipedia are crappy or incomplete, the current Bogdanov Affair article is far from perfect, but looks better than the average, I do not plan to make it better. --YBM 07:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how it can be a consensus when we still have not understood what is it that Sophie wanted. Also, you have not yet answered the EE Guy about the "many, many other problem with the last proposed version". Please try to do so before leaving, so that we know one of the points of view.

As for crappy and incomplete articles, don’t forget that the "edit" button works for all of them! Regards, Sam Hocevar 12:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You could try to figure out what Sophie Petterka wants by reading her talk page and the history of her editing of the Talk:Bogdanov Affair page (especially that she've never understood what is this page about). Sophie and Laurence (aka Laurence67) did not write the kind of comments or editing which could be considered around a consensus since, beside personnal attacks, what they only wrote is basically "I don't agree" without any relevent arguments, even in front of factual elements. The same apply to Igor/Grichka.

About the problems remaining in the actual page, I'll wrote them but not now, I'm waiting for some events related to the affair to happen (then I'll have more third party references). --YBM 12:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reading TINMC could give you some insight too. At least it's a great fun. --YBM 16:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: About a comment on WP:ANI

Let's me recall you what is on Wikipedia:No personal attacks (official policy) "If you are personally attacked, you may remove the attacks".

Thank you, I know the official policy. And unless you can point such a statement to me, nowhere does it say that removing the attacks means you can insult people in return, threaten them or ask administrators to block them while your personal conduct has been probably as despicable as theirs. Wikipedia is not Usenet or your personal forums; you can insult people back as much as you want in those places, but not here, however insulting and unacceptable their behaviour has been. I am not defending Sophie, she deserved to be blocked, but many of your own contributions, including your very first two answers to her message, have been insults.

I'm not about to let you write personal attacks on me there, even if you are an admin (pour qui tu te prends ?)

I can back up every single statement I have been making with numerous facts. If you believe I have been making personal attacks, please let me know and I will apologise. Otherwise, I will just consider your allegations to be slander. Have a nice day. Sam Hocevar 16:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just compared this comment from you : «his complete removal of all of Sophie’s contributions under the quite ironic comment of "removing personal attacks in compliance with Wikipedia policy"» with the official policy and the fact that her whole comment was personal attack. End of story. Next time try to check carefully the history of the page you're talking about. --YBM 16:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read more carefully. The policy states "If you are personally attacked, you may remove the attacks". This is exactly what you quoted to me. "You may remove the attacks" (emphasis mine). It does not, for instance, say "you may completely remove all of a user’s contributions". If you have trouble sorting out which parts are attacks and which aren’t, you may resort to suggestion #2 of the same policy. Common sense would also suggest that if you too have been making personal attacks on the same page, your right to fiddle with other people’s comments would be severely restricted. Have a very nice day! Sam Hocevar 16:32, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again, check the history of the page : the offensive/psychotic comments were there at the first editing of the page from Sophie/XAL, kindly enough I did not remove it but isolated them from the page in order to allow the discussion to be, at least, identifiable in all the garbage. Then I noticed that the official policy allow me to remove it. BTW, "you may remove the attacks" implies "you may completely remove all of a user’s contributions" when all of the user's contributions are personnal attacks.

It could be a hobby of you to play the nice guy by playing the mediator with a troll, I'm not concerned. --YBM 16:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not playing the mediator with you. This was history, Sophie had been banned, you didn’t get anything, until you came complaining on my talk page. And no, not all of her contributions were personal attacks (I admit most of it was, but still not the whole chunk you removed). And in your big removal of her personal attacks you left all of your insults calling her a psychopath or an uneducated hysteric moron. Nothing that could have possibly led to a peaceful settlement. Have a nice day. Sam Hocevar 17:51, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Really ? Not the whole chunk ? Congratulation, you are the first and only one able to discriminate any meaning in her barf. BTW, what could be the point to led to a peaceful settlement with someone not concerned at all by the article and mad enough to believe the utter stupidities she claimed (that I hacked Wikipedia for instance) ? --YBM 18:21, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the point is that if we manage to get her to understand something, she will have learned something and that is also the goal of Wikipedia. And maybe then we could even get some factual information from her. I sometimes poke fun at confused newbies, too, but not on Wikipedia. Sam Hocevar 20:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

C'est très bien, mère Thérésa. Et bien va lui expliquer tout ça et reviens m'emm*** dans dix mille ans. Ok ? --YBM 03:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]